TexasCHLforum.com

brianko wrote:The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO, http://www.nasro.org), a non-profit organization that is headed up by professionals in the field, seems to believe otherwise. One of the courses offered is a hands-on course called "SRO Active Shooter Response Course."

I find it quite interesting that an organization deeply involved in law enforcement believes there is a need for *additional* training in this area ...

This organization sells training. Why should you "find it quite interesting" that they want people to pay for "additional training" when they are making money from it?

srothstein wrote:Allow me to point out one major difference in conception that may be causing some of the arguments. When I propose for any teacher to carry, I am not expecting them to react to any disturbance in the school other than one that happens right in their classroom or presence. They should not be going down the hall to see what happens when they hear shots. They should not be trying to determine if there is a need for a hostage negotiator. If someone is trying to kill them, they should be able to defend themselves. They will know the threat explicitly at that time. If there is a problem in their classroom, they should be able to handle it. If there is a problem in another classroom, they should take the same defensive procedures they do now in locking down their students to protect them.

No one is suggesting that the teacher take on the role of school security. Even if they have a CHL, being assigned that duty could be considered a violation of other state laws on security licensing. This might change your opinion or not. As I am sure you know now, there are already teachers assigned to help with security duties in most schools. They go when there is a call for kids fighting and such. what happens now if they go and the students are shooting at each other? Would a CHL change their response? They are not paid to get into gun fights and they know it.

In short, I think the teacher should be able to defend himself, whether in his class room or in the mall. The armed teacher is not expected to provide security duties tot he school (though I know some teachers will work to protect their students out of a moral duty - as seen by the one professor in VA Tech).

I agree.

The Harrold School District is not trying to turn teachers into SWAT operators. They are wisely taking advantage of the fact that some teachers have acquired the training and equipment to be able to slow down, contain, or stop an active shooter if they happen to be present where a shooter is, and within the limits of their skills and abilities.

As Steve pointed out, teachers would not be expected to behave like tactical officers and engage in room clearing operations or running high volume firefights, and it would be inappropriate at best and quite possibly illegal to require them to perform organized security functions as part of their duties. Their legitimate role would be to provide an immediate self protective response to a situation that directly threatens them and the people immediately around them.

Neutralization of a shooter is also not always the best way to go, or even necessary. Isolation and containment of a shooter by confronting him with deadly force if he attempts to move to other areas is a very viable option when the situation allows it. This tactic has been used successfully in school incidents in the past, and was also effectively employed by an off duty police officer at the Trolley Mall incident in Salt Lake City. It denies access to unlimited numbers of victims, facilitates effective response by arriving police, and speeds securing the scene to allow rescue of the injured to begin.

Is the armed teacher solution perfect? No - it's not the same as having a SWAT team on standby in the principal's office, but it's practical and available while the standby SWAT team is not. It also has a couple of huge tactical pluses - randomness and anonymity. In other words, someone who is planning an active shooter incident cannot plan to effectively neutralize one or two sheepdogs (SRO's or security officers) at known locations because they won't know who the sheepdogs are, or where they are located at any given time. In view of the fact that the offender's perception that he can be successful is the final go / no go criterion for initiating an incident, I would expect that the knowledge that trained and equipped defenders are in place and randomly dispersed may well be enough to deter someone from attempting a shooting in this district.

Let's also not lose sight of what the often tried and consistently unsuccessful alternative is: run, or submit and die as at Virginia Tech while the shooter carries out his plan. I'll go with the armed teachers and their courageous administrative leadership, who have likely given a lot of thought to their role and have the interest and initiative to continue their training to advance and refine their skills.

Xander wrote:

brianko wrote: I've already established that I'm (1) and educator and (2) a CHL holder. And trying to shift focus on the person, rather than the issue, is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to divert attention away from the issue (maybe in the hopes that it will just go away?)

You're an educator? I thought you were at "IT Professional"? http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =2&t=18283

brianko wrote:As an IT professional, I cringe every time I see some "novel" way of generating so-called "secure" passwords.

What am I missing here?

Let me get this straight: You obviously have no good argument to counter my stance, so therefore you decide to dig up some "dirt" on me and post it as an indictment of my character and integrity?

Wow. That's something I'd expect from the anti-gunners, not a fellow 2nd Amendment supporter.

While I am tempted to respond to your obvious personal smear in order to clear the record, I've decided that (1) it's really none of your business, and (2) I've got better things to do with my time than justify my background to a stranger.

WildBill wrote:This organization sells training. Why should you "find it quite interesting" that they want people to pay for "additional training" when they are making money from it?

