Del. Robert G. Marshall is proposing a bill that would require some teachers or other school staff to carry concealed weapons in schools.
Marshall (R-Prince William) requested that the bill be drafted in response to the mass shooting last week at a Connecticut elementary school.
Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) said this week that there should be a discussion about whether school staff should be allowed to carry concealed weapons to protect children against intruders.
Marshall’s proposal goes beyond the governor’s comments, which were made in the course of a radio interview Tuesday. Marshall would not only allow staff with concealed handgun permits to carry them in schools, but require school districts to designate some staff members to do so. Those employees would have to be certified in gun safety and competence, Marshall said.
Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) said through a staff member Wednesday that he does not favor requiring school employees to be armed.
“There are probably many things we could do to make our schools safer, including having more trained law enforcement personnel in our schools as resource officers, but the Lieutenant Governor does not believe that we should require other school personnel to be armed,” Ibbie Hedrick, deputy chief of staff for Bolling, said via e-mail.
Marshall’s idea had some takers, however.
“I would be very supportive of the idea that properly trained teachers could carry concealed firearms,” said Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun). “There’s no way you’d have 20 innocent children gunned down if you had teachers who could help to defend themselves.”
Philip Van Cleave, who heads the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said he would like to see the state eliminate the gun-free zones surrounding schools. As an interim step, he would support arming teachers and other staff.
There seems to be an overabundance of just pure stupidity in the Old Dominion. I believe that Bill Bolling is the only elected leader who has any sense at all. Obviously the others have no idea what they are even talking about.
Van Cleave is not an elected official, thank goodness. He has a not-so-hidden agenda. This may come as a shock to him but we don’t trust strangers with guns. We don’t want anyone except law enforcement near our kids in our schools with guns. Just because he thinks others are sane and safe doesn’t make it so.
The politicians are politicians. They want to come up with solutions that they know nothing about and haven’t thought through very well. They want their solutions to appeal to the public. Lots of sex appeal. Most importantly, they want their solutions to be CHEAP.
To mandate that school personnel MUST be armed is sort of a violation of the 2A in reverse. There are lots of reasons why teachers shouldn’t be required to provide armed security for their schools. In the first place, They aren’t trained. What would they have, a 2 afternoon in-service after school? Teachers are not trained, like law enforcement is, to react to the many different types of confrontations that they could encounter. That kind of training requires day to day, on-the-job training by skilled individuals. Would the teachers go to police academy? Could they moonlight as cops?
I wouldn’t necessarily want a teacher who volunteered to “pack heat” in the school with my kid. I have seen too many people over the years who just might not be the best fit with that assignment. Going to work every day knowing you might have to kill someone is no incentive to attract dedicated teachers. Cops have enough trouble with a kill. What would it do to a teacher? Most teachers are nurturers, not people who stamp out life.
If the public wants armed personnel in the schools then they will have to dig deep and pay for it. Teachers are not going to accept any more assignments. Enough is enough. Armed guards will not be cheap. Airport security isn’t cheap either. Neither are wars to rid the world of terrorists. These shooters are terrorists of a sort. Who knows if they have a political agenda or not. If they survive, they are too crazed to verbalize their agenda. However, with or without an agenda, they cause terror and I am most comfortable calling them terrorists whether they are in a theater, a mall, a school or out on the street.
It’s time for the public to stop grappling with bad ideas. Its time for the government and the public to start treating mass murder like it means business. The brainless politicians should know that an armed teacher against the firepower that entered that school building last Friday would simply not stand up. It is seriously doubtful if one person with a hand gun could have disarmed that kid. Politicians need to not create a false sense of security. The politicians need to stop running their mouths and saying feel good things. They need to come to grips with limiting the firepower, taking a hard look at mental illness and the services and money required to treat it, and realistic protection of schools.
The Virginia politicians I have heard on the subject simply don’t get it. This is just another example of CHEAP.
