Concealed carry by school employees

[Abraham]

ap, old boy, you're doing a bit of ye olde leg pulling, perhaps...?

C'mon, fess up.

Or, are you a stealth liberal coming here to have fun?

Yes?

No?

[ninjabread]

most non-employees don't know how to handle themselves in a school without effectively breaking the educational environment.

OK. You changed my mind. Now I think school employees shouldn't be allowed to carry in public schools, even if they're LTC. School employees don't know how to handle themselves as Adults, in the Berne sense. They are stuck in Parent mode, which tends to escalates conflict. Letting them carry guns when they try to "parent" the adults who pay their salary via property taxes is a recipe for disaster.

[Abraham]

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.

[apvonkanel]

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]

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...

[apvonkanel]

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.

[Papa_Tiger]

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.

If there is no safety risk, why would you restrict it? You seem to be conflating the behavior of people within the school with the fact that those people happened to be LTC holders. It seems like you would be happiest if nobody but teachers and administrators were allowed allowed onto the campus because some parents/grandparents/people responsible for their children/kin "break the educational environment". Have there been others who have "broken the educational environment" who were not LTC holders? Do you just not remember them because they didn't stand out to you as much?

This entire thread started with me desiring more armed safety on our public k-12 campuses with less bureaucratic meddling and oversight.

You are proposing creating an elite class of people (teachers with LTCs) who are allowed special privileges not granted to all people of the same class (LTC Holders). After all, all people are equal, some are more equal than others.

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.

I think you over estimate the damage that was done to the educational environment. I highly doubt that the kids were focused on that for the rest of the day to the complete detriment of their learning potential. Unless it was made a big deal of and continually repeated/rehashed by the adults in the office, depending on age (assuming elementary school here) it probably went completely over the heads of the kids that were in the room and was forgotten before the kids were back in their classrooms.

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.

And here you go hyperbolic. What is the good justification for creating an elite class of people? If LTC holders have been judged to be competent to carry into schools, why should it be restricted to those who are educators/school administrators? What makes them special to grant them a privilege not afforded to those not in the education/school administration professions?

I'm actually hoping that someone here can present me with a perspective that allows me to see the need for full carrying liberty...

Should Campus Carry only apply to professors and those who work for the school?
By law, should only lawmakers and their staff be able to carry at the Capitol?
By law, should only theater employees be allowed to carry in theaters because anyone else might cause a scene or be disruptive to the movie-goer's movie watching environment (turning on cell phones, talking during the movie, etc.)?

All the examples above use exactly the same argument as you are trying to make for LTC holding teachers. Unless there is a good justification for restricting a right to all, I do not see why it should be restricted, much less turned into a privilege granted to a special few.

[Abraham]

apvonkanel,

You posted: "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."

Meaning, if I understand what you posted, you want to exclude all LTC qualified people from carrying unless they're school staff, right?

If that's your opinion, ok, but it's an elitist opinion.

If I or anyone else wants/needs to come inside your school, I have to disarm, leaving me vulnerable from walking from and to my car, plus I'll have to depend on school employees to protect me once inside the school if such a need arises, i.e., a violent predator goes bonkers inside the school.

I don't want to depend on school employees to save my bacon. I know nothing of their willingness to do so or if they're well trained in the use of firearms. For all I know they got their LTC and then never go to the range to keep up their skills. I also can't be assured they'd not panic and collapse in fear if called upon to act in a desperate situation. No thanks! I'd rather protect myself by carrying anywhere I need to go on campus.

If I misunderstand you, please correct me

[Jusme]

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

[apvonkanel]

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]

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...

[apvonkanel]

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.

[Abraham]

apvonkanel,

You avoided all but one of my questions.

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

[apvonkanel]

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?