Apparently you missed the part about NASRO being "non-profit."

brianko wrote:

WildBill wrote:This organization sells training. Why should you "find it quite interesting" that they want people to pay for "additional training" when they are making money from it?

Apparently you missed the part about NASRO being "non-profit."

I don't think Wild Bill missed anything. Just because an organization is "non-profit" does not mean they do not push whatever method they have to generate revenue to support their budget. Sarah Brady's anti-gun bunch is a non-profit.

Anygunanyhwere

srothstein wrote: When I propose for any teacher to carry, I am not expecting them to react to any disturbance in the school other than one that happens right in their classroom or presence. They should not be going down the hall to see what happens when they hear shots. They should not be trying to determine if there is a need for a hostage negotiator. If someone is trying to kill them, they should be able to defend themselves. They will know the threat explicitly at that time. If there is a problem in their classroom, they should be able to handle it. If there is a problem in another classroom, they should take the same defensive procedures they do now in locking down their students to protect them.

Now we've cut to the core of the debate, and I appreciate you bringing this up. Is this, in fact, what Harrold ISD intends? Has this been made clear to the CHL holders in that district? If so, then I would be willing to modify my stance on some points I've made with regard to what I believe should be mandatory training requirements for school-based CHL holders.

No one is suggesting that the teacher take on the role of school security. Even if they have a CHL, being assigned that duty could be considered a violation of other state laws on security licensing. This might change your opinion or not.

Actually, you've got me thinking about this. Maybe additional training as part of the state-mandated CHL program that makes these points very clear. I'm sure we've got some CHL holders around who dream of "playing the hero" and might be tempted to take on a role that far exceeds their abilities, certifications, or legal status.

And, having worked in law enforcement for as long as I have, I will also say that you and I appear to have vastly different opinions on the training and capabilities of most cops. I work hard to teach them what to do, and to remember that they are just average people. They are not superman or a special class that can do things average citizens cannot.

Having grown up in an extended family of cops, as well as serving a short stint in federal law enforcement, I can say that I tend to have a somewhat elevated view of the profession! That bias may be the reason why I'm so adamant that CHL holders who have taken only the state-mandated CHL course aren't perceived as being even close to equivalent in terms of skillsets to certified LEOs.

Thanks for a cogent argument that might well force me to modify my position. And all done without attacks on my personal character or integrity.

brianko wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:[Nothing could be further from the truth. You obviously do not hold fellow educators in a very high regard, much less those of us who carry as a normal part of our routine.

He we go again: Attack the messenger because you don't like the message, rather than debate the argument itself.

I do, in fact, hold fellow educators in high regard (and I'm amazed you're forward enough to make this kind of statement without even knowing me). I think highly of those who carry as well (it would be a bit dishonest of me not too, since I carry also).

Now that we're past that little roadblock, let me ask you this: If the state-mandated CHL is sufficient to allow educators to be able to legally carry in the unique close-quarters confines of a typical school, would there be a need for school districts to continue to employ school resource officers (SROs)?

I did not attack you. I attacked your argument.

I'll bet you know an ex-poster named Frankie. He pulled the same things when he was debating a topic.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote: I did not attack you. I attacked your argument.

Whether or not you agree with me, I take it as a personal attack when someone uses the pronoun "you" in conjunction with a derogatory statement about how I feel about a certain class of individuals. I find it rather offensive, and I try very hard not to do the same to others.

I really do expect to be treated better by those with whom I share similar visions (namely, full recognition of our rights under the 2nd Amendment). Just because you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the same issue does not mean that either of us have the right to personally attack the other (whether the attack is implied or direct).

It's my belief that we need to stick together on this fight, rather than set up barriers that alienate one pro-2nd-Amendment group from another.

Just for the record, I don't know Frankie. Heck, I might be Frankie! Believe what you will...

anygunanywhere wrote:

brianko wrote:

WildBill wrote:This organization sells training. Why should you "find it quite interesting" that they want people to pay for "additional training" when they are making money from it?

Apparently you missed the part about NASRO being "non-profit."

I don't think Wild Bill missed anything. Just because an organization is "non-profit" does not mean they do not push whatever method they have to generate revenue to support their budget. Sarah Brady's anti-gun bunch is a non-profit. Anygunanyhwere

You are quite right Anygunanywhere. In fact, I intentionally did not mention "non-profit" because I wanted to see if brianko would try to use that for a rebuttal. And guess what?

WildBill wrote: And guess what?

You don't know the definition of "non-profit"?

