Small Texas school district lets teachers, staff pack pistols

Source: Star Telegram

"Small Texas school district lets teachers, staff pack pistols
By MARK AGEErmagee@star-telegram.com
Superintendent David Thweatt said a main concern was that the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff’s office, leaving students and teachers without protection.
'To be prepared’
The district’s lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target, Thweatt said.

Other security measures are in place, including one-way access to enter the school, state-of-the-art surveillance cameras and electric locks on doors. But after the Virginia Tech massacre and the Amish school shooting in Pennsylvania, Thweatt felt he had to take further action, he said.
"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started," Thweatt said. "Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying 'sic ’em’ to a dog."
"The naysayers think won’t happen here," he said. "If something were to happen here, I’d much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gun policy Teachers and staffers in the Harrold school district can carry firearms beginning this fall if they:

Have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun.

Are authorized to carry by the district.

Receive training in crisis management and hostile situations.

Use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

Source: Harrold school district




Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/834022.html

---

Not sure if I posted this right, first time in LBN. Anyway they seem to have a very solid set of requirements for any teachers or staff who want to carry, I think this is a policy that will be cheap for the school and will not be heard of again. I highly doubt there will be even a single incident because of an armed teacher.

What happens if a teacher goes berzerk? We need to arm the students to protect them from the teachers.

:sarcasm:

:crazy:

What if a tree falls into a classroom onto some students?


What if the busdriver "goes bezerk" and drives off a bridge?


What if a police officer "goes bezerk" and shoots some people just because he "went bezerk"?


I'm sorry is there a problem where you live of career teachers "going bezerk" and attacking children? I know it can be a stressful job but come one, do you really think that someone who goes through all the licensing requirements and background checks to get a carry permit, crisis management and hostile situation training, and administrative permission is MORE likely to "go bezerk" than someone who has none of that vetting? If you are so concerned than why would you think its a good idea to let people who could just "go bezerk" at any time to work with children in the first place?

:shrug:

You must be 21 years of age to qualify. Eliminates most students.

Students who have valid concealed weapons permits should be able to carry on campus too.

(I don't think there are many 21-year-old students in middle or high schools.)

In the Bronx, although maybe not in writing. Notice you don't see any school shooting there.

I know that has nothing to do with the discussion, but I'm wondering if that's something that you did, and if so, why and how?

It's that section from "It won't happen here" to "Read more:"

But that is pretty odd. weird.

Right after "naysayers think" is a reference tag. "a shooting" is in carrot brackets like it was a reference.

And there is some definite truth to the idiocy of advertising "We're unarmed here!"

before getting all worked up about the heavily armed teachers parading around shooting students reality that doesn't exist.

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs.

they didn't make it easy by making every paragraph a single sentence

Use violence to drive out violence. Irrefutable. Self-evident. The Elders of the High Church are most pleased. Veni, vidi, incendi.

This is not a policy intended to prevent wars, it is a policy to enable teachers to effectively respond to and end a violent attack on the school, should that ever happen, especially since, if you noticed, the nearest law enforcement is 30 minutes away.


That's a long time to try and reason with someone intent on killing everyone he can.

The only way to stop a violent attack is for the attacker to be violently stopped or for him to stop of his own volition. I think after the attack is underway the second method is a little hopeless.

...schools? If I may ask...

I am not talking about resolving fistfights between students though. What I am talking about, and what the school district's policy is intended to address is the situation where an individual, student, adult, man, woman, whoever, comes to the school intending on killing as many students as possible. In that instance there is no reasonable response to that individual that does not involve deadly force. A teacher, as an adult working with and having day-to-day responsibility for their students has an ethical responsibility to do anything they can to protect their students from an attacker like that. If they happen to have a carry permit and the requisite skill sets neccessary to gain approval to carry concealed at work, then they would be the best equipped and most capable person for dealing with an armed threat to the student body.

An unarmed congregation of latte-sipping, Volvo-driving pacifists took down a heavily armed shooter within seconds there. Certainly they sustained a couple of casualties, but the perpetrator will live to face justice for his crimes.

Oh, but that's not the lesson that's being taught in Texas, is it? My bad.

But I am not in texas, and the congregation in tennessee did a good job. Other mass shooting victims don't often have that successful a reaction, except for people who luckily belong to another church in colorado, in which a member of the congregation named Jean Assam was attending while carrying and delivered multiple successful hits on a gunman intent on killing everyone he could there.

He didn't harm anyone inside the church fyi.

Kids would likely not have the strength to do that.

The nearest law enforcement is 30 minutes away. This is a reasonable policy, IMO. The media would call them "security guards" anyway...

The problem is, they don't follow the rules.

you can never tell when some one is going to have an incident -- and you certainly don't allow armed adults around children.

but i find little that is sane about gun lovers and their obsession with firearms.

but i will always vote for gun control.

but i will always vote for gun control.

