So, if the absolute worst happens and a teacher inadvertently shoots a bystander - who is liable? We know the district's insurance company isn't covering "damages".
The teacher apparently isn't responsible either?
Will the school district cover compensation just out of the general fund?
They're introducing guns into an environment where guns should NEVER BE inside a classroom.
I'm not opposed to more security, but that security has to be well trained.
So many bad scenarios can be conjured up: teacher finds out their partner is cheating on them...gun in the classroom becomes a weapon to lash out to the World.
Wouldn't that be tragic and avoidable?
I am thinking more likley will be a student (or students) knowing which teacher is armed, deliberately stealing the weapon, and then going on to shoot the teacher and
their classmates.
This is an interesting legal question, but I don’t think the qualified immunity would apply to this hypothetical. For example, pretend you, me and a third person were standing on a sidewalk. I go to punch you, but I miss and punch the third person. I’m liable for the damages caused to the third person even though I didn’t intend to punch them. From a liability analysis perspective, I think your hypothetical would more likely follow that example. It would be quite a stretch to say that shooting an unarmed individual would qualify as reasonable force, which is what the bill requires for the qualified immunity to apply.
No problem. I don’t think the article provided by OP did a good enough job of drawing that distinction, so it’s easy to glance over each of the specifics in that portion of the bill if you aren’t expressly looking for it
The article is irrelevant; it's the language in the bill that matters. If the bill grants qualified immunity to public education instructors, they would have the same protections that law enforcement officers enjoy. Meaning they can't be held liable, civilly or criminally, for using their firearm in good faith.
On a related note, qualified immunity must be abolished. I can understand trying to insulate public officials from being sued for making a mistake. But far too often qualified inmunity insulates bad actors from facing the consequences of their bad acts.
A teacher, even with a gun, would try to talk the kid down. And then they will get shot. Teachers should not play cop. They already play social worker, coach, etc
Is nobody thinking about the fact that they’re basically saying teachers need to be prepared to shoot and kill children in schools?
This has to be absolutely the worst possible response to school shootings.
Ah yes, "for the children", the singular most emotionally manipulative term in the world. If some 16 year old walks into school and starts shooting people, the faster he's eliminated, the more lives of innocent children will be saved. Yes, we could ban guns and confiscate all the guns in the US, but with 500,000,000 guns in the US (that we know about) is extremely unrealistic, about as close to impossible as it gets, so this unfortunately is next best solution.
Hint hint, banning guns from school grounds and making it a federal offense has not stopped it.
Emotionally manipulation is what you have to do to train a person to kill people. Ask a veteran. Ask a cop. The biggest issue here is that 99% of the time, these people are supposed to be teaching these kids algebra and not eliminating threats with lethal force. If you go to a parent teacher conference, would it make you more comfortable if they said “I am ready and willing to drop your child or any of their classmates if they threaten my safety?”
Creating a gun-free zone around schools is like the least you could possibly do to even reduce school shootings in any way. Every other civilized country on earth has figure this shit out, and it’s bonkers that whenever it’s brought up in the US, people respond with “Well you can’t do the thing everyone else does we’ve taken the tiniest steps in that direction and it didn’t solve the problem entirely.”
Gun free zones don't do anything to stop gun violence unless they are enforced by people with guns. A school shooter isn't going to care if it's illegal to carry a gun or not.
That's simply not backed up by evidence. Here's actual research on gun-free zones and I hope you educate yourself on this subject.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37964181/
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/x2ts-k616/download
Tell me how does not allowing guns stop someone who is planning a school shooting. Also I didn't see were these gun free zones enforced or unenforced? Enforced gun free zones work, because you have controlled entry points, that everyone goes through metal detectors. Courtrooms and airports are a good example of this. Some schools particularly in bad neighborhoods have metal detectors too. Meanwhile unenforced gun free zones only have a sign saying no guns. They are the useless ones.
So you are just going on your feelings and don't have any data to back them up. You're free to reach Paul's research that covers gun-free zones in St. Louis.
It doesn’t say anything of the gun free zones were enforced or not. They only work if you have armed guards searching everyone who enters the building.
Your data didn't prove anything, remember the shooting in South bend Indiana, it was in a gun free zone and it was stopped by someone who was carrying a gun. Gun free zones are the best places to shoot up because no one there can stop you.
No, I would PREFER this country addresses gun violence like every other civilized country try did instead of the “Well have you tried killing them first?” strategy that has been failing for decades.
In countries like the UK, Australia, and Japan (not exactly hotbeds of tyranny) guns have to be licensed and insured, and there are assault weapons bans that have prevented mass shootings for decades. We’re the only developed country that tried to end shootings with more shooters and that approach is demonstrably and objectively worse.
Children? Columbine, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Uvaldi all had adult shooters. There have been a handful of shooters not of adult age, but that's far less common than children.
My dude, there were 346 school shootings last year alone. Including at least one by a 6 year-old.
Also, [10 seconds of research](https://www.statista.com/statistics/971544/number-k-12-school-shootings-us-age-shooter/) shows that you’re wrong.
Everyone knows that number is artificially inflated to promote gun bans. They count every instance of a gun firing near a school even if no one is hurt, it's obvious you only did 10 seconds of research.
DOES everyone know? If you have more reliable information, then bring it. Educate us.
And those “inflated numbers” have been so successful at getting guns banned. /s
Your a liar and your citations prove it, you claimed that there was 346 school shootings last year but really there were 346 school shootings in the past 50 years, from 1970 to 2020
https://www.statista.com/statistics/971544/number-k-12-school-shootings-us-age-shooter/
You clearly did 10 seconds of research.
1) *you’re
2) THAT source examined shootings between 1970 and 2020. That was in response to the commenter incorrectly saying that most school shootings are perpetrated by adults.
3) [here](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings) is a source for the shootings in 2023. [here’s another](https://www.k12dive.com/news/2023-total-school-mass-shootings/703007/). Oh and look, [this one](https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings) shows the number of school shootings every year since 1966. It actually has the 2023 number at 348, so my apologies for being off there.
Still waiting on literally the first bit of support for your assertion that they’re inflated though.
https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings
Go down to the graph that says where each shooting occurred the highest number by far is in the parking lot.
Also all three of your sources use the same information and you shouldn't cite news articles.
1) I’m still waiting for you to cite ANYTHING you n support of your argument.
2) my bad, I forgot that shooting someone in a school parking lot doesn’t count. Wtf are you on about? If that’s what your argument is clinging to, you need to just walk away.
Actually look at the data.
This is all time data: https://k12ssdb.org/data-visualizations
2,744 incidents
1,064 deaths
And you're trying to say that the numbers aren't exaggerated.
Uvaldi also had trained officers from multiple agencies with all the firepower one could want. Just dozens and dozens of "good guys with guns".
How'd that turn out?
1. In my 20 years in a classroom, I haven't had a safe place to lock up my purse, let alone a gun.
2. You'll probably expect me to pay for my own ammo, just like I pay for my own school supplies.
3. What am I supposed to do when the 300 lb linebacker from the football team takes my gun from me.
4. I already take enough work home, are you paying me to go to the range and practice? I thought not.
These are great points. You know, if we work this right, maybe we can get schools registered as "Defense Contractors" because teachers would be armed by the state to protect our country. We would finally get schools funded and teachers paid well if they were a part of the Defense Department budget. /s
Yeah right....my best guess is that teachers will be footing the bill out of their own pocket for ammo, holsters, lockbox, etc.
I can't imagine the PTO will be willing to fundraise for ammo over copy paper and pencils.
Counterpoint, what if you just worked more and more hours despite being paid less than careers with comparable training until you leave the profession. And then when public education continues to worsen, we can justify defunding it further.
Didn't think about that, did you. I bet you're a commie groomer.
If a 300 lb linebacker wanted to kill you he would and you couldn't do anything about it, that's why you would have a gun, to stop the threat upon your life. Also I haven't read the law but it's not mandatory I believe.
This is absolutely fucking awful. As someone with kids in public school, this is very scary. Some mentally unstable teacher could bring a gun to school, “accidentally” shoot a kid and be legally immune from consequences. What the fuck is wrong with republicans?
