So you have a CCW......Some food for thought

[packsaddle 753]

What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common? They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law. The evil doerss select these places becuase of this fact so they will be unlikely to encounter an armed citizen. Obviously, when children are massacred in a place where lawful carry of firearms by vetted citizens is prohibited it is time to question these unconstitutional laws.

 

As a qualified Tactical Action Officer and Command duty officer, in the Navy we had a plan in place for any type of forced entry into a ship or station. The designated responders immediately dealt with the threat while the rest of the ship remained in place and stayed out of their way in a security alert. This is why it is reasonable to have armed security in every public school with an action plan. Training and a plan are key. Any active shooter can shoot through barriers and locked doors, will only delay for a matter of seconds ... the LEOs won't arrive for many minutes at the best, and the SWAT team for 20min to an hour. It's all over by then. If we can pay for a 100+ educators in a district at $60-80K, and administrators at $100K + salaries we can pay for 5 armed officers or security at $40K. (I'm not against paying teachers well.) We could hire unemployed veterans with existing veterans preference laws. The reason we don't is because the teacher's and LEO unions don't want competition for their salaries, and have a lot of sway with local school boards. In the interim, we could allow teachers and admin staff to be lawfully armed if they have a CHL. I agree a teacher or staff member with a CHL isn't a trained tactician, but all these fears & concerns are largely unfounded until we have ONE example where an armed teacher has misconduct with a firearm. Lets have even and outside chance that the active shooter threat can be stopped by a lawfully armed employee. Because of the current laws, the children still don't have a chance in an active shooter scenario.

PABill, I understand. Do you think a business should not have the right to prohibit concealed carry? In some states there is a legislation to allow concealed carry in bars and churches as well as schools.

 

I too have CC permits (one of them is from PA, lol). I am also one of those educators of whom he wrote. I agree with our school security force and their resistance to allowing me to carry on school grounds. It is a pragmatic problem for them for which no one has suggested a solution. If an incident occurs, they will respond. If during the response time, an indefinite number of non-uniformed, badgeless faculty or students are also responding, guns drawn, how do the LEOs narrow their focus to the actual threat? If shots are fired, perhaps by faculty or student responders as well, and LEOs are urgently needing to neutralize the threat, how do they determine who the 'bad guys' are? It is a bad situation that is made even more volatile by the presence of so many persons with, or worse using, guns. It is an idiotic idea that solves an extremely unlikely problem. THAT is what our LEOs think about it.

 

As for me, if the law is changed I might carry or I might not, but probably not. It would be one more unnecessary distraction from what my actual job is. And as I survey my clueless colleagues, I'm glad that up till now, none of them give it much thought at all. It would be a bad thing for them to think they might be able to respond to an emergency involving gunfire. The thought of having faculty and students with concealed weapons on campus all of the time gives me greater anxiety than the unlikely event that some deranged person will attempt an attack, some unlikely time in the indefinite future. Fear of rare events should not take precedence over good sense in day-to-day life.

[Fehler 118]

Are there any incidents where an "Active Shooter Event", outside of a school, was stopped by someone with a concealed weapon? If it never happens outside of a school, why would we think it would happen inside of a school.

 

And are we to require businesses and workplaces to allow guns on their private property?

[JoeBob 606]

Are there any incidents where an "Active Shooter Event", outside of a school, was stopped by someone with a concealed weapon? If it never happens outside of a school, why would we think it would happen inside of a school.

 

And are we to require businesses and workplaces to allow guns on their private property?

University Study Confirms Private Firearms Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

[King Ding Dong 540]

I'm not opposed to the idea of arming teachers or staff, but agree that they need to be specifically designated, known to local law enforcement and train regularly them, and demonstrate equivalent proficiency. Ideally these might be former military, reserve or national guard personnel.

 

However, this should be considered the last line of defense. At the point you have armed educators responding to a shooter you have someone in the school with a weapon with intent to do harm. We need to look at policies, legislation and programs that makes this scenario much more difficult to even contemplate. This means doing a better job of identifying people that should not have access to firearms, and developing systems to limit their access.

 

SA

 

(This message has been edited by scoutingagain)

We can start with, if you are the butt of a Jeff Foxworthy routine....

[Gone 435]

Just in the last week alone there were three robberies stopped by folks carrying. Another car jacking (near a school) stopped the same way. I suspect there are many crimes that are stopped or diminished in severity with folks stepping in with a CC.

[packsaddle 753]

Just in the last week alone there were three robberies stopped by folks carrying. Another car jacking (near a school) stopped the same way. I suspect there are many crimes that are stopped or diminished in severity with folks stepping in with a CC.