You can't be bothered to look at things like details, pros, cons, etc.

You are no better than someone who would vote for any kind of restriction on abortion.

Tell that to the police, SS and every other officer of the peace.

When children need protected from those out to harm them we sane gun owners will
protect them while your sentiment will attend their deaths.

And also, the teachers wanting to carry have to use suitable ammunition that won't overpenetrate, and have undergone crisis management and hostile situation classes. Seems pretty up and up to me.

Also, as it says in the article, the school district only has 150 students and is 30 minutes from the nearest law enforcement. They can't possibly have a budget strong enough to afford full time armed security, and metal detectors are kind of pointless for their needs.

During last deer season, I was reading the local paper and learned that folks in Camp Wood (about 1,000) were upset that the Real County Sheriff's Department couldn't/wouldn't afford a deputy to patrol this little town. According to residents of Camp Wood, this has encouraged a tide of graffiti, tagging, meth dealing (on heavily traveled State 55), and general trashing of the community. Things may have changed, but that was the problem last year.

Lack of LEO presence usually results in those conditions.

and it seems to me it's not such a bad idea.

Especially given the quality of parents in the Lone Star state.

Regards,

...teach? Welcome to DU.

...and it is dangerous for both children and teachers. The article mentions some very good questions that need to be both asked and answered:

1. "What are the rules for use of force?" You are going to have adults with guns who have varied ideas about when to use force. Even the police have trouble with this and they do have rules...usually.

2. "Or how about weapons-retention training? Because they could go in to break up a fight in the cafeteria and lose their gun." Kids are smart...this news will become common knowledge among students. Some might even think it 'cool' to get a teacher to show a gun...like they are tough. That escalates any conflict...from an everyday squabble , to a life or death situation.


School board decisions require careful policy implementation...and in my experience (teacher here :) ) it rarely happens. It would be interesting to see how teachers feel about this new plan. I'd bet MANY are against it. IMO this has come as a direct result of all the fear-mongering of the last few years.

If I were a parent in that district, I would pull my children out immediately...and say why. Oppose this wrong policy. This makes their campus LESS SAFE.

"If I were a parent in that district, I would pull my children out immediately...and say why. Oppose this wrong policy. This makes their campus LESS SAFE. "


Yeah. The nearest law enforcement is THIRTY MINUTES away. If you want to pull your child out of that school, you'd better be prepared and capable of uprooting your entire family and moving somewhere far away, because there is no other school in the area. 150 K-12 students, they don't live in massachussetts buddy.

Massachussetts. And it's sad if this is the situation aand parents feel trapped there...that makes it even worse.

They and their families have been there for quite a while and do not feel "trapped". The district is small and they are not afraid of their children. They are afraid for them. I think it is sad that it has come to the point that we have to take such actions. Sadly, that is how the world is turning.

The district did not decide to go that route because they are afraid of students shooting up the school, like the article says at least once they are afraid because of their remote location, proximity to a fairly major highway, and the recent events that seem to show the qworld going crazy.

The principle of "maximum feasible misunderstanding" has been strained in the several threads on this school district.

I like that. In fact I just used it in another thread on this topic. You are absolutely right though, just about every single post against this policy has stretched the limits of sane misunderstanding/lack of reading comprehension to its breaking point and beyond. Why people can't just read the damn article and understand that a 110 student K-12 school thirty minutes away from the nearest law enforcement is not going to be able to afford metal detectors staffed with armed policemen (because what's the point of a metal detector if the guy is planning on shooting plenty of people) and wants to have SOME sort of contingency plan in place.


I really don't think that they are capable of understanding the sheer smallness of the school and community. It's like they can't picture any school other than the one they went to.

Very bad policy.

I'd pull my kids out, too.

...for the support. :)

if the article title said, "Armed security guards placed in school"?

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

The training and security measures are a step in the right direction; at a minimal addition, there also ought to be some provision made for the secure storage of any firearms on the school premises. And no teacher should feel any pressure whatsoever to participate in this program.

And they shouldn't have made the measures public. Why delibarately attract attention to the fact that you're converting a public school into an armed camp? Now a student who is angry or depressed or doped up or suicidal or mentally fragile in any number of ways could have an additional grudge to bear. Now a parent who's furious about his child not making the football team drinks too much and decides to take several guns to that school, rather than one, just to see how good those teachers really are at gunslinging. Making a blatant publicity stunt out of this exhibits the same sort of asinine behavior as those gun owners who insist on openly carrying their pistols on their hips, rather than concealing them; they make the argument that it'll prevent violence, when in fact they're eager to incite that violence.

About what you'd expect from a school superintendent who uses terms like "...saying sic 'em to a dog," or who trashes the federal government for the creation of "gun-free zones," which is right out of the right wing gun militancy playbook....