@Moon-howler
And so…you just confirmed my statement. The trap does nothing without human intervention. And humans determine the use of the tool.
@Cargosquid
There is a lot more to being a cop than marksmanship.
I am not even sure what your point is. You keep talking about CCW like it has a life of its own.
We are talking about a hobby. You ask if holster sniffers have offended. Yes. You are asking us to excuse your hobby. There is no comparable analogy. You have a hobby that plays with weapons. If these weapons get in the wrong hands, there are a bunch of dead people. you continue to demand..yes, demand that we ignore the fact that these weapons are used to kill other people. You demand that your hobby has rights.
Most of us are pretty sick of it. You even want to argue terminology. You in the club call assault weapons what you want to call them. We will continue to call them assault weapons.
The extremist guns. There you go. Like that better than assault weapons?
Again, its the people who are pissing us off., Not the guns. I am all for people owning a revolver or a rifle or a shot gun. I am not for people owning weapons that can kill multiple people in seconds.
I am not sure how I feel about tasers. Tasers can kill also.
Schools aren’t settings to where those kinds of decisions should be made…when to tase and when not to. when to shoot or when not to. I dont think any teacher in the position to train for that. I also don’t think other civilians, not matter how good of a shot they are, has been trained to make those kinds of minute to minute assessments. For that matter, neither has the military. Military personnel arn’t the best people for that job either.
I have mixed feelings about teachers carrying–recalling my evil sixth-grade math teacher. However, it’s almost insulting to assume that a teacher’s skill set is limited to teaching in the classroom and that we shouldn’t afford them any other opportunities if they have desire and the requisite skills. I’m not seeing where any teacher would be at all compelled to train and carry, but I’m sure there are some in the pool who would be willing and able.
But again, there’s Mr. C. The guy was off his rocker, but parents in the late 60s and early 70s didn’t question teachers as much as they do now. Teachers were always right back then, and if they swatted you, your parents generally assumed you deserved it. He would have blown someone’s head off, I’m sure.
Unfortunately, there are Mr. C clones out there.There are also hot-heads. I would expect the necessary paper work to back up all those eigible to carry weapons in a building. As much as teacher decisions are questioned today, how do you think the public will do with them being armed? If a teacher is not competent enough to decide who gets detention and who gets an F, why all of a sudden are they competent enough to carry a weapon around kids? Just askin….
@Moon-howler
We argue terminology because the words used mean something. The words are scary descriptions invented to advance an agenda. This is not a hobby.
It is you that is moving the goal posts. Armed teachers, etc…would not be acting as cops. They will be acting as private civilians with the ability to defend themselves and others.
I’ve already stated that I’m not wedded to the idea…but, if we want to “protect schools” then we should give the personnel SOMETHING to defend with.
You state that guards should be hired. Starry tries to point out that it wouldn’t work.
And I put out the idea, that due to the actual number of schools, etc… the rarity of the occurrence, etc…. Do we actually need to do this? Is there something else we can do that’s not an overreaction?
@Cargosquid
Yup. Those inanimate objects kill people. Had Adam Lanza a knife, perhaps one person may have died.
If gun collecting and firing them isn’t a hobby, what is it? Do the collectors think they’re going to form some sort of militia to overthrow the government?
“I have mixed feelings about teachers carrying–recalling my evil sixth-grade math teacher. However, it’s almost insulting to assume that a teacher’s skill set is limited to teaching in the classroom and that we shouldn’t afford them any other opportunities if they have desire and the requisite skills.”
Listening to MH drone on about how teachers are inferior with respect to the ability to shoot bad guys vs. good guys it does explain a lot about our public “education” system.
I echo Cargo here. Teachers acting as private citizens have no obligation to arrest or detain someone. If they deploy their firearm in defense (like any person including a child can do legally) of life they are under no obligation to say “FREEZE!” or wait for them to listen to reason… They can do what any of us can do. Shoot the bad guy in the face.