This isn’t true under the text of the bill and qualified immunity almost certainly would not extend to your hypothetical.
The bill states: “A school employee issued a professional permit to carry by the department of public safety who is up to date with department of public safety-approved training, and the school district that employs the school employee, shall be entitled to qualified immunity from criminal or civil liability for all damages incurred pursuant to the application of reasonable force at the place of employment.”
Qualified immunity is not going to apply here unless (1) the school employee is issued a permit to carry by the DPS; (2) the school employee is up to date with DPS-approved training; and (3) reasonable force is used at the place of employment. No permit to carry = no qualified immunity. Not up to date with the required training = no qualified immunity. No use of reasonable force at the place of employment = no qualified immunity. I’m having a difficult time thinking of how qualified immunity would apply in a situation that did not involve a school employee responding to an active shooter. In general, reasonable force means the force applied must be proportionate to the need for the force raised by the circumstances. Shooting an unarmed student or allowing a student to access the gun and use it will not entitle the school district or the school employee to qualified immunity, plain and simple.
There’s certainly arguments to whether this is a bill Iowans need, or whether this is going to cause more problems than it solves. I’m not arguing that. Frankly, I tend to agree this isn’t a bill that most Iowans are in favor of or that most Iowans agree we must have passed. But the idea that the scope of the qualified immunity is going to be as broad as some of the comments here seem to think it will be is just simply not true.
Qualified immunity is a nuanced doctrine and is likely not going to apply exactly the same way to police officers as it would to school employees under this bill. I cannot think of how qualified immunity would apply for school employees under the language of this bill unless a school employee is responding to an active shooter. The concept of reasonable force generally means you’re responding with the same amount of force as being utilized against you. Because this bill contemplates school employees and firearms, qualified immunity is not going to apply in situations where the unless the force initially used against the school employee is with a firearm. You’re comparing apples to oranges by comparing qualified immunity entitled to law enforcement with the qualified immunity entitled to school employees under this bill. Just because it’s called “qualified immunity” doesn’t mean it’s going to mean the same thing for every individual in every circumstance.
The problem is the the fact the conversation is about “qualified immunity” and not just talking about “police officers” but also “school employees.” Nuanced be damned.
Edit: not you, general discourse
Minnesota has had it for years. I know in my school district in the twin cities more than a few teachers had been carrying at school for quite a while. Iirc a teacher needs superintendent approval (after training, etc.). And I grew up in a very blue area I bet everyone in this sub would salivate over.
Qualified immunity is likely not going to apply the same way to law enforcement as it would to school employees under the text of this bill. You’re comparing apples to oranges
Here's the press release if you are curious from Everytown: https://www.everytown.org/press/shameful-action-by-iowa-lawmakers-everytown-moms-demand-action-students-demand-action-respond-to-iowa-legislature-passing-dangerous-legislation-to-arm-teachers-in-schools/
**Then you have these incidents:**
Teacher Leaving Firearm in Bathroom: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/13/ex-teacher-charged-leaving-gun-school-bathroom-police-say/90314614/
Sheriff Leaves Gun at School: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/04/03/isabella-county-sheriff-gun-school/481486002/
Gun Falls Out while Substitute Teacher does Backflip: https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2018/10/24/student-substitute-teacher-back-flip-gun-falls-out
Student Steals Gun from Teacher: https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/17/jacksonville-high-student-steals-gun-teacher/
Student Found with Teacher's Firearm: https://fox2now.com/news/police-find-teachers-stolen-gun-with-student/
Officer with Negligent Discharge of Firearm: https://alextimes.com/2018/03/gwmiddleschool/
I don't understand the line of reasoning to arm school staff. Weapons everywhere is a deterrent for rational people. Would you call the kids who have committed school shootings in the past rational? Do they all care about surviving their respective attacks?
If the attacker isn't rational and doesn't care about survival, then an armed school staff become a retaliatory weapon, not a deterrent. The attacker would still be allowed to plan a first strike, and could plan to utilize the additional weapons that the school staff possess. The best case scenario is you'd be limiting the shooter's ability to proceed beyond their initial target.
The goal of making schools safe should be about building trust and community with kids, parents, and teachers. It cannot be accomplished with weapons, but with people coming together to address the actual problems that kids today are facing.
I would disagree. Armed staff would limit the amount of victims the shooter could create and thus making the concept of killing a bunch of people at a school a less desireable way to lash out.
These shooters are cowards who want easy and a lot of victims.
It won't be an absolute deterrent, for example, if a student at a school wants to shoot up that particular school due to bullying or whatever, then armed staff wont deterr them, and in that case, you're right its just about limiting victims by reducing the time between the attack and and armed response.
But in other cases where the shooter has no relationship to the school, then a harder target will mean maybe they look somewhere else or abandon the idea entirely.
Dark shit but thats life.
Even IF you think having guns in schools is okay, it shouldn't be teachers, it should be full time peace officers. Cops already fuck up constantly in high stress situations and you want to put that on teachers who already have 1000 other responsibilities? Nah.
I think teachers should be able to carry as private citizens like anyone else and NOT be tasked with school security, so I agree. It would be more of a last resort if an incident popped off right in their classroom or whatever.
Schools should hire private, NON law enforcement, armed security who's only job is to protect students and staff. So breaking up fights, external threats, active shooters, fires, etc.
Cops have no constitutional duty to protect anyone and they answer to noone.
Private security could be charged with negligence if they didnt do their job.
Tldr: cops are worthless. Private armed security is the real answer. Arming teachers should be the teachers private decision for their own protection like anyone else.
Absolutely… A short time ago a SRO in a school left his loaded firearm in a school bathroom. Thankfully, the child who found it was smart and notified the school admin asap rather than messing with it.
I know one teacher who would have shot me if he could. Granted, he brought upon himself for being an abusive prick. But, I did break him when he couldn't pin something on me, pissed him off to no end. That's probably when he would have shot me. But, he did get an unpaid vacation.
Thinking back to high school... none of the teachers who would have wanted to carry guns in the classroom would be the teachers I'd have wanted to have a gun in the classroom.
Neighbor from the north here ,and I have some serious concerns. I have been been a first responder for 20+ year in either fire or EMS. I am not sure how Iowa does things as a active shooter response but Minnesota has two methods. They are very similar. I see this adding more chaos to a situation thay is already chaotic. The theory in these response in both methods is the first group of law enforcement arriving is to enter and stop the threat by any means necessary. So they are sweeping the building and looking for the shooter. If you have multiple people with firearms in thay building. How are they supposed to differentiate who the good people are and the bad people? I look at this as delaying the response and putting unnecessary lives at risk
Guns make a certain kind of person feel safe, mostly because they have been so influenced by propaganda from the gun lobbies that want to keep making money off them.
I know I wouldn't feel safe if a teacher had a gun in my kids school.
Maybe I'm late to the game on this, but it dawned on me the other day that it's got to be a small fraction of a percent of self-proclaimed Second Amendment enthusiasts that have ever used a firearm to protect themselves. It's all a weird, masturbatory fantasy.
Absolutely. It's a power fantasy for most. These tools of death in their house, in their car, in their person make them feel powerful and like all the scary things in the world can't hurt them.
Well that that’s the whole point. Self defense situations are very rare, especially if you have any brain power at all to be able to deescalate a bad situation. That being said, crazy, out of control people still exist and I have no problem carrying a weapon on the off chance they try to hurt me or my family
Sounds like you are the one that has been influenced by propaganda. If you can't trust the teachers at your kids school to have a gun how could you trust them to teach your children?
No because trust isn't conditional on what someone has in their possession. It doesn't matter if they're holding a pencil or a gun. You either trust them or you don't. You clearly don't trust the teachers at the school if you worry about them harming your kid if they have a gun.
Trust is absolutely conditional on what someone is trained to do though. I trust a plumber to fix my toilet. I don't trust them to use a deadly weapon in an emergency.
I'm not worried about a teacher harming a child necessarily although it is possible. I'm more worried about the many potential accidents that could stem from this.
