TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:apvonkanel,

You avoided all but one of my questions.

Presumably, answering them makes you uncomfortable...which in itself gives me the answers...

No, it's the only question you asked that needed a factual answer and was asked with a modicum of respect. If you want to be argumentative I won't engage you with opinions or beliefs. Your presumption is incorrect, as I have already clearly stated why I didn't answer your questions. Also, I elaborated on why I answered the one. Have any more that fit the bill? Otherwise your attempts are likely a waste of time (especially with your current approach) if you are asking out of genuine curiosity or desire for conversation. If that's not your motive, then what is your goal?

Abraham wrote:apvonkanel,

What's to think about?

An avalanche of words isn't required to answer a few simple questions you chose not to address such as: Why do you want to exclude all LTC qualified people from carrying in school unless they're school staff?

I get the firm impression you find those not school staff aren't to be trusted as they comprise a group of incompetent, mouth breathing vulgarians.

That said: Do you recognize this attitude as elitist?

These are easy questions to answer without filibustering.

Assuming only your LTC staff is armed, are they well trained and willing to use a gun if things get desperate, that is, if some unhinged person/persons starts killing staff and students?

Plus, what percentage of your staff are LTCers, armed, and ready to defend the innocent if necessary? I would suggest a very small percentage...

This is another easy to answer question.

Being a prolix poster isn't necessary. Plain spoken English will do nicely.

I think you've chosen to avoid answering questions because you've realized your condescending posture is recognized for it is...

Honestly, I just didn't answer because the points you brought up less to do with the what I was trying to figure out and more to do with the fact that you didn't like the questions. I stopped reading after a while. No need to argue, especially when someone else was willing to have a respectful conversation.

Also, about 20% of my staff is LTC that I know of. I am aware of 12 including myself, when you factor in all employees.

Jusme wrote:apvonkanel,
You say you want to have a legislative bill/law, to allow school employees with LTC to carry in the schools, bypassing the local ISD school board. That will probably not happen, but as of now, school boards can allow school employees with LTC, to carry in schools. You must also realize that any removal of restrictions for LTC in schools will have a huge push back from legislators, as well as the people who send their kids to school, in that district.Having a State mandate to usurp the authority of the school boards, is overreach, in my opinion. It is similar to the idea that all school students must pass State mandated tests. These have done nothing for the educational environment, but cause teachers to "teach the test" rather than focus on individual student's needs.

Secondly, you say that having school employees with LTC be the only ones allowed to carry on school campuses be sufficient for security, does not take into account, that very few school employees would actually do so. The average for any demographic, of those qualified for LTC, is approximately 4%. How many people in your school would that be? And that is assuming that other teachers, and employees would even consider doing so.

No one here is saying school employees with LTC should not carry, and "only" allowing them to be to carry, may be a legislative first step, but you have to realize that the main objection forum members here have is that it would set a precedence for exclusion of all LTC holders, that could extend to other establishments, or professions, and that is the antithesis of what we are trying to accomplish. I understand that as a school employee, you have dealt with members of the general public, that you wouldn't trust to be in your school full time. But the same could be said about anywhere, you were employed. There are people that I wouldn't want to be in my business, but for me to say that only myself, or other employees there should be allowed to exercise our rights as an LTC holders, would not be the right approach.

Thirdly, since school districts, are a government entity, making them prohibited, to tax paying LTC holders, is equivalent to any government entity doing so, and that is what we are trying to abolish with our support for bills presently in the Legislature. JMHO

I greatly appreciate your cohesive points. This is exactly what I was looking for.
With your first point, the push-back is something I had considered greatly, but relating the state usurping the district to the current issues (specifically with testing) is a principle I stand against for the very reasons you listed. It is a great point, and thank you for pointing out my inconsistency.
With point 2, using it as this as a starting point is definitely my desire. Anytime a new element is added to an environment, I have found that the best way is to do it gradually, allowing the environment (in this case the students) to become acclimated to it. It allows for it to transition more smoothly, and less of a disruption. I would love to eventually see no restrictions on those legally allowed to own/carry doing so in a school, but I don't see it playing out very well if not gradually done. I've seen many policies radically reversed or changed, and the push-back was even more drastic causing a backlash stronger than the original policy. Had the state not legalized concealed carry, I doubt open carry would have passed. However, an armed public was gradually entered in to the laws starting with fully concealed, then allowing for accidental exposure, followed with open carry. It was a great progression, and push-back was so minimal that I have known more than one person that has gone from anti-gun to concealed carrier after they saw more of a presence and became more comfortable with seeing armed citizens. When I say push-back was minimal, I'm not implying that there has been no push-back, or that those against it weren't extremely vocal in their opposition. I'm simply saying that there has been minimal regression once the state started down that path.
Specifically regarding your third point, I hadn't considered the ramifications regarding other bills presently in legislation.

