Had a thought this morning

[Golddiggie]

While on the thinking (and reading) chair.

What if teachers, all over this country, that obtained their concealed carry license/permit/whatever, and then actually carried in school, were given $10k-$30k MORE salary each year? Plus protected from budget cuts until it was a 'last resort' item... I'm talking about budget cuts for both needed supplies for their courses/classes. Plus have the school system reimburse those that went thru the process for all expenses associated. Including their first carry gun (provided it's not something pathetic, or pink ). Also give these teachers paid time off to go thru active shooter training courses (every year, or at least every other year as a refresher).

I have to wonder how many teachers would still be opposed to carrying a firearm on school grounds with such incentives in place. I'm sure there would be some that would still gnash their teeth and scream to the rafters about gunz in school. But how many would become silent, AND take advantage of the increased salary? I'd even say that in schools where the threat level is higher, to provide a higher salary bonus for those willing to go to school armed to protect the students. Plus, the schools could also be provided at least flak vests for teachers/staff that are armed, so that they're better protected in the even that someone DOES go into their school with evil intent.

Thoughts on this??

 

[Asaltweapon]

I think your number is much too high. I know guys who lead up communications equipment and head up EMS for a couple of fire departments and don’t get that kind of stipend.

 

[Golddiggie]

I was tossing the $$ out there as a number that even libtards (and dumbocrats) would have trouble dismissing. I was originally thinking of up to $10k a year, for those that showed real proficiency with a firearm (via the active shooter courses). But I'm sure there will be some that won't even do it for $30k more a year.

 

[Penniepup1]

The only problem is a lot of teachers would jump on that gravy train and never carry. Only possible solution is make it an option for teachers who wish to do so. Then go forward with them. Most pro gun educators wouldn’t ask for any special bonus. Just my opinion.

 

[ToddDubya]

Schools are bad enough without creating another protected class. The worst teacher in the school could get his/her LTC and get paid more than a lot of seasoned teachers. And how would you make sure the person carried? I'm all for teachers being allowed to carry, I just don't think we should take it any further. Just remove the GFZ and let teachers carry if they want.

Any incentive encourages abuse. The school system in FL was working with police to let law breaking students slide so that everyone's numbers looked good and everyone got more money... safety third.

 

[boiler_eng]

I was tossing the $$ out there as a number that even libtards (and dumbocrats) would have trouble dismissing. I was originally thinking of up to $10k a year, for those that showed real proficiency with a firearm (via the active shooter courses). But I'm sure there will be some that won't even do it for $30k more a year.

I am thinking you would need to have it all worded iron clad in order to prevent any determined group of anti teachers from creating a wall hack to abuse the program. I am thinking a plush Bloomberg funded "active shooter training" covering the latest in hiding and running which they turn an invoice over to the school department for the budget money to be doled out to Bloomberg's advocate slush fund and then they get their nice little bump.

How to do you confirm they are complying?

 

[JohnZ]

Why not? We pay cops for more education, why not pay teachers for more guns?

Plus protected from budget cuts

Yeah. The teachers union would love this.

 

[headednorth]

School shootings benefit the government. Why would they want them stopped? All of their "solutions" further civilian disarmament and do nothing to address the problem. If anything, their policies are making them worse.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Why not take that dough and hire another school cop?

 

[Kevin_NH]

I am thinking you would need to have it all worded iron clad in order to prevent any determined group of anti teachers from creating a wall hack to abuse the program.
. . .
How to do you confirm they are complying?

Spot checks.

If teachers can get away with "underwear inspection" on students, then they shouldn't have any problem with random unannounced "holster inspection" to confirm that teachers accepting the stipend are actually carrying in at least "Condition 3".

Or just require that they show up at the police gun range and qualify just like the cops do.

 

[Golddiggie]

Maybe they could simply have teachers, who did carry, check with the admin to get a 'check' for the day. Or have a date/time stamped image taken of their carry gun on them, with something unique to the school in the image. Something that couldn't be duplicated by the teacher at home, to game the system.