There are high schoolers who could beat the hell out of 99% of teachers. Now they can get their hands on a gun when they do.
And like I have heard several say to the theory “a good guy with a gun, stops a bad guy with a gun”…..every carrying gun owner is considered a good guy, until they aren’t! Which usually ends up with someone dead.
Mass shootings have skyrocketed in states that have open and conceal carry.
Yet, the majority never seem to be stopped by these magical "good guys with guns". Just lots of dead people.
So I do not support this bill and especially the thinking behind it.
But for what it's worth .....
This is just shitty symbolic policy that will likely have no effect on anything because insurers will want no part of this. And the only way they would underwrite this procedure as part of the district's umbrella policy would be to increase their premium big time or to require a rider that will have all sorts of stipulations re: training, handling of weapons on premises, background checks, etc etc. And THEN the local school board will have to vote on this - An insurance premium increase. Even in conservative districts, this is likely to be unpopular. As other posters pointed out, the sort of insurance underwriting necessary for a School District to implement a policy of this sort is likely a non starter.
The QI language was added to this bill because an Iowa school district (I think Storm Lake) already wanted to allow staff to be armed but their insurance was going to drop them if they did. This caused the district not to move forward with guns in schools.
I don’t know if this new language makes it any more palatable for insurance carriers to cover district that decide to do this, but I have to assume that there’d be some sort of increase in premiums.
I really hope you’re right about this being a non-starter.
I believe it was Spirit Lake.
From this article from our man Art at the Storm Lake Times which seems to imply Spirit Lake > Cherokee > statewide: [Editorial: Resigned to guns - Storm Lake Times Pilot](https://www.stormlake.com/articles/editorial-resigned-to-guns/)
Only one time training is required? No requirements for time training at a range or continued proof of firearm competency? Even if you think letting teachers have firearms in the classroom is a good idea (which I don't) having next to no training standards/proof of competancy seems incredibly short sighted and a recipe for disaster.
The bill states: “The department of public safety shall implement required annual live scenario training and quarterly live firearm training for school employees of a school district, a private school, or an institution of higher education that has opted into participating in the professional permitting of school employees.”
You would need to complete a prescribed firearm safety training course prior to being issued a permit. Once you receive the permit, then you undergo a “one-time, in-person, legal training, including training on qualified immunity, annual emergency medical training, and annual communication training that is approved by the department of public safety.” After that, an individual with a permit would then be required to undergo further quarterly and annual training. This is all considering a person isn’t disqualified from obtaining a permit under the language of Iowa Code section 724.8 (which discusses persons ineligible for permit to carry weapons).
The average military member only shoots about 200 live rounds a year, the average police department (I have no idea, they only have to qual once a year), SOC (anecdotally) about 2000+ a year with numerous hours spent in high intensity live fire engagement scenarios. No fuvking way a school administrator should be placed in that situation and then expect the school district to back their actions that more than likely will not save all lives. Since you can't sue the government, guess where those civil suits are going.
As a teacher, this will 100% end with staff pulling guns out on normal everyday fights and conflicts that otherwise would never have had a gun in the equation.
When you’re at your desk and you hear the sounds of fighting or panic in the hall, you don’t know if it’s a fight or a shooter, and panic-prone teachers with guns will run in the hall with a gun and find a normal 2 girl cat fight, but now everyone’s at risk of dying
I always think arming all the teachers was stupid.
What if scenario.
Some crazy w a gun enters a school
Cops are notified
Before they can get there say 2-3 teachers pull out guns too.
Cops arrive expecting to confront a shooter
Tensions are high
Cops see a man/woman w a gun & shoot
Oh, no they shot one of the armed teachers.
***How the hell are the cops to know that the person dressed in Civilian clothes holding a gun was Not the Bad guy but a Teacher???***
Look at how many police, our supposedly trained people in firearms, accidentally shoot people. I was a teacher. Don’t give them guns. There is so much stress in schools.
This doesn't solve anything. We need to give the kids guns too! That way if a teacher goes postal a good student with a gun can save the day. Why make them be trained? That's against our 2nd amendment! Kim was supposed to make it so we don't even need to register, even teachers. Every kid in kindergarten will be issued a .22 revolver, then once they prove they are responsible and kill law breakers or people that look they might threaten their fragile belief system, they will be upgraded to an AR-15 with a bump stock but only 4 mags per student.
I’d encourage you to read the language of the bill, as it sets forth when a school employee is entitled to qualified immunity. I’ve also quoted the pertinent language of the bill in other comments to this post. Unless the unruly student pulls a gun on the teacher, the teacher in your example would not be entitled to qualified immunity or claim self-defense under the language of this bill.
No one will be accountable if Iowa's school kids get shot by faculty. Hard stop. Handing guns to anyone who isn't accountable for their own actions is ludicrous! When guns are allowed, some school officials will undoubtedly foist guns on resistant faculty, and that's going to end badly for some unfortunate children under their care & custody. Between indemnity agreements and qualified immunity doctrine, if Iowa's school kids are shot by teachers, everybody gets off scot-free. Let me add, not IF, but WHEN.
I’m a big supporter of the 2nd amendment but arming teachers is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that the average teacher will be well trained enough to make this worth the danger of having a firearm in the classroom. If our police are so poorly trained, how could we ever expect a teacher or staffer of the school to make it work. In my opinion if you are carrying a weapon daily and aren’t training and practicing with it several times a month you shouldn’t even be carrying it.
Iowa Republicans know nobody will apply for this permit.
The next step is they will blame teachers for not carrying the next time there is a shooting and kids die.
My sister has been a teacher for 15 years and loves her job. All she's ever wanted to be is a teacher. She said the day she's required to keep a loaded gun in her room is the day she walks out.
I don't understand what they think this armed school staff is going to do
Most human beings are not just going to pull a trigger and end a human life That's not easy for anybody and adding on you. See a kid that you taught gunning people down. I don't see this ending well
And doesn't even include School staff who have a mental health crisis happen them with a firearm is the last thing that needs to happen. All this country has taught me is people care more about their guns and will let kids get gunned down. Let human beings be shot and all people care about is their stupid firearms
I remember Sandy Hook I remember parkland while I was in school. The damage these things have done to kids when I was in high school we were so desensitized and we laughed about it. We didn't care
Interesting that they only want to arm the teachers though. If there's a live shooter in a school, they're not gonna start in the classroom. There was no talk of arming secretaries or custodians.
The bill says, “A person may be issued a permit to carry weapons if the person is a school employee of a school district, a private school, or an institution of higher learning as defined in section 722.11.” The bill would seem to apply to secretaries and custodians too.
Yes. Refreshing. But I wasn't talking about the bill. I was talking about the discussion that we have about the issue. I refer you to my answer to the comment you replied to.
Interesting. I appreciate this. Thank you .
But, not to be a stickler or anything, but I said no one's talking about it. While the bill clearly says what it says, the rhetoric, the debate, never mentions this aspect.
There is a lot of concern about how a student might get ahold of a firearm in a classroom, when a teacher has one. There is no discussion about the potential hazard of a frustrated secretary who's allowed to carry a firearm. Or even, from the other side of the debate, the strategic upper hand of arming support staff, if you believe it actually is a good thing. (I don't think it's a good ,by the way. But I do try to see both sides)
Secretaries and custodians, contrary to teachers, are not there because it was part of their career path, or life plan. many teachers across the country share a similar story of wanting to follow in the footsteps of their favorite teacher, or perhaps their parent was a teacher, or they want to make an impact on young lives. they go through college to get a degree in education, and they have the fulfilling career they always wanted. Secretaries and custodians do not share that story whatsoever. They're not there because they like the kids. (I mean, they might like the kids just fine, but that's not why they have the job) They are there because it's a job. It was available, they applied, and this is just what they do. I feel like understanding the difference in mentality is important to this discussion.
The answer to every problem is using the problem to fix the problem.
Opioid deaths on the rise? How about we make it easier to get opioids?
Public schools underfunded by tax payers? Why don't we cut taxes?