All three points require reconsideration of my view. If you'll give me a day or two to think about them I'll get back with you then. Again, I appreciate it.

Abraham wrote:Op, I get the distinct impression you're here to sow confusion with pro-gun folks as your most recent response is, to put it mildly, vague and questionable.

At this point, I assume you to be a stealth liberal.

That is, someone who pretends to be pro-gun, but introduces enough controversy as to prove to be an anti-gun provocateur.

Why do I post that?

Pro-gun people aren't elitist. You are. They don't dismiss LTCers as a high risk group of nincompoops. You do.

If I'm off base with my perspective, please provide more information that isn't so equivocal...

Or, just admit your anti-gun bias liberalism...

I would assume the fact that, along with owning multiple guns, encouraging others to own multiple guns and to carry (especially at my weekly tacos, cigars, guns and guitars fellowship), and being a fan of constitutional carry would keep me out of the "anti-gun" camp. Alas, I must not pass you test.

It seems the fact that I have continually stated I don't believe an LTCer is a safety risk on a campus is repeatedly ignored. Obviously you are literate, so I must assume it's selective as opposed to ability. This entire thread started with me desiring more armed safety on our public k-12 campuses with less bureaucratic meddling and oversight. There are many things that, while not a physical danger, are detrimental to an educational environment. The examples I gave are exactly that (not counting the inebriated driver). Is a parent swearing profusely in the office in front of students dangerous? No. Is it morally wrong for a parent to swear in front of their own child? I don't condone it, but my religious views don't belong in another person's parenting. Did it pretty much stop all learning for the kids in the office that day? Most definitely. When I say I want more Good Guys on campus, I'm also adding that to this point I see no reason why the school staff isn't enough. We could add safety over safety, but at which point do we fall into the safety over-kill towards which coddling parents lean? Heck, we could warp our kids up in bubble warp and never let them leave the house, teaching them via computer. That would prevent school shootings.

I'm trying to speak reasonably and respectfully with you here. I am open to logical discourse because my thoughts are based on fact and experience, not knee-jerk bias against anything presented that doesn't line up with my preferences. Conversation about issues is wasted if the person says "You can't present me with enough facts to change my view", just as it's wasted if either person is merely waiting to hear something they don't care for so they can use it as an opportunity to segue into a prewritten monologue. I'm actually hoping that someone here can present me with a perspective that allows me to see the need for full carrying liberty, but up to this point I've only seen outlandish accusations (anti-gun liberal elitist, rather than pro-gun person with experience in a profession aware of pitfalls) and a fair share of mockery. While I take no offense (I see this sort of thing occur between individuals on a regular basis), I'm not quite sure what the goal is. It definitely isn't a way to convince someone who disagrees with you, as it is mostly a self-serving technique.

So I say again, if you'd like to continue this conversation from an "open discourse" perspective, I'd love to.

Abraham wrote:It's beginning to look like "ap" has taken a posting hiatus for of any number of legitimate reasons outside the forum realm or can't stand the heat of defending his rather, shall we say, elitist position excluding LTCers who aren't part of the educational system, because he states he thinks this group is likely to "break the educational environment" which is of course a completely ambiguous and flaky postulation... The mechanics of this more than a little bizarre notion remains to be explained...

Finally, as I suggested earlier, he may simply be an anti-gun liberal messing around on the forum...laughing at us pro-gun folk while we struggle to comprehend his bizarro/crackpot ideas that he advises we're apparently too dense to understand...laughing all the while.

So Ap old boy, please provide plain spoken English elucidation or admit you're an anti-gun liberal just messing around for your own amusement.

Well, Abe, I don't go online and post very often to ANY forum, so the fact that I didn't respond immediately only points toward that simple fact. When I say "break the educational environment" I mean an interruption to the day that makes it almost impossible to recover the learning process. And your assumption of me being either anti-gun or liberal period (especially based on a statement about my belief in a learning environment when dealing with 700+ kids) is highly fallacious.

Abraham wrote:apvonkanel,

Tell me if I have this right: You would like to see LTCers/school employees able to carry inside school, but you have many, many reservations about it?

Do I understand you correctly?

Or...?

Thanks!

I would like school employed LTCers to be able to carry, but have reservations about about non-employees carrying. Although many people seem to be missing the point, it has nothing to do with whether or not non-employees will be safe, but everything to do with the fact that most non-employees don't know how to handle themselves in a school without effectively breaking the educational environment.

