Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PARAGON
You have no clue what you are talking about. No one needs annual training in markmanship. You shoot constantly. Gun safety is not something you train for annually either. Either you know gun safety or you don't.
Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that they have the capacity to handle a certain situation... given. But to assume that, in your little fairy world, that a registered handgun and the other crap you read somewhere would have an impact is seriously flawed.
No carry individual would have need for any command and control training. Nor do they need to know, other than what they receive in the average conceal carry course, how to interact with LEOs. If someone doesn't have common sense, they should not have the handgun on them, and they are more than likely are not going to make the best decisions when faced with the fast-moving high-stressed situations that this accounts for. |
Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about registering educators for concealed carry in the classroom ... not about concealed carry in general or the right to bear arms. I'm only saying make educators learn, train and demonstrate their proficiency before they take the responsibility of carrying concealed in school.
I have been shooting for 15 years. I am well-versed in gun safety, disassembly and maintenance and I value my 2nd amendment rights. But if I were a teacher carrying concealed to defend my students, these are things I would require of myself before I took on that responsibility. And it's what I would expect from my fellow teachers.
You're right about "training" in marksmanship and gun safety. I should have said "certifying or qualifying" (my mistake). Not every certification would have to be annual, either. But proficiency requires practice, and how do we know everyone's practicing? If a teacher accepts the responsibility of bearing arms to protect the classroom, should I just take their word that they understand (and practice) gun safety, can hit a target, and can work with police and others in a crisis? Should I accept that blindly and without verification?
No.
There is huge value in requiring background checks and "concealed classroom carry" permits for armed educators. If nothing else, at least police know how many armed teachers are inside and who they are, so they don't get shot when SWAT storms the building.
But more to the point, if teachers are going to be responsible for defending our classrooms by force, it's realistic to set basic requirements for concealed classroom carry. They should demonstrate that they understand gun handling and safety, can hit a target consistently and have logged at least the minimum time on the firing range. Only the Principal and administrators would probably need training to understand police command & control, but all teachers would benefit from police terminology so they can follow or pass on instructions. And if they're going to take on a gunman, they must understand cover, concealment and backstops, and be able to put the bullets where they count under pressure. Or else why carry in the first place?
The real fairy world is letting teachers decide for themselves if they ought carry concealed, blindly trusting them to do the right thing under pressure, and then actually believing your kids are safer for it.