I'm sure there's plenty of logistical problems that would need to be solved. My intent with this idea is more of a way to get teachers to STOP being so F'ing moronic around the thought of other teachers/staff carrying a firearm during school. Yes, there will be plenty of pro-2A teachers that would carry if the restrictions were removed. I have to wonder how many actually DO carry where it's not restricted. Such as those in NH with a P&R and carrying while in school.

BTW, some of those 'seasoned teachers' are actually not worth a damn. Having XX years teaching doesn't make them better than a younger, less senior, teacher. Often, unless they've kept up with the times, and course material, they're actually doing the students a disservice. From what I've heard of the 'ranking' system, that's also full of errors and flaws. For reference, my sister IS a teacher (3rd grade IIRC) and I doubt that she would carry even if it meant she could earn $30k more a year.

 

[Golddiggie]

Spot checks.

If teachers can get away with "underwear inspection" on students, then they shouldn't have any problem with random unannounced "holster inspection" to confirm that teachers accepting the stipend are actually carrying in at least "Condition 3".

Or just require that they show up at the police gun range and qualify just like the cops do.

I would hope they'd be better than what cops have to show. After all, sending dozens of rounds out their guns and hitting NOTHING is not what we're looking for here.

I do like the 'spot inspection' idea. I would even go so far as to have it weekly, or even daily. If you don't have your holster occupied more than three times in a year, your extra pay is revoked. I'd even go so far as to have the violator owe back any additional money they had been given for that year. Make it HURT to violate the agreement.

 

[boiler_eng]

I would hope they'd be better than what cops have to show. After all, sending dozens of rounds out their guns and hitting NOTHING is not what we're looking for here.

I do like the 'spot inspection' idea. I would even go so far as to have it weekly, or even daily. If you don't have your holster occupied more than three times in a year, your extra pay is revoked. I'd even go so far as to have the violator owe back any additional money they had been given for that year. Make it HURT to violate the agreement.

My whole take on it is that no system will work if the people involved (town, school administration, and teachers) have not bought into it. I can see the school administration having soft bias regarding the teachers who choose to carry, and in some cases being complicit in teachers defrauding the system. When it is just a matter of opening up the ability but not subsidizing it then you will get the teachers who will carry because they want to, but then when you start to incentivize it the need to be very deliberate in how the system is constructed starts. Then when you get to the point of pushing a group of people who are mostly against something, to take part it really opens the opportunity for abuse. If they abuse/defraud the system and get the whole thing canned, what do they care cause they hated it in the first place!

Not trying to poo poo your idea, just reflecting on the potential for it to be run off the rails by people of ill intent who are in the system.

 

[Golddiggie]

My whole take on it is that no system will work if the people involved (town, school administration, and teachers) have not bought into it. I can see the school administration having soft bias regarding the teachers who choose to carry, and in some cases being complicit in teachers defrauding the system. When it is just a matter of opening up the ability but not subsidizing it then you will get the teachers who will carry because they want to, but then when you start to incentivize it the need to be very deliberate in how the system is constructed starts. Then when you get to the point of pushing a group of people who are mostly against something, to take part it really opens the opportunity for abuse. If they abuse/defraud the system and get the whole thing canned, what do they care cause they hated it in the first place!

Not trying to poo poo your idea, just reflecting on the potential for it to be run off the rails by people of ill intent who are in the system.

IMO, best case would be to remove the 'gunz free zone' BS for schools. Or, at the very least, make it so that people with CC permits/licenses can carry on school grounds without fear of reprisals. Or being SWAT'd.

Hell, even the 'bonus' was the school paying for the process to get their carry license, carry gun (within reason, no $10k or $200 guns please) as well as provide the funding for the 'active shooter' training, that would be a 'WIN' in my book. Also have it so that anyone who actually called in a complaint against a teacher who was carrying, for carrying, would get suspended, or expelled. Publicly shame any parents that spoke out against the teachers being able to protect themselves AND the students too. There should be real pain for pentalies for repeated offenders too.

