Two Arizona gun-rights groups said Wednesday that lawmakers should consider letting specially trained teachers and administrators carry guns into public schools to protect students against future attacks.
Ken Rineer, president of Gun Owners of Arizona, said there is no reason to continue such a ban.
"I think we've had more campus school shootings since enactment of the law than before,'' he said of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, first approved in 1990. Arizona has a separate ban on guns on school campuses to deal with exceptions to the federal statute.
And the Arizona Citizens Defense League said the news coverage of the shootings in Connecticut that killed 26, including 20 children, misses the point.
"The main issue here is not that a deranged individual gained access to a firearm, as there is very little anyone could do to prevent that,'' the organization's statement read. "It?s that anyone who could have stopped his rampage could not gain access to a firearm.''
The bottom line, said spokesman Charles Heller, is more people with guns creates a safer environment.
"You shoot the attacker and stop the attack,'' he said. "It stops people from getting killed.''
Both Heller and Rineer said they are not advocating arming every teacher and staffer. Instead, they said, those with special training should have immediate access to weapons should the need arise.
"Let's experiment with this a little bit,'' Rineer said, perhaps having some staffers go through the same training as a federal air marshal.
"Lock up an AR-15 (rifle) or something in their principal's office so if something breaks loose they can get the weapon out of the safe and defend children,'' he said.
Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Glendale, said he wants a go-slow approach to any changes in the law to avoid unintended consequences.
"We know what we want to stop,'' said Murphy, who will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee this coming session. "But are the proposals that are being made, whatever they are, actually going to accomplish that goal or are they just going to make us feel good that we did something?''
Murphy said he does want to look at existing Texas law which gives individual school districts the right to allow or ban guns. He said this law has been in effect for about four years, meaning there has been some chance to see how it works and whether there are any downsides.
But Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, said any ideas about arming teachers is based on a false assumption.
"I don't believe that more guns creates a safer school place,'' she said.
Lopez is instead pursuing a different path in the wake of last week's attack at a Connecticut school which left 20 students and six adults dead. She wants not only better training of people to identify those with mental health problems but also a renewed ban on high-capacity magazines, limiting the number of rounds that can be loaded at one time.
And she wants the state to require background checks on everyone carrying a gun, not just those who obtain their weapons from commercial dealers. That would end the exemption that now exists for person-to-person sales, an exemption that also applies to gun shows.
Heller, however, said the last thing legislators should consider is additional restrictions on who can carry weapons and where they can bring them.
"Why would you want to lessen security?'' he said. "Only people who can't read or can't think believe that would help.''
The possibility of permitting guns in schools is getting a noncommittal response from Gov. Jan Brewer.
"The governor would need to see the specific legislation before she could take a position on something like that,'' said press aide Matthew Benson. He said Brewer has no preconceived thoughts on the issue.
"The fact of the matter is the governor is a strong but sensible supporter of the Second Amendment,'' he said. "She has a record of balancing her support of gun rights with public safety,'' pointing to her veto of a bill allowing guns in all public buildings and another permitting weapons along public rights of way on college and university campuses.
Other governors, however, are staking out positions.
Bob McDonnell of Virginia said he's willing to consider it.
"If someone had been armed, there would have been a possibility to stop the person from coming into the school,'' he said Tuesday in a radio call-in show when asked about the Connecticut shooting. McDonnell said while there is usually a "knee-jerk reaction'' against that idea of guns on campus, "I think we should have a discussion about it.''
In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry said it may be time to revisit the ability of schools to refuse to allow guns on campuses and simply make that a right under state law. He said Monday those with a permit "should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state.''
But Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder this week vetoed legislation which would have repealed a statewide ban on guns in schools and instead left the question to individual districts. Snyder said he was concerned it did not give schools enough power to keep their campuses gun-free.
And Connecticut Gov. Dannell Malloy said he wants Congress to reinstate the law banning assault-style weapons which also included a limit of no more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a single magazine or clip. "You don't hunt deer with these things,'' he told CNN.
But both Heller and Rineer scoffed at any suggestion that having fewer bullets in a gun or rifle will reduce mass killings.
"Only people who know nothing about guns would say that,'' Heller said.
"Anybody who knows what they're doing with a gun could change magazines while they're shooting,'' he continued. "They don't even have to slow down.''
Rineer said any such restriction has to consider that not all gun owners are the same.
"A paraplegic needs a firearm that holds more than 10 rounds because they can't get to their ammo,'' he said.
Heller stressed that his organization has not yet decided what legislation, if any, to advance in the upcoming session. And he said ideas go beyond laws on guns.
For example, he said, it may be appropriate to consider "hardening'' school buildings to ensure that only those who belong there can get it. Heller also said schools should consider new technology, like panic buttons and video cameras to help those responding to an incident.