TreyHouston wrote:
1) ANY parent probably won't be able to get their LTC
2) Im sure for every 1 gun you caught, 10 got passed you .... no problems there
3) some schools in the US already allow teachers to carry, no blood baths there
4) 21 year old college kids carry on campus. GOD, I remember when I was 21! Lol --no blood bath there
5) military soldiers have a pretty spotted record(i am a veteran and currently serve) should they/we not be issued guns ?
6) LEOs have a worse record than LTC , but they are welcomed without question. (Much love for LEOs)
7) students need to respect guns and see 'em. It leads to education and not fear mongering
8) anything possible to stop a massacre in a school should be done. If someone there that IS LICENSED but can't carry, they could have stopped Sandy Hook but was not allowed to.... geez... perhaps that was left out of the media??? Same example with malls and large areas that post 30.06/30.07, someone COULD have done something. Isn't that enough?

It seems to me you're entirely missing the point that I'm WANTING teachers to have the ability to carry without needing school-board or superintendent approval, and I've stated multiple times that I'm not concerned about shootings from LTC's. It seems you're responding without reading the posts.

This has certainly strayed from the original intent of the question (allowing greater defense of k-12 schools)...

Jusme wrote:There are also a plethora of examples of teachers and other "vetted" school employees who demonstrated very poor judgment, to be kind, and outright criminal behavior to name it properly. Again, if the state, due to current constraints, give their blessing to legal citizens, carrying firearms in public, the idea that they will suddenly become less law abiding at a a school, where their own children attend, is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
Every parent will not be able to obtain their LTC, but neither would every school employee. Your arguments sound like they come directly from the MDA playbook. I have no problem with teachers, or any other school employee, being able to carry. I understand that they are the first line of defense for our most precious possession, in the event of an attack. But the idea, that a parent is somehow less likeley, or responsible enough, to put themselves between children and evil, doesn't pass the smell test. JMHO

I don't doubt that if there is an opportunity to put themselves between children and evil they will rise to the occasion. It's been my experience and observation that a parent's instinct flourishes in a crisis, regardless of who the child is. And I don't disagree with you in that, much like with police and doctors, there is the occasional evil amongst the saints. My point of contention comes from the fact that I've often seen generally responsible parents make choices that are wildly irresponsible in a school setting during casual situations (classroom parties are often followed by a slew of complaints regarding things other parents did). A simple example: I've seen parents talk to their children about things that are not their business to discuss around another's child (adult situations). While I wouldn't advocate denying a parent's access to their child at any point in the day, I do agree to limiting their activities when other children are around.
If any parent could be responsible enough to teach (or even aide) a class of children, all you would need would be a birth certificate to prove you were a parent, not a background check and references.

Jusme wrote:While I have no doubt that all LTC holders are not 100% responsible 100% of the time, I seriously doubt you can claim the same for teachers or any other school employees.
The attitude of excluding, other LTC holders based on limited scenarios, is what the left wing try to do. Along with all of the ND, the propensity for having shootouts, at high noon, etc.
That is also the attitude they put forth when they say only LEO, are responsible enough to carry 24/7 and bypass security checkpoints at sporting events, courtrooms, and any other areas prohibited for LTC holders.
I understand that as a school employee, you belive that everyone who works in a school, constantly has the students best interest at heart, but take a look around you and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable with every employee there carrying a gun? It reeks of for me but not thee.JMHO

"For me but not thee"? Not quite. It's "Do you understand and respect the situation you're entering". If the answer is no to either side of that (understand/respect), added to everything I stated above. No disrespect intended, but it's easy to armchair QB when it comes to public education. This is also why there are plenty of scenarios where I might not understand why someone requests me to disarm, but it might have nothing to do with their 2A view. I'm not allowed in the garage area of Discount Tire because as much for the fact that they can't guarantee I'll be responsible around their equipment or other people's cars as anything else.

TreyHouston wrote: You do know that guns don't bite kids right?! I an appalled that you even allowed a LEO ARMED inside the premises when he was not responding to a active shooter!!! What would have happened if the pot head had attacked the LEO? The LEO might have fired and missed and the bullet go through all the walls and bricks striking a student outside and killing/injuring many along the way!
I support teachers packing, even better if they are allowed to open carry as well! Let the students SEE that guns don't bite and randomly shoot people. They might even feel better knowing that they are safe as well

The question isn't whether or not I believe bite (which obviously I wouldn't carry or want to carry if I I did), but if I believe any parent can be responsible around other people's children. The examples I gave (and countless others) are to point out that the answer is no, I know for a fact that many parents are reckless. Would you be okay with any parent with a driver's license driving a school bus? I certainly wouldn't. Dear Lord, every year there are at least 2-3 fender-benders in the parking lot during car-rider dismissal! There are a plethora of examples I can give you when it comes to things vetted teachers are allowed to do with a group of children that a parent walking in off the street wouldn't be allowed to do. It comes down to the fact that there is a world of difference between responsible enough for the general public vs. responsible enough for a school of 500-700 kids.