It’s just that simple to me.
And I would guess you’ve been in several stressful life and death situations.
Those that have actually been in those situations would call it anything but simple.
Here is some food for thought from an opinion piece by a concealed weapons instructor who has provided free training to teachers who choose to be armed (legally) in Utah schools. If you are against arming teachers and for an assault weapon ban, you should be able to articulate why these ideas are wrong for Virginia.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
marin said:
First off, listing to MH drone on is going to be rather short lived for you. No one is forcing you to be here.
Secondly, I never said that. You are simply a liar if you say that I did say that.
Thirdly, you are quoting Emma who had an evil 6th grade teacher–not me.
You are not welcome here to insult the contibutors or the owners of Moonhowlings. Contrary to your own assessment of things, you don’t know half as much as you think you do. You might know weapons inside and out but your people skills leave much to be desired. The people I know who I would trust around my kids with a weapon all have very good social skills. That’s where it starts.
RE marinm’s notion that amateurs are pretty durn proficient at shooting bad guys in the face: I would differ. Using a handgun in a tactical situation against a well-armed homicidal shooter is not for Everyman. It is a distinct skill set from teaching. People who, like marinm, think this is for the general population (including teachers) have simply spent too much time watching television.
The part of the NRA’s dreadful press event Friday that is (sadly) probably correct is that the best counterweight to school invaders with guns is trained police officers. I would like the NRA to start the ball rolling by using their resources to help pay for these guys.
Standing ovation, Scout.
marin really does not have a clear assessment of the situation. Too many comic books, I suspect.
A swat team might have stopped. Lanzo. I doubt seriously if one armed guard would have been able to do much once he got in that building. Who knows.
You are right, had the NRA slapped down a sizable amount of cash to start the ball rolling, I would have had some respect. (operative word here: some) The NRA is simply a lobby group now. I liked them better when they were a sports hobby group. I think “Cold dead hands” was a turning point…they crossed over to the dark side.
“First off, listing to MH drone on is going to be rather short lived for you. No one is forcing you to be here.”
Sweet. I only came back because I was begged. I’m happy to stay away from the echo chamber.
Peace out.
I sure wasn’t the begger. The arrogance is simply overbearing. Picking a fight with me is just not the way for the welcome mat to be rolled out.
I doubt if you will find a blog that mirrors your point of view.
WaPo:
Myth #2
Are we saying here that there are 30,000 deaths by gun annually?
That’s phenomenal.
@Scout
I think the arrogance on the gun control side of things is pretty overwhelming also.
You are quite correct that not everyone has the capability to defend successfully against a murderous gunman. However, people that would never shoot back will likely self-select not to be armed anyway. There is also the issue of fear and nervousness that can cause people to miss in these situations — even trained police officers. That is why semi-automatic weapons are so valuable for defense — they provide the means for a person to fire rapidly at the perpetrator until he drops.
My problem with your position is that you would deny everyone the right to self defense, because some people would not be up to it. As you imply, some would undoubtably wilt/cower under the pressure. Given the inherent right of self defense, however, it violates the rights of teachers if we ban them from carrying concealed weapons. Your discomfort that someone is carrying does not necessarily trump their right to do so.
MH continually makes the point that teachers are task saturated and should not have to take on another duty. For those that are too busy, there would be nothing that requires them to do it. They can choose to remain unarmed. But I suspect there would be several teachers/staff in each school that would find the time to take the training and follow the rules.
The argument that each school should have a resource officer for security is not a bad one, but from what I have read, these shooters tend to be cunning. A shooter can thwart a clearly identifiable resource officer by waiting for him/her to go to lunch or simply finding an opportunity to shoot from behind. If it is publicized that there is an undisclosed number of teachers/staff carrying concealed weapons in local schools, then the shooter cannot identify threats (from his perspective) in advance and he may be discouraged from even attacking the school.