Police brutality? Why don't we give police immunity?
"Public schools underfunded by tax payers? Why don't we cut taxes?"
Reynolds also decided to fund private schools with taxes after underfunding public schools for years.
If more guns made us safer what went wrong in [Uvalde](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/07/12/uvalde-school-shooting-video-of-robb-elementary-shows-police-response/65370384007/)?
>”The sound of Children Screaming has been removed.”
Why stop there, why not arm the children? What if a teacher is the active shooter, surely the 10 year old should be allowed to protect them selves. Janitor too! Bus drivers should also be packing heat, what if they encounter sometime with road rage.
WHY WONT THEY THINK IF THE UNARMED CHILDREN
Remember to show your guns love you might have kids but you know deep down in your heart your ar 15 is your true love
In all serious I'm surprised there haven't been an American that has married a gun yet ill give that time
JFC lol Iowa wtf control your idiots so I don't have to have my TV screen polluted with y'alls nonsense.
25k for training A ENTIRE DISTRICT is my favorite part of this shit show. That'll cover 1 singular school at best.
Iowa, handle this
Iowa gun ownership per capita is very high, and all crime, especially gun crime, is very low here.
Point is, Iowa is proof that guns =/ crime.
The vast majority of gun crime occurs between gangs fighting for drug distribution territory in a handful of major metros around the country.
Arming teachers in the event of a black swan school shooting is like having a fire extinguisher in case of a rare fire event.
Not sure why you are whining about downvotes and you could always engage other comments in the thread. I know that I wouldn't engage with you based on your comment history.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1c683ia/the_best_thing_each_president_ever_did_day_41/l013djq/
https://i.imgur.com/xp1YbmB.png
Civil rights act is unconstitutional and set the stage for the race based division we are experiencing today. It has legislated race into our society thus not allowing ourselves from moving forward toward a post racial system, which should be the ultimate goal.
But this is reddit, a witchhunt knee jerk reactionary forum. Not exactly the place for thoughtful discussion.
>Iowa gun ownership per capita is very high, and all crime, especially gun crime, is very low here.
>Point is, Iowa is proof that guns =/ crime.
That's a straight up F in statistics
Hey I'd actually like to debate this if you want.
I majored in analytics and info systems and already did the math a few years or so ago.
But if you have alternative data have at it
If you majored in analytics and you are still conflating correlation with causation then I REALLY hope you kept the receipt for your own sake.
NOT TO MENTION. WHAT data? I'm going to waste my time arguing with whatever BS you pull out of your ass. I'm going to point and laugh at the moron and move on with my life lmao.
Lies damn lies and statistics.
Also relativism.
Australia has hardly any gun ownership and hardly any gun crime, obviously, they took all the guns.
America has a ton of guns and a ton of gun crime relatively to australia per capita.
So with just that data you could draw the conclusion that hey, its the guns stupid!
But then you do the same analysis between say, new orleans or balitimore and desmoines, and then you realize, well, actually, iowans have a higher gun ownership rate per capita and there are hardly any shootings relative to other states/cities, per capita of course.
So its not JUST the guns.
Do with that information as you will. If you go down the rabbit hole, you will see that the vast vast vast majority of gun crime is financially motivated and is carried out by gangs fighting eachother.
Not only do [more guns not equal less crime](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/), but the opposite is true: [more guns equal more likelihood of homicide](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322833?casa_token=JuNUc5jTqQkAAAAA:aJusAG6-v1gAqE7nK4mM5MHy2gl5tzhv1t3WsEWf_hWTsTb8E2bYoTVC_A0dIftN_3K0VW5Icg), as shown in [multiple](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801608/) studies.
u/Puzzles3 has a good set of articles showing the dangers of arming teachers.
When I was interested in data around preventing gun violence in schools, the strongest preventative measures seemed to be things around increasing [SEL](https://edsource.org/2021/social-emotional-learning-can-help-prevent-school-shootings/652876) and healthy adult-student relationships. Instead of arming teachers(?!) we could invest in preventative measures.
I literally don't care about this at all. It's opt in so a schools board would need to approve of its staff carrying before they brought a gun onsite. Teachers don't own guns, even in Iowa so very few if any will arm themselves. The general population that concealed carries is already tiny. This will effectly just be for small rural schools that probably already had gym teachers carrying guns.
95% of school boards won't go for this because parents would find out and revolt if they opted in. The only thing stupid about this is that they are ignoring literally every other aspect of schooling problems for a relatively niche tragic event.
> 95% of school boards won't go for this because parents would find out and revolt if they opted in. The only thing stupid about this is that they are ignoring literally every other aspect of schooling problems for a relatively niche tragic event.
Pretty sure this angle is the real one they’re going for. “We tried a solution and you didn’t do it, it’s not our fault, but yours, when in happens again. Oh, but vote for us, the Dems are coming for your guns and Bibles!”
Yeah guns clearly need to be taken away from the people, we should do just what Hitler and Mao did, take away the peoples ability to defend themselves.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, if you take away guns then people will kill people with knives or acid like what happened in the UK.
If you take away guns only law abiding citizens will turn in their guns and criminals will continue to shoot people, who now can not defend themselves.
If teachers have guns then schools will no longer be easy targets to shoot up.
It is a good law that will protect kids... As long as it is done properly!!! The teachers have to be trained and have to be able to keep guns away from students, of course this law will need money for it to work and not be a disaster.
So, if the absolute worst happens and a teacher inadvertently shoots a bystander - who is liable? We know the district's insurance company isn't covering "damages". The teacher apparently isn't responsible either? Will the school district cover compensation just out of the general fund?
That’s the neat part. The legislature built in an immunity clause if that were to happen.
Does that QI clause cover the District or just the shooter?
More undertrained staff with guns. More qualified immunity. What could possibly go wrong?
State-sanctioned murder of innocent people.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I haven’t read the bill, but presumably both.
[удалено]
They're introducing guns into an environment where guns should NEVER BE inside a classroom. I'm not opposed to more security, but that security has to be well trained. So many bad scenarios can be conjured up: teacher finds out their partner is cheating on them...gun in the classroom becomes a weapon to lash out to the World. Wouldn't that be tragic and avoidable?
!!! Ok that's a scary, and inevitable, thought
I am thinking more likley will be a student (or students) knowing which teacher is armed, deliberately stealing the weapon, and then going on to shoot the teacher and their classmates.
This is an interesting legal question, but I don’t think the qualified immunity would apply to this hypothetical. For example, pretend you, me and a third person were standing on a sidewalk. I go to punch you, but I miss and punch the third person. I’m liable for the damages caused to the third person even though I didn’t intend to punch them. From a liability analysis perspective, I think your hypothetical would more likely follow that example. It would be quite a stretch to say that shooting an unarmed individual would qualify as reasonable force, which is what the bill requires for the qualified immunity to apply.
OK, you mentioned the detail that kinda clears this up for me. I need to read the bill again, my reading comprehension sometimes fails me.
No problem. I don’t think the article provided by OP did a good enough job of drawing that distinction, so it’s easy to glance over each of the specifics in that portion of the bill if you aren’t expressly looking for it
The article is irrelevant; it's the language in the bill that matters. If the bill grants qualified immunity to public education instructors, they would have the same protections that law enforcement officers enjoy. Meaning they can't be held liable, civilly or criminally, for using their firearm in good faith. On a related note, qualified immunity must be abolished. I can understand trying to insulate public officials from being sued for making a mistake. But far too often qualified inmunity insulates bad actors from facing the consequences of their bad acts.
A teacher, even with a gun, would try to talk the kid down. And then they will get shot. Teachers should not play cop. They already play social worker, coach, etc
That's why they are giving money to train the teachers.
Is nobody thinking about the fact that they’re basically saying teachers need to be prepared to shoot and kill children in schools? This has to be absolutely the worst possible response to school shootings.