Jusme wrote:

apvonkanel wrote:

Jusme wrote:I am not aware of such a bill, but I agree that if the school board, allows for teachers to carry. It should be no one else's business, as long as all legal criteria are met. The problem with having so many people "in the loop" regarding John/Jane Q. Instructor's carry status, is that there is no way to ensure privacy. I don't think that information is any more pertinent, than what color undergarments they are wearing. JMHO.

I'm hoping for a bill that would supersede the school board altogether. If an employee of the school district (not a contractor, but an actual employee in the district's payroll) has passed the ISD, TEA, and DPS checks to work there and carry a gun, it would allow that individual to carry concealed.

You would never get such a bill passed, trying to bypass the school districts. It would have to include language to allow districts to "opt out" Or it wouldn't get the support in the Legislature it needs. But why limit it to teachers/school employees? I think that anyone with an LTC should be able to carry in the schools. That may have to be a first step, but schools are going to be the last bastion of resistance LTC holders will have to overcome, in the removal of prohibited places. I don't think there are enough legislators ready to take on that challenge yet. JMHO

I say only school employees because of the fact that many adults don't know how to act around kids, and I know for a fact this is problematic already. Let me paint a picture for you, only citing examples of known LTC holders at my campus. I know this because my position puts me all over the campus, interacting with most of the kids and parents that come up here.
A) A mom forgets to disarm before walking in the building. I stop her at the office (she's lucky it was me and I was just looking out for her), and quietly tell her "You're printing at your 4 o'clock". She loudly yells some profanity and runs out to her car. There are two students in the office, and while they didn't hear what I said, they certainly heard what she said.
B) A dad comes in reeking of marijuana, asking to pick up his kids early. I step away and call the officer from down the road. No way I'm letting the kids get in the car of someone obviously under the influence (I'm not a marijuana smoker myself, hold to a fairly libertarian view of it, but refuse to condone putting children at risk of an inebriated driver). Long story short, after the rest the cops informs me the guy had his LTC on him, pistol in the car.
C) A granddad comes in, pulling his motorcycle up to the doorway (literally the walkway, 5 feet from the door), get's his grandkid. No big deal so far, just a little annoying because it's in the way of kids going to recess. After he picks up his grandson, he re-arms and sits there and for about 2 minutes revving the engine for fun (my assumption is to impress the grandson, from observing the expressions on both).

What I'm saying here is that just because someone is legally able to carry a pistol doesn't mean I'm ready to jump on board with letting them carry one on my campus. Being legal doesn't mean decent and kid-friendly.

Odiferous wrote:Guns in schools is a hard sell. I think a good start would be to exempt LTC holders from the exceptions in 52.062 a 2.

It's already there plants & refineries--the language would only need to be restructured slighly to apply to the entire list.

You know, I don't know what most districts' policy is regarding the parking lot. I know there have to be some out there that don't allow it, but mine clearly uses the Texas Penal Code definition of "premises" regarding its gun policy.

Jusme wrote:I am not aware of such a bill, but I agree that if the school board, allows for teachers to carry. It should be no one else's business, as long as all legal criteria are met. The problem with having so many people "in the loop" regarding John/Jane Q. Instructor's carry status, is that there is no way to ensure privacy. I don't think that information is any more pertinent, than what color undergarments they are wearing. JMHO.

I'm hoping for a bill that would supersede the school board altogether. If an employee of the school district (not a contractor, but an actual employee in the district's payroll) has passed the ISD, TEA, and DPS checks to work there and carry a gun, it would allow that individual to carry concealed.

AF-Odin wrote:What is the hate for Social Studies teachers. Not all are anti 2nd Amendment. As a matter of fact, one of my uncles spent a career teaching social Studies and was as Pro 2nd Amendment as you could find. My son has a PhD in history and spent three years teaching at the university level and is an avid shooter. I too spent a year teaching HS Social Studies and I think from my signature line, you will see where I stand. I agree that there are a LOT of antis in education, but there are many who are very pro, we are just not normally the vocal ones.

Now, as to your main premise, I agree with teachers and other employees being legally allowed to carry without having to inform everyone in the world about it.

I mean that if an administrator is anti-2A I can see how that view would be pertinent to a social studies teacher, as it is directly related to both historical and current events. They are the teachers most most blatantly affected by the political views of administration when it comes to curriculum. But language arts, math, science, and music have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.