And then finally, why am I not surprised that folks on this blog would think the NRA should pay for resource officers in schools? Silly. Why would they do that? That’s like saying the AARP should bear the additional costs in government due to Obamacare, because the AARP lobbied for it and got to it passed.
Kelly, it isn’t that some folks aren’t “up to it.” Its more that the job of educator is incompatible with that of armed guard and the duties that would go with it.
I find it horribly amusing that those who are not in the field feel they know more about it than those who are in the field. I have not talked to one teacher who feels it is a good idea. I am sure somewhere out there, there are some teachers who want to be armed. However, an overwhelming majority do not feel it is appropriate. Most don’t want one more duty.
If the private schools want to do it, well, private schools can do their own thing.
Last year our law makers got a bee in their bonnets that all students 1-8 grade were going to have 150 minutes of PE per week. Once again, no one thought about the fact that Virginia gets cold about Dec. and stays that way through March, with the exception of a few warm days. The law makers are so far removed from education that they failed to think about housing for these PE classes. Most elementary schools do not have gyms. Middle school gyms are already juggling times. The bottom line is, there was no place to have PE classes for that amount of time. The plans were scrapped, very quietly. The cost was too great to build auxillary gyms on all the schools.
Arming the teachers is another half assed plan that is all bravado and no thought. By all means, let’s let people who have no working knowledge of what it takes to be an educator and the logistics of arming teachers make all the decisions. Typical.
In the end, if the public wants someone armed in the schools, they should pony up and pay for it…either through their houses or let the gun industry get taxed to pay fror it. I guess I don’t see why I should have to pay for the fall out from someone else’s hobby.
Its more that the job of educator is incompatible with that of armed guard and the duties that would go with it.
That is not what we are advocating. They will be an armed guard with duties. They will simply be teaching while armed. THAT they can do.
How the hell would you know? The fallacy starts with “simply be teaching…” There is no such thing nowadays as “simply be teaching….”
Unacceptable. Who is WE are advocating? You sure have changed your tune midstream.
Follow this ill-begotten plan at your own peril.
There probably are teachers armed in some places. What is good for one locality is not necessarily good for another.
Notice I am not arguing military bases. Unlike some folks, I don’t know the turf so I am not voicing an opinion. Funny how everyone seems to know the teaching turf. It must be because at some point in their lives they went to school.
They will NOT be an armed guard with duties.
edit then submit…
They would be overpowered by some angry 17 year old kid on drugs and the gun wrestled away. Or now do we want to have a requirement regarding size? Or can they just shoot the kid if they think he/she poses a threat? Seven year olds in the Middle East have been known to carry bombs. Will we have a reverse Good Samaritan law? We could call it “Ooops”. I’d want the Ooops clause in my teaching contract.
Me too. I wonder if the tort insurance will cover Oooops?
This will spawn a whole new industry, add jobs and stave off the fiscal cliff.
What’s the area code for Hawaii?
I seriously can’t even believe a rational person would advocate such a solution. Talk about being wrought with unintended consequences.
@Elena
@Moon-howler
Teachers are predominately female. Good luck convincing females they need to arm themselves. There’s no pride or ego there with regard to a weapon, generally speaking.
All of what you say are good points. Shall we look at places where teachers have armed themselves and see what happens?
As for the idea that females don’t arm themselves……women are a huge and growing demographic of the carry population. I know many women that carry.
Of course females arm themselves. Obsession with guns seems to be predominently male focused, however.
Some females go to the range to meet dudes though…but I guess I don’t need to tell that one.
@Moon-howler
THAT’S a new one. I don’t think that I’ve ever seen women treat a gun range as a pick up place.
I can see it now…
BANG BANG “so…com BANG…re of BANG BANG n……?
Grocery stores and church also Cargo. Where the boys are……
Ha ha – tool shows. I remember being dragged to one by DH. The scent of aftershave was overpowering.