Ateam1 posted at 4:30 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
This is long overdue! At the very least EVERY SCHOOL should have a well armed SRO. Quit worrying about the ant-gun freaks and DO IT!!!
IceCat posted at 4:31 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Korwin said. "We trust teachers with our children. Certainly they should be qualified" to have guns at schools.
It's apparent that Mr. Korwin hasn't been in a classroom recently.
Suetlg posted at 6:40 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Okay - It's obvious here that most of these people quoted here talking about
magazine clips, guns, gun control etc don't have a clue.
A revolver (pistol) holds 6 bullets. I can purchase 'speed loaders' that each hold
six bullets to reload faster. Speed loaders are common. I am a 65 yr old grandmother who frequently drives the Calif Hwy's - and I carry a LEGAL revolver with 2 speed loaders - AND I can RELOAD my pistol in matter of a minute !!!!
IF some physco cannot get their hands on 'magazines that hold 20-30 rounds"
they will find a way to reload and still kill people !!!
I don't mind banning of 'assault type weapons' but everyone needs to stop
acting like that is going to solve your security issues. Legislators and School Districts NEED to inact measures - SECURITY Scaners, camera's, entry ways - locking classroom doors, AND TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING teachers and first responders - AND by the way - if you 'lock up an AR 15 in the principals office ' whoever is responsible for getting it and using it might be dead in the hallway - Locking classroom doors, gun safes with digital locking codes could be stored right in same digital lock box installed in wall of classrooms where qualified teachers have immediate access if they hear gunshots!!!!
downtownresident posted at 6:44 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Sure, let's put 50 more guns on campus. That'll make everybody safe.
OK, it won't increase the safety of the children, it'll just add to confusion about who the good guy is and increase the odds of co-lateral damage by the number of panicked shots fired into the crowd by the "protectors".
Keep guns off campus!
DataMan posted at 6:46 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
It's clear that all members of this group were home schools and only finished 6th grade.
So, if they train teachers in police skills will they also be PAID for that training? I mean, doubling their yearly pay!
I thought the nuts fell from the tress in the fall. Seems here they are talking to reporters!
liveinaz posted at 6:46 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
@Ateam1
Anti-gun freaks don't go shooting innocent people around... so yes, there is no worry there. Gun-loving freaks on the other hand...
magenta posted at 7:43 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Bringing any guns into a school is a recipe for disaster. What happens if a student threatens a teacher, and the teacher pulls a gun out? What if a student figures out how to access the gun? You could lock the gun up tightly and far away, but then what is even the point if it takes too long for the teacher to access it? A responsible teacher could not even leave the room for ONE SECOND if a gun was inside with students.
Guns in the classroom add an element of danger and instability to the one place that is supposed to be nurturing, peaceful and appropriate for learning. Panic buttons, video cameras and controlled entrances are a much more sensible idea.
az2008 posted at 10:23 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Magenta, a sign saying "no guns allowed" is nothing but a *request*. Those with the intention of shooting up classrooms won't cause them to change their mind and play violent video games instead.
Regarding leaving the gun in the classroom, the idea is that school officials would carry concealed.
Guns in schools don't add instability, they make the request "no guns allowed" an assertion.
az2008 posted at 10:35 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
For those who believe that the risk of encountering individuals with the means to resist crime, why don't you post signs in your front yard (and bumper stickers on your car) that your gun free? Lead by example, and show us there's nothing to fear.
We all know why you guys won't do this.
k33j88 posted at 6:30 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
If that principal was armed with a simple 38 caliper revolver when she ran towards the assailant, the outcome would've been different.
WeAreSoDoomed posted at 7:49 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
In a state such a Arizona where we pay teachers so little, cut budgets & increase class sizes it seems like the last thing we should do is give them guns !
However, if we actually did better at education perhaps we'd have less stupid people which could really go along way towards making the world safer ...
Garlen posted at 7:50 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Let's think about this, not give knee-jerk reactions. Almost ALL recent massacres have been in "Gun Free Zones" - so the idea of armed, trained people in those zones might very well provide a deterrent to these wackjobs whose agenda seems to be to kill as many unarmed folks as they can before first responders get there - then kill themselves. However, one thing missing from the whole discussion is that in the chaos of the moment - trying to protect non-wackjobs - it's very possible that anyone (sworn law enforcement officer or not) could miss and hit an innocent person. If this were to become law, it would be necessary to also pass some sort of "good Samaritan" law to protect those who were trying to do the right thing. Remember, that the key to this is probably taking away the idea of "soft targets" where these nuts can fulfill their dreams before they're stopped - they don't care if they die, they care if their plan to kill people is blocked.