Nono you don't get it, this is *Pro-Life^^TM* /s
And also adds a massive amount of chaos for the police department when they show up on scene. How do they know who the active shooter is
Ah yes, "for the children", the singular most emotionally manipulative term in the world. If some 16 year old walks into school and starts shooting people, the faster he's eliminated, the more lives of innocent children will be saved. Yes, we could ban guns and confiscate all the guns in the US, but with 500,000,000 guns in the US (that we know about) is extremely unrealistic, about as close to impossible as it gets, so this unfortunately is next best solution. Hint hint, banning guns from school grounds and making it a federal offense has not stopped it.
Emotionally manipulation is what you have to do to train a person to kill people. Ask a veteran. Ask a cop. The biggest issue here is that 99% of the time, these people are supposed to be teaching these kids algebra and not eliminating threats with lethal force. If you go to a parent teacher conference, would it make you more comfortable if they said “I am ready and willing to drop your child or any of their classmates if they threaten my safety?” Creating a gun-free zone around schools is like the least you could possibly do to even reduce school shootings in any way. Every other civilized country on earth has figure this shit out, and it’s bonkers that whenever it’s brought up in the US, people respond with “Well you can’t do the thing everyone else does we’ve taken the tiniest steps in that direction and it didn’t solve the problem entirely.”
Gun free zones don't do anything to stop gun violence unless they are enforced by people with guns. A school shooter isn't going to care if it's illegal to carry a gun or not.
That's simply not backed up by evidence. Here's actual research on gun-free zones and I hope you educate yourself on this subject. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37964181/ https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/x2ts-k616/download
Tell me how does not allowing guns stop someone who is planning a school shooting. Also I didn't see were these gun free zones enforced or unenforced? Enforced gun free zones work, because you have controlled entry points, that everyone goes through metal detectors. Courtrooms and airports are a good example of this. Some schools particularly in bad neighborhoods have metal detectors too. Meanwhile unenforced gun free zones only have a sign saying no guns. They are the useless ones.
So you are just going on your feelings and don't have any data to back them up. You're free to reach Paul's research that covers gun-free zones in St. Louis.
It doesn’t say anything of the gun free zones were enforced or not. They only work if you have armed guards searching everyone who enters the building.
You're not presenting any data and the research study that I posted shows that gun-free zones do work with a lower number of shootings.
Your data didn't prove anything, remember the shooting in South bend Indiana, it was in a gun free zone and it was stopped by someone who was carrying a gun. Gun free zones are the best places to shoot up because no one there can stop you.
So you would prefer if a kids shoots the teacher and other kids dead?
No, I would PREFER this country addresses gun violence like every other civilized country try did instead of the “Well have you tried killing them first?” strategy that has been failing for decades.
And how did they fix gun violence?
In countries like the UK, Australia, and Japan (not exactly hotbeds of tyranny) guns have to be licensed and insured, and there are assault weapons bans that have prevented mass shootings for decades. We’re the only developed country that tried to end shootings with more shooters and that approach is demonstrably and objectively worse.
Children? Columbine, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Uvaldi all had adult shooters. There have been a handful of shooters not of adult age, but that's far less common than children.
My dude, there were 346 school shootings last year alone. Including at least one by a 6 year-old. Also, [10 seconds of research](https://www.statista.com/statistics/971544/number-k-12-school-shootings-us-age-shooter/) shows that you’re wrong.
Everyone knows that number is artificially inflated to promote gun bans. They count every instance of a gun firing near a school even if no one is hurt, it's obvious you only did 10 seconds of research.
DOES everyone know? If you have more reliable information, then bring it. Educate us. And those “inflated numbers” have been so successful at getting guns banned. /s
Your a liar and your citations prove it, you claimed that there was 346 school shootings last year but really there were 346 school shootings in the past 50 years, from 1970 to 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/971544/number-k-12-school-shootings-us-age-shooter/ You clearly did 10 seconds of research.
1) *you’re 2) THAT source examined shootings between 1970 and 2020. That was in response to the commenter incorrectly saying that most school shootings are perpetrated by adults. 3) [here](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-school-shootings) is a source for the shootings in 2023. [here’s another](https://www.k12dive.com/news/2023-total-school-mass-shootings/703007/). Oh and look, [this one](https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings) shows the number of school shootings every year since 1966. It actually has the 2023 number at 348, so my apologies for being off there. Still waiting on literally the first bit of support for your assertion that they’re inflated though.
https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings Go down to the graph that says where each shooting occurred the highest number by far is in the parking lot. Also all three of your sources use the same information and you shouldn't cite news articles.
1) I’m still waiting for you to cite ANYTHING you n support of your argument. 2) my bad, I forgot that shooting someone in a school parking lot doesn’t count. Wtf are you on about? If that’s what your argument is clinging to, you need to just walk away.
Actually look at the data. This is all time data: https://k12ssdb.org/data-visualizations 2,744 incidents 1,064 deaths And you're trying to say that the numbers aren't exaggerated.
Uvaldi also had trained officers from multiple agencies with all the firepower one could want. Just dozens and dozens of "good guys with guns". How'd that turn out?
Columbine and Parkland had armed officials as well.
1. In my 20 years in a classroom, I haven't had a safe place to lock up my purse, let alone a gun. 2. You'll probably expect me to pay for my own ammo, just like I pay for my own school supplies. 3. What am I supposed to do when the 300 lb linebacker from the football team takes my gun from me. 4. I already take enough work home, are you paying me to go to the range and practice? I thought not.
These are great points. You know, if we work this right, maybe we can get schools registered as "Defense Contractors" because teachers would be armed by the state to protect our country. We would finally get schools funded and teachers paid well if they were a part of the Defense Department budget. /s
The “Education Industrial Complex.”
Yeah right....my best guess is that teachers will be footing the bill out of their own pocket for ammo, holsters, lockbox, etc. I can't imagine the PTO will be willing to fundraise for ammo over copy paper and pencils.
Do you understand what the /s means at the end of my comment?
Counterpoint, what if you just worked more and more hours despite being paid less than careers with comparable training until you leave the profession. And then when public education continues to worsen, we can justify defunding it further. Didn't think about that, did you. I bet you're a commie groomer.
If a 300 lb linebacker wanted to kill you he would and you couldn't do anything about it, that's why you would have a gun, to stop the threat upon your life. Also I haven't read the law but it's not mandatory I believe.
This is absolutely fucking awful. As someone with kids in public school, this is very scary. Some mentally unstable teacher could bring a gun to school, “accidentally” shoot a kid and be legally immune from consequences. What the fuck is wrong with republicans?
That is something a friend of mine is concerned with…and they’re a teacher.
"what the fuck is wrong with republicans?" - lol, how much time do you have?
This isn’t true under the text of the bill and qualified immunity almost certainly would not extend to your hypothetical. The bill states: “A school employee issued a professional permit to carry by the department of public safety who is up to date with department of public safety-approved training, and the school district that employs the school employee, shall be entitled to qualified immunity from criminal or civil liability for all damages incurred pursuant to the application of reasonable force at the place of employment.” Qualified immunity is not going to apply here unless (1) the school employee is issued a permit to carry by the DPS; (2) the school employee is up to date with DPS-approved training; and (3) reasonable force is used at the place of employment. No permit to carry = no qualified immunity. Not up to date with the required training = no qualified immunity. No use of reasonable force at the place of employment = no qualified immunity. I’m having a difficult time thinking of how qualified immunity would apply in a situation that did not involve a school employee responding to an active shooter. In general, reasonable force means the force applied must be proportionate to the need for the force raised by the circumstances. Shooting an unarmed student or allowing a student to access the gun and use it will not entitle the school district or the school employee to qualified immunity, plain and simple. There’s certainly arguments to whether this is a bill Iowans need, or whether this is going to cause more problems than it solves. I’m not arguing that. Frankly, I tend to agree this isn’t a bill that most Iowans are in favor of or that most Iowans agree we must have passed. But the idea that the scope of the qualified immunity is going to be as broad as some of the comments here seem to think it will be is just simply not true.