I do think the idea of having body armor vests for teachers, in each classroom, is a good one. How many teachers would rush an armed nutjob if they had body armor on?

 

[greencobra]

be like having some teachers in a second union, wouldn't it. and then those teachers who are armed would be mercenaries. spend the money on at least putting secure, unbreachable doors on every classroom. get rid of the plywood crap. they have kids hiding behind a cheap ass door and a couple of cardboard boxes. how about locking the doors so strangers wanting to enter the building need to be buzzed in. and better security cameras to see if a visitor is toting a duffel bag with them or some kind of suspicious baggage. there's no need for people who have no business at schools to be able to enter at will. anyone who needs to enter should make an appointment or if a parent has to pick up a child, the name should be on a list of who's expected to pick up that child.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Hers is how it should work. Schools are no longer GFZ. if you can carry, carry. Done.

 

[Golddiggie]

Why not full body scanners at every entry way too (scan EVERYONE)? See if they have any weapons on them before they get into the school. Just just a suspicious bag tossing an alert. Have a double, or triple, secure door set at each entryway. Plus make sure any 'fire exists' are kept locked/secured. It's been commented out how some schools have doors propped open so that kids/teachers can go out to smoke during school. Stop that shit right away.

But, how much $$ would it take to obtain these scanners, plus have staff on hand to run them each day? I don't know what the training cost would be for 'active shooter' scenarios, but I don't think the expense to arm potentially 25% of the teachers in each school would come out to what it would cost to purchase the scanners and man them each year. Especially when after the first year, you just have the periodic training costs. Where with scanners, you'll have the cost of keeping the operators on hand each and every school day, for years. Even if the training is $2k per person, for those that go, it would take a LOT of teachers going thru that to match the operators cost. IMO, it would also cost less than having additional armed security (worth a damn) on school grounds. Don't get me wrong, I think we still need to have dedicated armed security on school grounds, and in numbers that can actually respond within moments of something starting. But I see armed teachers as either backup for those people, or to hold off an attacker until those people can arrive. IF that had been in place at least in FL, how many lives could have been saved?? To take a page out of the grabbers book... If only ONE live had been saved, it would have been worth it!

 

[JJ4]

Why not? We pay cops for more education, why not pay teachers for more guns?

Not only that, but cops get all sorts of extra stipends for "extra" stuff that should be part of their core job.
Teachers can get extra stipends for being a coach or running an after-school activity - you know, extra stuff.

Make it $2000/year for maintaining current training, plus free training, and you'd see a good number jump on this.

They all go the the active shooter training: "Run, Hide, Fight". Wait what? Fight? With what? Throw erasers? Isn't there a better tool?


Just remove the GFZ is the best solution. But the above would be a proactive "doing something".

 

[snd1t]

Spot checks.

If teachers can get away with "underwear inspection" on students, then they shouldn't have any problem with random unannounced "holster inspection" to confirm that teachers accepting the stipend are actually carrying in at least "Condition 3".

Or just require that they show up at the police gun range and qualify just like the cops do.

Do you REALLY want teachers to be on the same "training regimen" as popo?

 

[Golddiggie]

Not only that, but cops get all sorts of extra stipends for "extra" stuff that should be part of their core job.
Teachers can get extra stipends for being a coach or running an after-school activity - you know, extra stuff.

Make it $2000/year for maintaining current training, plus free training, and you'd see a good number jump on this.

They all go the the active shooter training: "Run, Hide, Fight". Wait what? Fight? With what? Throw erasers? Isn't there a better tool?

Just remove the GFZ is the best solution. But the above would be a proactive "doing something".

In the past, I'm sure there would be plenty of chemistry teachers that could make something very effective out of what was on hand. How much of those items are now under lock and key and only released by administration these days?

Do you REALLY want teachers to be on the same "training regimen" as popo?