doc10250 posted at 9:28 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
The sky is fallling! The commies are coming. Lets turn our schools into killing fields between teachers and bad guys. Right! You people are all nuts. Police, security, even military presence yes. Pass cards and outside "entrance" to schools yes. BUT, every single teacher, administrator, and/or board member I've talked with over the last two weeks agrees that this is an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. Most would not participate! You may keep your guns, I don't care, but you WILL NOT put weapons in the hands of teachers, anywhere my children go to school!
mikedurham posted at 10:10 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Another red herring to indoctrinate children into buying guns. Another denial of responsibility and involvement in the killing of 26 innocent people.
bysj posted at 11:21 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
I believe a key issue is to demand that administrators do a better job of providing all the necessary security measure on a daily basis. We see many speaking out on how they are going to make changes. But are they sincere? When the emotional state calms down and another big event makes the news will the latest tragic event be pushed aside. Also, having been a teacher in a high school, there are some staff members you don't want carrying a weapon. Plus, teachers have so many extra duties now that are not curriculum specific. Being trained on weapon safety/firing would be one more required thing that they would have to do on their own time. I'm sure teachers would not be happy with that. How is administration going to determine who can and who cannot carry. That leads then to the question if the teacher can't be trusted to be armed why are they in the classroom? It should not be a one time event but recurring training. It would not eliminate the safety concern but may create another one. Imagine a 240 lb student overtaking a 130 lb armed teacher in the classroom and releasing his/her anger in the classroom. Education administrators and legistators need to develop a plan that is carefully thoughout and enforced. Accountability goes back to the parents and administrators. If administrators won't or can't do the job then they need to move to another profession.
az2008 posted at 11:35 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
I'm not a big defender of magazines over 10-15 rounds, nor firearms with military appearance. (I think regulation is pointless because bayonet lugs or flash suppressors don't make a rifle more effective. And, a skilled shooter can change magazines very fast.).
(continued due to this site's sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 11:36 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
(Continued...)
But, what do you guys think of regulating graphically violent games and movies? With today's technology games and movies look like authentic snuff films. I believe regular exposure (constant with video games) reduces our abhorrence to violence. For some who are less balanced, it could affect them.
Or, what about home schooling? I've known a handful of parents who struck me as "difficult." They didn't get along well with the system, their neighbors, world events. They pulled their kids from school, exposing them to a narrower view of the world.
(continued due to this site's sp@m error)
az2008 posted at 11:36 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
The reason I ask: I've read reports that this kid spent hours playing graphically violent "games." And, his mother is reported to be difficult and reclusive, home schooling the kid (harboring some grudge against the school).
(Continued...)
I hope the President's commission will include strategic input from psychologists, criminologists. Banning so-called assault weapons (while I have no interest in owning one) is nothing more than symbolic. It will only alienate gun owners (whose support is needed for meaningful gun control) and do virtually nothing to deter another school shooting.
az2008 posted at 12:38 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Mikedurahm, what about the responsibility of pro-controllers who wasted precious political capital in 1993 banning so-called assault weapons, and insisting the 2nd amendment protects the right of the National Guard?
We could have had meaningful gun control, like mandatory training, licensing, etc. Instead, it turned into a symbolic victory (flash suppressors and bayonet lugs were cut off, and pistol grips were replaced with something very similar to a pistol grip).
What I see are supporters of control who do very little to work for control, and then go into "punishment" mode when they're excited into action -- pushing pro-gun groups into defensive mode. It seems to me supporters of control bear some blame for this state of affairs.
Ned Babbey posted at 7:23 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
I love reading the comments on the 'Mormon Tribune'. Chicken Hawk Central.
Tookie88 posted at 10:08 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
OK, so teachers aren't only suppose to be a teacher, a nurse, a psychologist, a mother/father, a friend, a warden, a mediator, etc. Now they are expected to be armed?
As a teacher myself, I have very mixed emotions about this thought process of arming teachers as well as gun control in general. To be honest with you, what I see is a failure of the mental health care (or lack of) and not actually gun control or a complete ban. I think our focus should be better mental health practices. The guns aren't the source of these people's problems who commit these horrible crimes.