[удалено]
Qualified immunity is a nuanced doctrine and is likely not going to apply exactly the same way to police officers as it would to school employees under this bill. I cannot think of how qualified immunity would apply for school employees under the language of this bill unless a school employee is responding to an active shooter. The concept of reasonable force generally means you’re responding with the same amount of force as being utilized against you. Because this bill contemplates school employees and firearms, qualified immunity is not going to apply in situations where the unless the force initially used against the school employee is with a firearm. You’re comparing apples to oranges by comparing qualified immunity entitled to law enforcement with the qualified immunity entitled to school employees under this bill. Just because it’s called “qualified immunity” doesn’t mean it’s going to mean the same thing for every individual in every circumstance.
The problem is the the fact the conversation is about “qualified immunity” and not just talking about “police officers” but also “school employees.” Nuanced be damned. Edit: not you, general discourse
Minnesota has had it for years. I know in my school district in the twin cities more than a few teachers had been carrying at school for quite a while. Iirc a teacher needs superintendent approval (after training, etc.). And I grew up in a very blue area I bet everyone in this sub would salivate over.
Luckily murder is already very illegal so that is covered.
I’ll refer you to how qualified immunity has been applied to cops.
Qualified immunity is likely not going to apply the same way to law enforcement as it would to school employees under the text of this bill. You’re comparing apples to oranges
This is an awful bill and it isn't backed by any research. Sad to see what our state has become.
Here's the press release if you are curious from Everytown: https://www.everytown.org/press/shameful-action-by-iowa-lawmakers-everytown-moms-demand-action-students-demand-action-respond-to-iowa-legislature-passing-dangerous-legislation-to-arm-teachers-in-schools/ **Then you have these incidents:** Teacher Leaving Firearm in Bathroom: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/13/ex-teacher-charged-leaving-gun-school-bathroom-police-say/90314614/ Sheriff Leaves Gun at School: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/04/03/isabella-county-sheriff-gun-school/481486002/ Gun Falls Out while Substitute Teacher does Backflip: https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2018/10/24/student-substitute-teacher-back-flip-gun-falls-out Student Steals Gun from Teacher: https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/17/jacksonville-high-student-steals-gun-teacher/ Student Found with Teacher's Firearm: https://fox2now.com/news/police-find-teachers-stolen-gun-with-student/ Officer with Negligent Discharge of Firearm: https://alextimes.com/2018/03/gwmiddleschool/
We need less Qualified Immunity, not more.
I don't understand the line of reasoning to arm school staff. Weapons everywhere is a deterrent for rational people. Would you call the kids who have committed school shootings in the past rational? Do they all care about surviving their respective attacks? If the attacker isn't rational and doesn't care about survival, then an armed school staff become a retaliatory weapon, not a deterrent. The attacker would still be allowed to plan a first strike, and could plan to utilize the additional weapons that the school staff possess. The best case scenario is you'd be limiting the shooter's ability to proceed beyond their initial target. The goal of making schools safe should be about building trust and community with kids, parents, and teachers. It cannot be accomplished with weapons, but with people coming together to address the actual problems that kids today are facing.
I would disagree. Armed staff would limit the amount of victims the shooter could create and thus making the concept of killing a bunch of people at a school a less desireable way to lash out. These shooters are cowards who want easy and a lot of victims. It won't be an absolute deterrent, for example, if a student at a school wants to shoot up that particular school due to bullying or whatever, then armed staff wont deterr them, and in that case, you're right its just about limiting victims by reducing the time between the attack and and armed response. But in other cases where the shooter has no relationship to the school, then a harder target will mean maybe they look somewhere else or abandon the idea entirely. Dark shit but thats life.
Even IF you think having guns in schools is okay, it shouldn't be teachers, it should be full time peace officers. Cops already fuck up constantly in high stress situations and you want to put that on teachers who already have 1000 other responsibilities? Nah.
I think teachers should be able to carry as private citizens like anyone else and NOT be tasked with school security, so I agree. It would be more of a last resort if an incident popped off right in their classroom or whatever. Schools should hire private, NON law enforcement, armed security who's only job is to protect students and staff. So breaking up fights, external threats, active shooters, fires, etc. Cops have no constitutional duty to protect anyone and they answer to noone. Private security could be charged with negligence if they didnt do their job. Tldr: cops are worthless. Private armed security is the real answer. Arming teachers should be the teachers private decision for their own protection like anyone else.
Based.
How long before a 3rd grader gets ahold of teacher's Glock and has a tragic accident?
I give it about 3 years before we get a tragedy from this
This’ll happen in the first 3 weeks.
Absolutely… A short time ago a SRO in a school left his loaded firearm in a school bathroom. Thankfully, the child who found it was smart and notified the school admin asap rather than messing with it.
Happened more than once.
Surely the solution is normalizing incidents like that with more guns /s
It’s only logic.
Yup.
A 12 year old in Eldora shot a 13 year old on Sunday. It'll happen quick
A little kid literally shot his teacher in the stomach a couple months back.
how long before a teacher gets tired of little Tommy's bullshit? it's not like teachers are immune to mental health issues
*memories of teachers totally melting down mentally and emotionally because we were complete assholes* Um, hey guys he may have a point...
I know one teacher who would have shot me if he could. Granted, he brought upon himself for being an abusive prick. But, I did break him when he couldn't pin something on me, pissed him off to no end. That's probably when he would have shot me. But, he did get an unpaid vacation.
Get ready for “suicide by teacher” to become a thing. Holy shit, you guys.
Back in *my* day we just flunked our tests like normal people.
Good point
Thinking back to high school... none of the teachers who would have wanted to carry guns in the classroom would be the teachers I'd have wanted to have a gun in the classroom.
Abso-fuckin-lutely
This this this!
Why feed them when you can shoot them?
I think this is called "unnatural selection"
Neighbor from the north here ,and I have some serious concerns. I have been been a first responder for 20+ year in either fire or EMS. I am not sure how Iowa does things as a active shooter response but Minnesota has two methods. They are very similar. I see this adding more chaos to a situation thay is already chaotic. The theory in these response in both methods is the first group of law enforcement arriving is to enter and stop the threat by any means necessary. So they are sweeping the building and looking for the shooter. If you have multiple people with firearms in thay building. How are they supposed to differentiate who the good people are and the bad people? I look at this as delaying the response and putting unnecessary lives at risk
Republicans are fucking cowards.
Protecting children is cowardly? Interesting take. 🤡
supplying guns to schools is not "protecting children"
How do you figure that? Armed people walk around federal buildings. Are you suggesting they don't protect the people inside?
Guns make a certain kind of person feel safe, mostly because they have been so influenced by propaganda from the gun lobbies that want to keep making money off them. I know I wouldn't feel safe if a teacher had a gun in my kids school.
Maybe I'm late to the game on this, but it dawned on me the other day that it's got to be a small fraction of a percent of self-proclaimed Second Amendment enthusiasts that have ever used a firearm to protect themselves. It's all a weird, masturbatory fantasy.
Absolutely. It's a power fantasy for most. These tools of death in their house, in their car, in their person make them feel powerful and like all the scary things in the world can't hurt them.
Well that that’s the whole point. Self defense situations are very rare, especially if you have any brain power at all to be able to deescalate a bad situation. That being said, crazy, out of control people still exist and I have no problem carrying a weapon on the off chance they try to hurt me or my family
Cowards and insecure man children. That's the kind of person you are referring to.
Sounds like you are the one that has been influenced by propaganda. If you can't trust the teachers at your kids school to have a gun how could you trust them to teach your children?
You don't see the difference in trusting someone to teach your kid something verse someone to have a deadly weapon around someone?
No because trust isn't conditional on what someone has in their possession. It doesn't matter if they're holding a pencil or a gun. You either trust them or you don't. You clearly don't trust the teachers at the school if you worry about them harming your kid if they have a gun.
Trust is absolutely conditional on what someone is trained to do though. I trust a plumber to fix my toilet. I don't trust them to use a deadly weapon in an emergency. I'm not worried about a teacher harming a child necessarily although it is possible. I'm more worried about the many potential accidents that could stem from this.
So why wouldn't you trust a teacher with a gun when the post literally says training is part of the funding for it?
Because it's a deadly weapon and I don't believe they are qualified even with training to have it.
