1/ I've had a lot of great responses from so many teachers from my thread about the terrible idea of arming them, that I want to explain some other angles on why this is a terrible idea. First off, I'm a former cop and firearms instructor. I speak from what I know. I'm not going
2/ to get into political debates about this. Thoughtful comments and questions are welcomed. So, here's some new thoughts:
Carrying a gun for protection isn’t just about shooting. I’ve laid that out in this earlier thread:
Carrying a gun for protection isn’t just about shooting. I’ve laid that out in this earlier thread:
3/ There is a tremendous amount of training required above what most people realize. But aside from training to know how to shoot, there are so many other considerations. First, carrying and accessing the gun. And knowing how to prevent it from being taken away from you.
4/ For instance, it's a felony to try to disarm a police officer. If you try to grab a cop's gun, you’re getting arrested instantly (if not shot instantly). So, we’d need to make it equally a felony for trying to disarm a teacher, right? If a student or assailant tried to disarm
5/ a teacher and failed, who arrests them? A gun is useful when deadly force is called for, but what happens if a disarming is thwarted? You have an active felon in a classroom trying grab a gun. Are we going to issue handcuffs to the teachers too?
6/ And that leads me to my next point which is, what if a teacher is disarmed and shot? This has to be a consideration because if we’re charging teachers with protecting students as a part of their professional job, then we must also issue them Kevlar vests.
7/ It would be a liability not to. Most all law enforcement agencies require officers to wear them for this purpose. Part of the job is knowing that you might get shot, and if so, you still need to be able to survive and hopefully continue to be able deal with the threat.
8/ I went into this a bit in this earlier thread:
9/ This leads me to the main point I want to make. Carrying a gun to protect people isn’t just about deadly force. If you’re going to be a “protector”, then you need more than deadly force at your disposal if you’re carrying a gun.
10/ Use of force is graded in what police call the Use Of Force Continuum. Basically, the idea is that whatever level of force someone uses against you, you are to use either the same level of force or one level higher against them to gain compliance.
11/ So, if someone is doing something unlawful, your first level is to give them a verbal command: “Stop, move back..etc”. If someone grabs you with their hands, you can lay hands on them or use an appropriately trained-for strike to subdue them.
12/ If someone strikes you with their hands, you can do likewise, or use a baton, pepper spray, or a Taser. If someone uses the equivalent of a baton or any device that could incapacitate or seriously harm you, you can use equal force against them OR, if you feel that your life
13/ or the life of an innocent 3rd party is in jeopardy of imminent serious bodily injury or death, you can also use deadly force. Deadly force is the last resort in an encounter. Anyone (not just teachers) who might carry a gun for protection needs to know when deadly force
14/ is appropriate and when it’s not. Most fights or encounters aren’t deadly, but when a gun is present, they can be. So, if we’re going to arm teachers for the purpose of being “protectors” we’d need to also arm them with lower levels of force.
15/ The more I describe all of this, the more you see I’m describing a totally different job. That job being of an appropriately trained security guard or a police officer. A gun doesn’t make a protector.
16/ Knowing, understanding, and being able to practically use various levels of force, from giving a verbal command, all the way up to deadly force, is what is required in this setting. This is why I say, let teachers teach and let law enforcers enforce. /END