Was that in your area or nationwide, the three stopped robberies?

From the linked study:

"SCHULMAN: Okay. Let's ask the "one year" question since you say that's based on better recollections. In the last year how many people who responded to the questionnaire said that they had used a firearm to defend themselves against an actual confrontation from a human being attempting a crime?

KLECK: Well, as a percentage it's 1.33 percent of the respondents. When you extrapolate that to the general population, it works out to be 2.4 million defensive uses of guns of some kind -- not just handguns but any kind of a gun -- within that previous year, which would have been roughly from Spring of 1992 through Spring of 1993.

SCHULMAN: And if you focus solely on handguns?

KLECK: It's about 1.9 million, based on personal, individual recollections.

SCHULMAN: And what percentage of the respondents is that? Just handguns?

KLECK: That would be 1.03 percent.

SCHULMAN: How many respondents did you have total?

KLECK: We had a total of 4,978 completed interviews, that is, where we had a response on the key question of whether or not there had been a defensive gun use.

SCHULMAN: So roughly 50 people out of 5000 responded that in the last year they had had to use their firearms in an actual confrontation against a human being attempting a crime?

KLECK: Handguns, yes.

SCHULMAN: Had used a handgun. And slightly more than that had used any gun.

KLECK: Right.

SCHULMAN: So that would be maybe 55, 56 people?

KLECK: Something like that, yeah."

 

Anyone want to speculate on what the 'error' is on an extrapolation like that?

[RugerViking 11]

What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common? They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law. The evil doerss select these places becuase of this fact so they will be unlikely to encounter an armed citizen. Obviously, when children are massacred in a place where lawful carry of firearms by vetted citizens is prohibited it is time to question these unconstitutional laws.

 

As a qualified Tactical Action Officer and Command duty officer, in the Navy we had a plan in place for any type of forced entry into a ship or station. The designated responders immediately dealt with the threat while the rest of the ship remained in place and stayed out of their way in a security alert. This is why it is reasonable to have armed security in every public school with an action plan. Training and a plan are key. Any active shooter can shoot through barriers and locked doors, will only delay for a matter of seconds ... the LEOs won't arrive for many minutes at the best, and the SWAT team for 20min to an hour. It's all over by then. If we can pay for a 100+ educators in a district at $60-80K, and administrators at $100K + salaries we can pay for 5 armed officers or security at $40K. (I'm not against paying teachers well.) We could hire unemployed veterans with existing veterans preference laws. The reason we don't is because the teacher's and LEO unions don't want competition for their salaries, and have a lot of sway with local school boards. In the interim, we could allow teachers and admin staff to be lawfully armed if they have a CHL. I agree a teacher or staff member with a CHL isn't a trained tactician, but all these fears & concerns are largely unfounded until we have ONE example where an armed teacher has misconduct with a firearm. Lets have even and outside chance that the active shooter threat can be stopped by a lawfully armed employee. Because of the current laws, the children still don't have a chance in an active shooter scenario.

PA Bill, is correct when he infers that I mean "prohibited zones" (or as some like to call them Criminal Protection Zones, CPZs) within the existing concealed carry laws of a given state, when lawful carry is prohibited. For Ohio, this includes schools, hospitals, etc.

 

The law enforcement "logic" that Packsaddle refers to; that LEOs won't know the difference between the good guys and bad guys with guns is a strawman myth that the anti-gunners perpetuate. Either deadly force is authorized or it isn't. Any LEO engaging a threat needs to make sure the person he is engaging satisfies all the deadly force triangle criteria: capability, opportunity & intent. Everywhere else that concealed carry is permitted by law doesn't have an epidemic of blue on blue law enforcement mistakenly shooting civilians engagements --- for the simple reason that by the time LEOS arrive the situation has already been resolved if a permit carrier has acted in self defense. Do schools somehow defy physics and problems of time & distance?

 

I agree that any risk assessment would put the likelihood of an active shooter scenario in a school extremely low, but it still needs to be prepared for. There hasn't been a fatality due to a fire in a public school in 50 years ... but that doesn't make it prudent to stop training for & executing fire drills. Read the following link to expand on the analogy where Lt.Col Dave Grossman talks about the true enemy: denial.

 

 

[url=http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/]http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/[/url=http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/]

[packsaddle 753]

What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common? They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law. The evil doerss select these places becuase of this fact so they will be unlikely to encounter an armed citizen. Obviously, when children are massacred in a place where lawful carry of firearms by vetted citizens is prohibited it is time to question these unconstitutional laws.