Also, as a teacher, I wish parents would listen more to teachers and others who notice things within their child that might serve as warning signs to something major in regards to the student's overall mental health. Teachers see children in a different setting than parents do. Parents (out of love and/or denial) don't always address certain behaviors and do one or more of the following in response to such behaviors:
1. Ignore the problem because of the "not my child" train of thought
2. Rationalize behavior and make accomodations to said behavior, and expect others to do the same
3. Claim others don't "understand" their child or don't like their child for being different
4. Think that the behavior is part of being a boy or girl
I have had students who curse at me and others, who have punched other students right in front of a teacher because they felt they could, have thrown furniture because of a low grade, have lied bold-faced to me even though there were witnesses to the contrary, steal, who think everyone is out to get them (paranoid), will bang their head against a wall or desk, threaten suicide with scissors, and the list goes on. Just for the record, I teach elementary school and I see this type of behavior more often than one might think. Parents, the behaviors noted are not normal and are signs that your child needs professional help. Don't be ashamed, just get them help!
az2008 posted at 10:35 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Tookie, carrying a firearm doesn't change someone from gentle and kind. It's not inconsistent with the roles you enumerated. Also, I don't believe anyone's talking about mandating any (nor all) teachers to carry. I think the idea is to make school employees exempt from the ban on firearms on school (if they attain some level of certification). Then it would be a personal choice, or perhaps something negotiated between the individual and the employer (if school leaders want some level of employees armed.).
I know it sounds odd that we're having this conversation. But, guns aren't going to disappear overnight even if we banned all guns (which isn't going to happen in the next 20 years). The bottom line is that the ban on firearms at school is nothing more than a sign. It's a request. Those intent on violent mayhem won't be dissuaded by a sign. That's the bottom line. If teachers love children as much as they profess, how could they *not* want to defend them when (not if) the simple "no guns allowed" sign proves to be an ignored request?
I agree with you about mental health. Unfortunately, considering all the talk about debt, I doubt we're going to be able to pay for increased social services like this.
Tookie88 posted at 10:39 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
OK...lets just say that teachers are going to carry guns. Who will pay for their training? Who will pay for the guns themselves? Who will pay to have someone check for certification hours?
I think the money used to arm teachers could be put to better use by making sure all schools have a buzzer system before entry to any campus. All playground areas and fields should be completely fenced, not just 3/4 fenced with a 4 foot chain length fence....I am talking 8ft+ cinder block so that it is not easy for passerby's to "watch" the school. Video cameras in the classrooms and the perimeters. Some type of system that automatically closes and locks all doors to a classroom/school building when an alarm button is pushed. A professional security person who is armed, prepared for any situation, and can contact police at a moments notice...none of this dialing "9" to get an outside line business.
Even though I love my fellow teachers, there are some who I wouldn't want to put a gun in their hand. Not to mention (as a poster earlier noted), if you are a tiny person and are overpowered by a larger, stronger student...do you really want to give that disturbed person access to a fire arm?
az2008 posted at 1:11 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Tookie, your ideas may be good about fences, doors which automatically lockdown, etc.
Regarding paid professional security: you raised the question of who would pay the cost of training, firearm acquisition. But, who's gonna pay for the security guard? I think the two cancel each other out.
However, I think the best candidates to defend a school are those who want to. I'd leave it to those individuals to fund themselves as just another professional credential or accomplishment.
And that leads to another thought. These mass shootings end when the lunatic is confronted by resistance. (Consider the recent shooting. He killed himself when he heard the police arrive.). At Columbine, the police relied on their traditional strategy to wait for overhwelming force before entering the building. After that event, departments changed their strategy. They now enter as soon as there are two officers on the scene. They know that the quickest end is confrontation.
This police protocol is one more reason for there to be armed staff, and not a single guard. A guard is a known commodity. S/he can be the first target taken by surprise. Armed employees would be like the old Minuteman missle strategy. (The US moved tarp-covered trailers around the US. Only 1 in 20 had a missle. But, Russia never knew which one.). A lunatic would not know who could offer resistance. Considering their unwillingness to face resistance, these events would likely never occur in the first place.
IMO, that's the reasoning behind allowing employees to be armed. It's not to push an ideology. It's just a recognition of the obvious: signs don't enforce their stated terms. Those who obey signs aren't the ones who are going to commit violent mayhem. And, those who do commit it (in schools at least) have a serious aversion to meeting resistance. (They kill themselves as soon as they do. They don't take hostages. They don't shoot it out. They terminate themselves.).
You Must Be Joking posted at 7:40 am on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Yes, of course! More guns = less violence, just like more food = weight loss!
az2008 posted at 1:23 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
Joking, it's useful to distinguish between the type of violence. After countries like Canada heavily regulate firearms, non-gun violence goes up. Gun violence (including firearm-related homicide) goes down.
It's a matter of personal preference whether it's better to be roughed up without the risk of a gun being used. The statistic tends to demonstrate that the state cannot protect everyone. Therefore, should we be denied the right to *effectively* defend ourselves when society cannot (or will not)? Just because 1% of the population misuses guns?
Tookie88 posted at 4:14 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
@az2008, no disrespect, but I think you watch too many movies. I have no problem with the concept of defending ourselves and our students, but arming teachers is not exactly the right way either. I don't have the answer, I only have ideas...not sure anyone actually has the "right" answers to such a horrifying issue. I just know that being a teacher, I am trained to talk someone down from a cliff, not push them over.