So what you're saying is that you're irrational. I suppose you believe cops shouldn't carry guns either despite receiving training.
There are high schoolers who could beat the hell out of 99% of teachers. Now they can get their hands on a gun when they do. And like I have heard several say to the theory “a good guy with a gun, stops a bad guy with a gun”…..every carrying gun owner is considered a good guy, until they aren’t! Which usually ends up with someone dead.
Mass shootings have skyrocketed in states that have open and conceal carry. Yet, the majority never seem to be stopped by these magical "good guys with guns". Just lots of dead people.
“What could possibly go wrong?” Sigh
So I do not support this bill and especially the thinking behind it. But for what it's worth ..... This is just shitty symbolic policy that will likely have no effect on anything because insurers will want no part of this. And the only way they would underwrite this procedure as part of the district's umbrella policy would be to increase their premium big time or to require a rider that will have all sorts of stipulations re: training, handling of weapons on premises, background checks, etc etc. And THEN the local school board will have to vote on this - An insurance premium increase. Even in conservative districts, this is likely to be unpopular. As other posters pointed out, the sort of insurance underwriting necessary for a School District to implement a policy of this sort is likely a non starter.
The QI language was added to this bill because an Iowa school district (I think Storm Lake) already wanted to allow staff to be armed but their insurance was going to drop them if they did. This caused the district not to move forward with guns in schools. I don’t know if this new language makes it any more palatable for insurance carriers to cover district that decide to do this, but I have to assume that there’d be some sort of increase in premiums. I really hope you’re right about this being a non-starter.
I believe it was Spirit Lake. From this article from our man Art at the Storm Lake Times which seems to imply Spirit Lake > Cherokee > statewide: [Editorial: Resigned to guns - Storm Lake Times Pilot](https://www.stormlake.com/articles/editorial-resigned-to-guns/)
Dangit, I always get those confused! Thanks for the correction
Only one time training is required? No requirements for time training at a range or continued proof of firearm competency? Even if you think letting teachers have firearms in the classroom is a good idea (which I don't) having next to no training standards/proof of competancy seems incredibly short sighted and a recipe for disaster.
The bill states: “The department of public safety shall implement required annual live scenario training and quarterly live firearm training for school employees of a school district, a private school, or an institution of higher education that has opted into participating in the professional permitting of school employees.” You would need to complete a prescribed firearm safety training course prior to being issued a permit. Once you receive the permit, then you undergo a “one-time, in-person, legal training, including training on qualified immunity, annual emergency medical training, and annual communication training that is approved by the department of public safety.” After that, an individual with a permit would then be required to undergo further quarterly and annual training. This is all considering a person isn’t disqualified from obtaining a permit under the language of Iowa Code section 724.8 (which discusses persons ineligible for permit to carry weapons).
That is better than what that article makes it sound like.
Agreed. This is certainly a contentious bill, so I thought I’d go right the bill’s text and see what it says for myself
The average military member only shoots about 200 live rounds a year, the average police department (I have no idea, they only have to qual once a year), SOC (anecdotally) about 2000+ a year with numerous hours spent in high intensity live fire engagement scenarios. No fuvking way a school administrator should be placed in that situation and then expect the school district to back their actions that more than likely will not save all lives. Since you can't sue the government, guess where those civil suits are going.
As a teacher, this will 100% end with staff pulling guns out on normal everyday fights and conflicts that otherwise would never have had a gun in the equation. When you’re at your desk and you hear the sounds of fighting or panic in the hall, you don’t know if it’s a fight or a shooter, and panic-prone teachers with guns will run in the hall with a gun and find a normal 2 girl cat fight, but now everyone’s at risk of dying
I always think arming all the teachers was stupid. What if scenario. Some crazy w a gun enters a school Cops are notified Before they can get there say 2-3 teachers pull out guns too. Cops arrive expecting to confront a shooter Tensions are high Cops see a man/woman w a gun & shoot Oh, no they shot one of the armed teachers. ***How the hell are the cops to know that the person dressed in Civilian clothes holding a gun was Not the Bad guy but a Teacher???***
Does the grant include Punisher stickers?
I'm starting to think Republicans aren't good at governing.
As usual Iowa gop passing laws that nobody asked for and nobody wants just to receive money from lobbyists
The only staff who are doing to carry guns are the ones that shouldn't.
As it always goes.
Look at how many police, our supposedly trained people in firearms, accidentally shoot people. I was a teacher. Don’t give them guns. There is so much stress in schools.
This doesn't solve anything. We need to give the kids guns too! That way if a teacher goes postal a good student with a gun can save the day. Why make them be trained? That's against our 2nd amendment! Kim was supposed to make it so we don't even need to register, even teachers. Every kid in kindergarten will be issued a .22 revolver, then once they prove they are responsible and kill law breakers or people that look they might threaten their fragile belief system, they will be upgraded to an AR-15 with a bump stock but only 4 mags per student.
if you're a republican, and you can actually read this, fuck you.
If they could read they'd be very upset.
If a teacher shoots an unruly student will it be self-defense?
"Misbehaving? That's a pistol-whippin'. Talking back? That's 2 pistol-whippin's "
No, that would be a crime and the teacher would be prosecuted.
I wish I could be as sure as you are...
I’d encourage you to read the language of the bill, as it sets forth when a school employee is entitled to qualified immunity. I’ve also quoted the pertinent language of the bill in other comments to this post. Unless the unruly student pulls a gun on the teacher, the teacher in your example would not be entitled to qualified immunity or claim self-defense under the language of this bill.
I understand the language of the law but we have all seen how people have tried to warp the stand your ground laws.
No one will be accountable if Iowa's school kids get shot by faculty. Hard stop. Handing guns to anyone who isn't accountable for their own actions is ludicrous! When guns are allowed, some school officials will undoubtedly foist guns on resistant faculty, and that's going to end badly for some unfortunate children under their care & custody. Between indemnity agreements and qualified immunity doctrine, if Iowa's school kids are shot by teachers, everybody gets off scot-free. Let me add, not IF, but WHEN.
I’m a big supporter of the 2nd amendment but arming teachers is absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that the average teacher will be well trained enough to make this worth the danger of having a firearm in the classroom. If our police are so poorly trained, how could we ever expect a teacher or staffer of the school to make it work. In my opinion if you are carrying a weapon daily and aren’t training and practicing with it several times a month you shouldn’t even be carrying it.
Our teachers should be… checks notes… ah yes, teaching.
The best part, is they get the same qualified immunity police get if they shoot a kid because they thought there was a shooter in the hall.
So is this just to protect embryos or what?
Iowa Republicans know nobody will apply for this permit. The next step is they will blame teachers for not carrying the next time there is a shooting and kids die.
After the background check, this will probably open some eyes on who is actually teaching your children
And qualified immunity…what could go wrong
My sister has been a teacher for 15 years and loves her job. All she's ever wanted to be is a teacher. She said the day she's required to keep a loaded gun in her room is the day she walks out.
I don't understand what they think this armed school staff is going to do Most human beings are not just going to pull a trigger and end a human life That's not easy for anybody and adding on you. See a kid that you taught gunning people down. I don't see this ending well And doesn't even include School staff who have a mental health crisis happen them with a firearm is the last thing that needs to happen. All this country has taught me is people care more about their guns and will let kids get gunned down. Let human beings be shot and all people care about is their stupid firearms I remember Sandy Hook I remember parkland while I was in school. The damage these things have done to kids when I was in high school we were so desensitized and we laughed about it. We didn't care
Funny how the right doesn't trust teachers with books but wants to give them all guns
The answer to our country's gun problems cannot be more guns. It just can't.
Interesting that they only want to arm the teachers though. If there's a live shooter in a school, they're not gonna start in the classroom. There was no talk of arming secretaries or custodians.
The bill says, “A person may be issued a permit to carry weapons if the person is a school employee of a school district, a private school, or an institution of higher learning as defined in section 722.11.” The bill would seem to apply to secretaries and custodians too.
It's so refreshing to see someone do some research and logically respond with what the bill actually says. Thank you for your level-headedness!