 

As a qualified Tactical Action Officer and Command duty officer, in the Navy we had a plan in place for any type of forced entry into a ship or station. The designated responders immediately dealt with the threat while the rest of the ship remained in place and stayed out of their way in a security alert. This is why it is reasonable to have armed security in every public school with an action plan. Training and a plan are key. Any active shooter can shoot through barriers and locked doors, will only delay for a matter of seconds ... the LEOs won't arrive for many minutes at the best, and the SWAT team for 20min to an hour. It's all over by then. If we can pay for a 100+ educators in a district at $60-80K, and administrators at $100K + salaries we can pay for 5 armed officers or security at $40K. (I'm not against paying teachers well.) We could hire unemployed veterans with existing veterans preference laws. The reason we don't is because the teacher's and LEO unions don't want competition for their salaries, and have a lot of sway with local school boards. In the interim, we could allow teachers and admin staff to be lawfully armed if they have a CHL. I agree a teacher or staff member with a CHL isn't a trained tactician, but all these fears & concerns are largely unfounded until we have ONE example where an armed teacher has misconduct with a firearm. Lets have even and outside chance that the active shooter threat can be stopped by a lawfully armed employee. Because of the current laws, the children still don't have a chance in an active shooter scenario.

RugerViking, I'd rather spend more on the professionals whose job it is to protect the students. But I'd like to see a risk analysis before doing that. If you took a close look at the faculty, I think you'd sympathize with my perspective a little more. Or a close look at the student body most any weekend.....

 

Also, I'll ask the question again. in a positive voice this time: Do you think a business should have the right to prohibit concealed carry on its premises?

[RugerViking 11]

What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common? They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law. The evil doerss select these places becuase of this fact so they will be unlikely to encounter an armed citizen. Obviously, when children are massacred in a place where lawful carry of firearms by vetted citizens is prohibited it is time to question these unconstitutional laws.

 

As a qualified Tactical Action Officer and Command duty officer, in the Navy we had a plan in place for any type of forced entry into a ship or station. The designated responders immediately dealt with the threat while the rest of the ship remained in place and stayed out of their way in a security alert. This is why it is reasonable to have armed security in every public school with an action plan. Training and a plan are key. Any active shooter can shoot through barriers and locked doors, will only delay for a matter of seconds ... the LEOs won't arrive for many minutes at the best, and the SWAT team for 20min to an hour. It's all over by then. If we can pay for a 100+ educators in a district at $60-80K, and administrators at $100K + salaries we can pay for 5 armed officers or security at $40K. (I'm not against paying teachers well.) We could hire unemployed veterans with existing veterans preference laws. The reason we don't is because the teacher's and LEO unions don't want competition for their salaries, and have a lot of sway with local school boards. In the interim, we could allow teachers and admin staff to be lawfully armed if they have a CHL. I agree a teacher or staff member with a CHL isn't a trained tactician, but all these fears & concerns are largely unfounded until we have ONE example where an armed teacher has misconduct with a firearm. Lets have even and outside chance that the active shooter threat can be stopped by a lawfully armed employee. Because of the current laws, the children still don't have a chance in an active shooter scenario.

Also' date=' I'll ask the question again. in a positive voice this time: Do you think a business should have the right to prohibit concealed carry on its premises?[/quote']

 

No, I don't think so. A business isn't allowed to discriminate serving the public based on any other civil rights. Think about the lunch counters denying service on the basis of race prior to the civil rights movement. I think it is totally unacceptable. However, I think a private club that doesn't serve the general public could define their own standards of conduct. Either way, those of us who regularly carry boycott the business with the "no guns" signs anyways. It's not a big deal, or that inconvenient to avoid those businesses, but liberty is sometime requiring of a little inconvenience. It's a balancing act between property rights and the inherent right of self defense. While I have no right to trespass on your personal, residential property, open up a business and it changes the legal landscape, requiring a different set of laws that are applicable.

 

[packsaddle 753]

What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common? They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law. The evil doerss select these places becuase of this fact so they will be unlikely to encounter an armed citizen. Obviously, when children are massacred in a place where lawful carry of firearms by vetted citizens is prohibited it is time to question these unconstitutional laws.