I want them to have MUCH BETTER training than the popo...

I'm 1000% behind removing the GFZ across the country. At the very least for schools of all kinds. In fact, I don't think any schools should be allowed to make the grounds 'gun free zones' at all. How many people on the GI Bill, who are of the age where they can own firearms, and carry, are going to schools and have to leave themselves vulnerable??

Maybe have a bonus paid out for any teacher (or group of teachers) that actually act and stop a shooter from doing any harm. Give the same bonus to anyone on the school staff. If a student in key in that person being stopped, give them (or their parents) money as well. Make it a decent amount too.

 

[Individualist]

I would prefer to have teachers carry who just want to protect their lives and the lives of their students -not teachers doing so because they will get more pay and preferential treatment. We don’t need rent-a-cop teachers, or rent-a-cop security who are in it for any other made-up reasons.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Yeahno, OP. LOL. Training. Gun. $10-30K more. Sounds like a colossal amount of $ for a no-gain. Or minimal gain.

Teacher: "Yeah, I go through those courses because they make me, but I don't carry my gun. It's stewwwwpitd. What are they gonna do? Spot-check me??? I'm in it for the money, honey!"

Just like concealed carry in the rest of America, it shouldn't be a REQUIREMENT. It should give badgaiyz pause to do harm in Location X versus Location Y.

 

[Golddiggie]

I still have to wonder how many liberalz/dumbocrats would actually be OK with the idea if they would gain financially from it. I know that any real pro-2A people will not really want the extra $$ for being able to carry there (without issue). But how much of a battle would it be to actually remove the GFZs?? How many students, and teachers, have to DIE before they stop that insanity??

 

[DispositionMatrix]

Thoughts on this??

You should have flushed with extreme prejudice after having that thought.

No one should want people who don't want to carry carrying. We already have plenty of menaces to safety among LEOs--municipal workers who carry guns because they are required to do so. Once a teacher clearly gaming the system were to do something irresponsible with a firearm, that would be used as a pretext for doubling down on disallowing carry for teachers who might want to carry. In fact, someone probably would try to sabotage the entire effort right out of the gate.

As someone who opposes gun laws, I'd be content with letting those who want to carry concealed on-body do so as they see fit. Blood has not run in the streets at schools elsewhere where teachers have been allowed to carry.

And for the benefit of the thread I'll throw out the obvious point allowing teachers to carry concealed is not equivalent to arming teachers to respond to threats.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I still have to wonder how many liberalz/dumbocrats would actually be OK with the idea if they would gain financially from it. I know that any real pro-2A people will not really want the extra $$ for being able to carry there (without issue). But how much of a battle would it be to actually remove the GFZs?? How many students, and teachers, have to DIE before they stop that insanity??

Safety is not nor ever has been the goal.

 

[Golddiggie]

You should have flushed with extreme prejudice after having that thought.

No one should want people who don't want to carry carrying. We already have plenty of menaces to safety among LEOs--municipal workers who carry guns because they are required to do so. Once a teacher clearly gaming the system were to do something irresponsible with a firearm, that would be used as a pretext for doubling down on disallowing carry for teachers who might want to carry. In fact, someone probably would try to sabotage the entire effort right out of the gate.

As someone who opposes gun laws, I'd be content with letting those who want to carry concealed on-body do so as they see fit. Blood has not run in the streets at schools elsewhere where teachers have been allowed to carry.

And for the benefit of the thread I'll throw out the obvious point allowing teachers to carry concealed is not equivalent to arming teachers to respond to threats.

Oh I did flush... It wasn't a multi-flush event though.

So a stipulation for those who take the additional $$ would be that they're required to respond to any active shooter inside the school.

 

[Golddiggie]

Safety is not nor ever has been the goal.

Yeah, WE know that's not their goal. Indoctrination via the education system to turn kids into libtards.

In a way, I'm kind of glad I don't have kids of my own in this day and age. Well, at least none that I KNOW about.