Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWeber County’s training teachers to use guns a bad idea
There are so many things wrong with this approach that it's difficult for me to know where to begin. Strategy, planning, execution and outcome are all flawed.
1. Strategy: "Weber County officials are responding (to how best to protect school kids) by inviting teachers to participate in CWP classes with extra training in how to confront an 'active shooter' in the school."
My response: Two hours of training in handling a gun and responding to a shooter are totally inadequate for the task. I know a person who went through the CWP class and didn't know how to line up the sights on their new pistol. In the state of Utah, an educator only needs the CWP course in order to carry a gun while teaching our kids. They can't "put it in the closet," as Gohmert suggests. They must have it on their person.
http://www.standard.net/stories/2014/04/23/weber-county-s-training-teachers-use-guns-bad-idea
melm00se
(4,973 posts)but trying to instruct teachers in using firearms in a school setting is a disaster waiting to happen.
trained and practiced individuals, in high pressure situations, struggle with accuracy and target discrimination, a lightly trained and unpracticed individual would probably cause more harm than good.
Brown Coat
(40 posts)I even had a few that actively competed in shooting sports when I was in highschool. I wonder if they have tried to recruit people who already have been trained on how to manipulate a firearm.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)After that, the article falls apart pretty quick.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Two hours is woefully inadequate. I would suggest the NRA sequence of Basic Pistol (8 hours), Personal Protection in the Home (8 hours), and Personal Protection Outside the Home I & II (9 hours + 5 hours): 30 hours total.
I'd would gladly give these courses to any teacher at cost, meaning they would pay for the books and their ammo only. Of course, my state would never consider any of this.
The writer is of the opinion that when confronted with an armed shooter, it is more important to have the ability to lock a door than to have the ability to shoot back. The Sandy Hook school doors were locked.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Looking further, the standards proposed are too weak, when they should approach those of LEOs.
I proposed this shortly after Sandy Hook: Feds finance grants-in-aid to schools to be used for hardening school structures, improving access security, and hiring/training more armed personnel for schools -- local districts can decide, no local taxes. We already HAVE 20,000 armed security assigned to <100,000> schools: The generally-accepted precedent has been around with us for a long time, and it sure beats Barbara Boxer's send-in-the-guard! approach.
SQUEE
(1,315 posts)instructors.
We have figured as above at a minimum, 30 hours of instruction, we actually figured a week long, immersive and realistic program, involving active simulation with and without ballistic protection, shoot/no shoot training, and specific weapons familiarity since some weapons will be better suited to these situation obviously.
A determined protector, equipped with a good shoulderable rifle, such as a P90 or an AR in 9mm with frangible rounds, along with hardened classrooms could definitely serve to actively deter a shooter.