 

As a qualified Tactical Action Officer and Command duty officer, in the Navy we had a plan in place for any type of forced entry into a ship or station. The designated responders immediately dealt with the threat while the rest of the ship remained in place and stayed out of their way in a security alert. This is why it is reasonable to have armed security in every public school with an action plan. Training and a plan are key. Any active shooter can shoot through barriers and locked doors, will only delay for a matter of seconds ... the LEOs won't arrive for many minutes at the best, and the SWAT team for 20min to an hour. It's all over by then. If we can pay for a 100+ educators in a district at $60-80K, and administrators at $100K + salaries we can pay for 5 armed officers or security at $40K. (I'm not against paying teachers well.) We could hire unemployed veterans with existing veterans preference laws. The reason we don't is because the teacher's and LEO unions don't want competition for their salaries, and have a lot of sway with local school boards. In the interim, we could allow teachers and admin staff to be lawfully armed if they have a CHL. I agree a teacher or staff member with a CHL isn't a trained tactician, but all these fears & concerns are largely unfounded until we have ONE example where an armed teacher has misconduct with a firearm. Lets have even and outside chance that the active shooter threat can be stopped by a lawfully armed employee. Because of the current laws, the children still don't have a chance in an active shooter scenario.

H'mmm, I've seen plenty of places that didn't allow patrons to enter if they were just wearing a t-shirt, or shorts, or if they weren't wearing a tie, or not wearing shoes. How about church? How do you feel about firearms in church? Courtrooms?

[King Ding Dong 540]

What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common? They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law. The evil doerss select these places becuase of this fact so they will be unlikely to encounter an armed citizen. Obviously, when children are massacred in a place where lawful carry of firearms by vetted citizens is prohibited it is time to question these unconstitutional laws.

 

As a qualified Tactical Action Officer and Command duty officer, in the Navy we had a plan in place for any type of forced entry into a ship or station. The designated responders immediately dealt with the threat while the rest of the ship remained in place and stayed out of their way in a security alert. This is why it is reasonable to have armed security in every public school with an action plan. Training and a plan are key. Any active shooter can shoot through barriers and locked doors, will only delay for a matter of seconds ... the LEOs won't arrive for many minutes at the best, and the SWAT team for 20min to an hour. It's all over by then. If we can pay for a 100+ educators in a district at $60-80K, and administrators at $100K + salaries we can pay for 5 armed officers or security at $40K. (I'm not against paying teachers well.) We could hire unemployed veterans with existing veterans preference laws. The reason we don't is because the teacher's and LEO unions don't want competition for their salaries, and have a lot of sway with local school boards. In the interim, we could allow teachers and admin staff to be lawfully armed if they have a CHL. I agree a teacher or staff member with a CHL isn't a trained tactician, but all these fears & concerns are largely unfounded until we have ONE example where an armed teacher has misconduct with a firearm. Lets have even and outside chance that the active shooter threat can be stopped by a lawfully armed employee. Because of the current laws, the children still don't have a chance in an active shooter scenario.

Swimming pool ?

[RugerViking 11]

What do all of the public massacres in the past decade or so have in common? They were in places enumerated by law where concealed carry was prohibited by state or federal law. The evil doerss select these places becuase of this fact so they will be unlikely to encounter an armed citizen. Obviously, when children are massacred in a place where lawful carry of firearms by vetted citizens is prohibited it is time to question these unconstitutional laws.

 

As a qualified Tactical Action Officer and Command duty officer, in the Navy we had a plan in place for any type of forced entry into a ship or station. The designated responders immediately dealt with the threat while the rest of the ship remained in place and stayed out of their way in a security alert. This is why it is reasonable to have armed security in every public school with an action plan. Training and a plan are key. Any active shooter can shoot through barriers and locked doors, will only delay for a matter of seconds ... the LEOs won't arrive for many minutes at the best, and the SWAT team for 20min to an hour. It's all over by then. If we can pay for a 100+ educators in a district at $60-80K, and administrators at $100K + salaries we can pay for 5 armed officers or security at $40K. (I'm not against paying teachers well.) We could hire unemployed veterans with existing veterans preference laws. The reason we don't is because the teacher's and LEO unions don't want competition for their salaries, and have a lot of sway with local school boards. In the interim, we could allow teachers and admin staff to be lawfully armed if they have a CHL. I agree a teacher or staff member with a CHL isn't a trained tactician, but all these fears & concerns are largely unfounded until we have ONE example where an armed teacher has misconduct with a firearm. Lets have even and outside chance that the active shooter threat can be stopped by a lawfully armed employee. Because of the current laws, the children still don't have a chance in an active shooter scenario.

I absolutely think firearms should be allowed in church. There have been several church shootings in the past few years, including a murder in OH recently. The church isn't protecting me or my family with armed security or a magical spell to keep armed evil doers away. OH CC law requires the consent of the clergy before carry is allowed in any church.

 

A courthouse is a different story as all people go through security screenings to enter, and are relatively a more controlled envioronment --- but I see no problem with a citizen (especially one forced into jury duty by the state) who has a current CHL being allowed to carry once they identify thier firearm to security check point. The've already been vetted by that very counties law enforcement establishment as authorized to carry concealed.