Here, I'll help you:

A non-profit organization (abbreviated "NPO", also "not-for-profit") is a legally constituted organization whose objective is to support or engage in activities of public or private interest without any commercial or monetary profit. NPOs are active in the environment, humanitarian aid, animal protection, education, the arts, social issues, charities, health care, politics, religion, research, sports or other endeavors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization)

Colloquially, "making money" is a term used to denote making a profit or acquiring money. According to the NASRO by-laws:

NASRO is a nonprofit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Non-profit Corporation Laws of the State of Florida for public and educational purposes.

Most would agree that, based upon this evidence, NASRO's main mission isn't that of "making money."

Really, what's the point of this exercise? Yet another attempt to discredit my position based upon a faulty understanding of nonprofit organizations? This is all so rather pointless. Here's a challenge: Why not argue your position without the use of personal attacks and other intentional efforts to change the subject?

brianko wrote:Applying this same logic, one could make the same argument for LEOs:

Texas Peace Officers in Texas can carry in schools without additional training.

Are you backing legislation to prohibit Peace Officers from carrying at schools if they don't have NASRO training?

brianko wrote: You don't know the definition of "non-profit"?

You under estimate me. I understand the definition as well as the motives of non-profit organizations quite well.

As far as changing the subject read your original post!

As an educator, I would question my ability to react safely in a situation that might involve many hundreds of students occupying a very small space (a situation I encounter on a daily basis). Given the opportunity to legally carry at school, I would decline unless additional training was made available to me (preferably at the district's expense) as to defensive close-quarter use of firearms, alternative defense strategies, and crowd control techniques.

While I do believe the Dallas and Houston press editorials are knee-jerk reactions, I do not believe for a second that any teacher with only state-mandated CHL training under his/her belt is prepared to carry in an educational environment without additional training (and I'm not talking about a one-hour classroom seminar).

All you are saying is that you do not think that you are qualified to carry at a school. Please don't project your lack of training, skill or confidence on other CHL holders.

Bart wrote:

brianko wrote:Applying this same logic, one could make the same argument for LEOs:

Texas Peace Officers in Texas can carry in schools without additional training.

Are you backing legislation to prohibit Peace Officers from carrying at schools if they don't have NASRO training?

Nothing of the sort. Let's put your quote in context:

One of the arguments made in this discussion is that CHL holders with only state-mandated training under their belts have the skills necessary to arm themselves on school campuses and respond correctly to threats without needing additional training.

Applying this same logic, one could make the same argument for LEOs: Given their level of training far surpasses that of the typical state-mandated CHL course, they would need no additional training to respond to campus incidents.

The first statement is what I believe is an accurate portrayal of the majority of opinions in this thread concerning school carry by CHLs.

The second statement is an extension of the first statement: "If we take as valid the first statement, why would an individual more qualified than a typical CHL holder require additional training in responding to campus incidents?

IOW, NASRO, a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancement of public service and with a board that include certified peace officers, sees a need for additional training to be made available to LEOs. My argument has always been that there are certain situations in campus incidents that require additional training beyond that of the typical CHL training. NASRO seems to agree. Yet some here appear to be supporting the argument that while those in LE recognize the need for additional training, there is no such additional training required for CHL holders!

If anything, the argument that's being made by those on this thread who are in the majority denigrates the standing of LEOs in our community. The position somehow implies that LEOs might benefit from additional training, while CHLs need no such additional training.

My argument is the opposite: CHLs are not the equivalent of LEOs, and therefore do not have the proper training needed to respond to the unique environment of educational institutions.

Hope this makes sense. There has been a lot of misdirection in this discussion, so hopefully we can get back on track!

As an aside, it seems like a number of police agencies see the need for additional tactical training of SROs...a quick Google search turns up:

Sacramento State University Police (http://www.csus.edu/news/050608policetraining.stm)
University of Toronto (http://www.canadian-universities.net/Ne ... al_in.html)
Various SoCal universities (http://www.policeone.com/police-product ... -training/)

It's clear that there is an established need for additional training in this area. Yet CHL holders believe they are truly ready to take on such a situation with only state-mandated CHL training?

WildBill wrote:All you are saying is that you do not think that you are qualified to carry at a school. Don't project your lack of skill or confidence on other CHL holders.

That's correct. And I don't believe most other CHL holders with only state-mandated CHL training are qualified either. That would include you if you fit the bill.

brianko wrote:

WildBill wrote:All you are saying is that you do not think that you are qualified to carry at a school. Don't project your lack of skill or confidence on other CHL holders.

That's correct. And I don't believe most other CHL holders with only state-mandated CHL training are qualified either. That would include you if you fit the bill.

Finally, we can agree on something. When the law in Texas is changed, I will be carrying on campus and you won't.