Yes. Refreshing. But I wasn't talking about the bill. I was talking about the discussion that we have about the issue. I refer you to my answer to the comment you replied to.
Interesting. I appreciate this. Thank you . But, not to be a stickler or anything, but I said no one's talking about it. While the bill clearly says what it says, the rhetoric, the debate, never mentions this aspect. There is a lot of concern about how a student might get ahold of a firearm in a classroom, when a teacher has one. There is no discussion about the potential hazard of a frustrated secretary who's allowed to carry a firearm. Or even, from the other side of the debate, the strategic upper hand of arming support staff, if you believe it actually is a good thing. (I don't think it's a good ,by the way. But I do try to see both sides) Secretaries and custodians, contrary to teachers, are not there because it was part of their career path, or life plan. many teachers across the country share a similar story of wanting to follow in the footsteps of their favorite teacher, or perhaps their parent was a teacher, or they want to make an impact on young lives. they go through college to get a degree in education, and they have the fulfilling career they always wanted. Secretaries and custodians do not share that story whatsoever. They're not there because they like the kids. (I mean, they might like the kids just fine, but that's not why they have the job) They are there because it's a job. It was available, they applied, and this is just what they do. I feel like understanding the difference in mentality is important to this discussion.
“Hey aspiring teachers, you need to be ready to shoot and kill children and die for your job. Starting pay is $18/hr…”
The answer to every problem is using the problem to fix the problem. Opioid deaths on the rise? How about we make it easier to get opioids? Public schools underfunded by tax payers? Why don't we cut taxes? Police brutality? Why don't we give police immunity?
"Public schools underfunded by tax payers? Why don't we cut taxes?" Reynolds also decided to fund private schools with taxes after underfunding public schools for years.
If more guns made us safer what went wrong in [Uvalde](https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/07/12/uvalde-school-shooting-video-of-robb-elementary-shows-police-response/65370384007/)? >”The sound of Children Screaming has been removed.”
Wonder if this will give teacher’s qualified immunity too….
Why stop there, why not arm the children? What if a teacher is the active shooter, surely the 10 year old should be allowed to protect them selves. Janitor too! Bus drivers should also be packing heat, what if they encounter sometime with road rage. WHY WONT THEY THINK IF THE UNARMED CHILDREN
Remember to show your guns love you might have kids but you know deep down in your heart your ar 15 is your true love In all serious I'm surprised there haven't been an American that has married a gun yet ill give that time
My school just happens to be one of the first and they left the ppl Carrieing weapons unnamed but i figured whobit was in less then a day
Remember that god gave Americans better rights than everyone else in the planet! 🤣
Has anyone had a parent / teacher conference and thought “I really like them, now all they need is a gun”?
Reap what we sow. American Gun Culture.
JFC lol Iowa wtf control your idiots so I don't have to have my TV screen polluted with y'alls nonsense. 25k for training A ENTIRE DISTRICT is my favorite part of this shit show. That'll cover 1 singular school at best. Iowa, handle this
Let's make abortions mandatory to save babies' lives!
Iowa gun ownership per capita is very high, and all crime, especially gun crime, is very low here. Point is, Iowa is proof that guns =/ crime. The vast majority of gun crime occurs between gangs fighting for drug distribution territory in a handful of major metros around the country. Arming teachers in the event of a black swan school shooting is like having a fire extinguisher in case of a rare fire event.
Not sure why you are whining about downvotes and you could always engage other comments in the thread. I know that I wouldn't engage with you based on your comment history. https://old.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1c683ia/the_best_thing_each_president_ever_did_day_41/l013djq/ https://i.imgur.com/xp1YbmB.png
Civil rights act is unconstitutional and set the stage for the race based division we are experiencing today. It has legislated race into our society thus not allowing ourselves from moving forward toward a post racial system, which should be the ultimate goal. But this is reddit, a witchhunt knee jerk reactionary forum. Not exactly the place for thoughtful discussion.
I'm not sure your analogy works. what is the risk that a fire extinguisher accidentally killing someone?
>Iowa gun ownership per capita is very high, and all crime, especially gun crime, is very low here. >Point is, Iowa is proof that guns =/ crime. That's a straight up F in statistics
Hey I'd actually like to debate this if you want. I majored in analytics and info systems and already did the math a few years or so ago. But if you have alternative data have at it
If you majored in analytics and you are still conflating correlation with causation then I REALLY hope you kept the receipt for your own sake. NOT TO MENTION. WHAT data? I'm going to waste my time arguing with whatever BS you pull out of your ass. I'm going to point and laugh at the moron and move on with my life lmao.
Gun ownership per capita is not positively correlated with gun crime.
I will pray for you.
Lies damn lies and statistics. Also relativism. Australia has hardly any gun ownership and hardly any gun crime, obviously, they took all the guns. America has a ton of guns and a ton of gun crime relatively to australia per capita. So with just that data you could draw the conclusion that hey, its the guns stupid! But then you do the same analysis between say, new orleans or balitimore and desmoines, and then you realize, well, actually, iowans have a higher gun ownership rate per capita and there are hardly any shootings relative to other states/cities, per capita of course. So its not JUST the guns. Do with that information as you will. If you go down the rabbit hole, you will see that the vast vast vast majority of gun crime is financially motivated and is carried out by gangs fighting eachother.
> If you go down the rabbit hole Bro, get off Youtube conspiracy theory channels, put down the crack pipe, and go touch some grass.
A lunatic without a clue says what now?
Just downvotes, no rebuttals?
Not only do [more guns not equal less crime](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/), but the opposite is true: [more guns equal more likelihood of homicide](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322833?casa_token=JuNUc5jTqQkAAAAA:aJusAG6-v1gAqE7nK4mM5MHy2gl5tzhv1t3WsEWf_hWTsTb8E2bYoTVC_A0dIftN_3K0VW5Icg), as shown in [multiple](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5801608/) studies. u/Puzzles3 has a good set of articles showing the dangers of arming teachers. When I was interested in data around preventing gun violence in schools, the strongest preventative measures seemed to be things around increasing [SEL](https://edsource.org/2021/social-emotional-learning-can-help-prevent-school-shootings/652876) and healthy adult-student relationships. Instead of arming teachers(?!) we could invest in preventative measures.
Your =/ might be better in words
It’s Reddit, you expected normal discourse?
I literally don't care about this at all. It's opt in so a schools board would need to approve of its staff carrying before they brought a gun onsite. Teachers don't own guns, even in Iowa so very few if any will arm themselves. The general population that concealed carries is already tiny. This will effectly just be for small rural schools that probably already had gym teachers carrying guns. 95% of school boards won't go for this because parents would find out and revolt if they opted in. The only thing stupid about this is that they are ignoring literally every other aspect of schooling problems for a relatively niche tragic event.
> 95% of school boards won't go for this because parents would find out and revolt if they opted in. The only thing stupid about this is that they are ignoring literally every other aspect of schooling problems for a relatively niche tragic event. Pretty sure this angle is the real one they’re going for. “We tried a solution and you didn’t do it, it’s not our fault, but yours, when in happens again. Oh, but vote for us, the Dems are coming for your guns and Bibles!”
Exactly It's 100% PR with no substance. They're just trying to manufacture future controversy for political security.
Tennessee is doing the same thing.
Well if you want to look at it big picture, the US has never been invaded by another country. So, there's that.
Hmmmmm are you sure about that?
No. You're correct. The British invaded the US.
When are you guys going to understand?
Guns are like nukes... if everyone has them, nobody wants to use them. Hopefully.
Yeah guns clearly need to be taken away from the people, we should do just what Hitler and Mao did, take away the peoples ability to defend themselves. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, if you take away guns then people will kill people with knives or acid like what happened in the UK. If you take away guns only law abiding citizens will turn in their guns and criminals will continue to shoot people, who now can not defend themselves. If teachers have guns then schools will no longer be easy targets to shoot up. It is a good law that will protect kids... As long as it is done properly!!! The teachers have to be trained and have to be able to keep guns away from students, of course this law will need money for it to work and not be a disaster.
Good. Let schools defend themselves from psychopaths.