@Cargosquid A month or so ago, there was a young woman at the range we go to dressed in a skirt, high heels and carrying a Coach purse. Her (considerably) older male companion was teaching her how to shoot (and she never let go of the purse, which was interesting). All kinds of wild speculation…
Apparently, February 14 is a very popular day for couples to go shooting at that range, dressed to the nines–heels and all.
I love to shoot paper targets (reactive zombie targets are very popular with my crew these days), and I sometimes carry, but I don’t think I’m obsessed, any more than my friends who engage in bow-hunting and competitive archery are obsessed. I would say the ratio of men to women at my range is about 4 to 1, depending on the day. Gun stores are also making a better effort to serve women.
Ah ha! thanks Emma. YOu just proved my point. Good meet up place. Thank you. He would have never believed me.
At least they don’t serve cocktails. Probably a bad idea.
It’s a great place to people watch while I’m waiting my turn.
Reaching way up the thread to Kelly at 0847:
Kelly, how in the name of heaven to you extract from anything I said that I would “deny everyone the right of self defense”?(!) Where did I say that? Self-defense is a common law right that has been around for centuries. I am absolutely puzzled. I am a great fan of English Common Law, and am thrilled that it abides in our American Republic despite the Revolution.
What I did say is that I am not enamored of the idea that arming classroom teachers is a comprehensible idea, let alone a sound policy option, in dealing with mass homicides of school children with paramilitary weapons. It makes no sense to me on any level for reasons I have stated elsewhere in the thread.
I further have problems with your idea that semi-automatic weapons are a good thing for those who lack tactical arms experience because they can essentially “hose down” a general target vicinity. Come on. You think this is a good thing? I admit to finding some advantage in a pump action shotgun for home defense, but it is a far cry from that to an AR-15 in the public at large. I see absolutely no justification for high rate of fire weapons in the hunting/target shooting civilian population. These are military weapons and should be confined to military applications. I don’t want amateurs compensating for their lack of nerve or marksmanship by throwing out more rounds. Especially in crowded public spaces. Think about it. I suspect a lot of people would be more of my turn of mind on this, and not so many with you.
I have nothing against teachers (or lawyers, or dentists, or bikini waxers, or clergymen) lawfully carrying weapons, other than my general opposition to concealed carry by anyone other than law enforcement officers. However, there are places where I don’t want these weapons. Schools, churches, bars, public libraries are good for starts. Check your shootin’ iron with Marshall Earp. Again, under my perfect regime, everyone who carries will carry openly, so we all know who these fearful people are and we can all give them a wide berth.
RE the NRA, they had a lot of choices. The NRA would be the first to take credit for the fact that we live in a heavily armed society. They could have proposed a wide range of “constructive” (their word) ideas, ranging from increased licensing and registration requirements for certain types of weapons and peripherals, to taxes on weapons to fund the police presence they advocate (and which I agree is, regrettably, essential). Almost anything other than what they did would have enhanced the NRA’s credibility and made it more likely that policy discussion would have resulted in policy progress. But they really just punted and, except for what power they can muster to obstruct, they took themselves out of the center of the debate.
@Moon-howler
I just said that I’ve never seen it as such and can’t see how it would work with all the noise.
@Scout
they took themselves out of the center of the debate.
Um…that’s the main complaint of gunnies. They don’t like the debate. They leave that up to the Second Amendment Foundation that keeps winning court cases and then they claim credit.
the “keep winning” characterization is, I think, a bit premature. We really haven’t litigated the gun issues all the way through. Heller established that the Second Amendment created a personal right, not one linked to membership in an organized militia. That’s new and significant. What will take years (if not decades) to work through is how much regulation of weapons is “reasonable” under Heller. The gun groups understandably have been fairly careful about what they choose to litigate. They’re going to have to be a bit more aggressive as municipalities, states, and the federal government now try to determine where the limits of reasonable regulation lie.