OATH KEEPERS has offered to provide free self-defense and firearms training to school teachers and administrators. Stewart Rhodes, the organization’s founder, writes:

Children deserve to be defended. And the teachers and staff who are responsible for children during the school day deserve to know how to defend them – effectively, decisively, and at the very outset of an attack. And they deserve a fighting chance to defend themselves as well. It is not enough to tell them to sit tight and wait for the police to arrive. All too often, by the time the police get there, it is too late.

Teachers and school administrative staff need the tools and training to put a stop to the killing themselves.

The Front Sight Firearms Training Institute is also offering free firearms training to teachers and school administrators.

—- Comments —–

James N. writes:

This subject is deeper than it appears. Many female educators are opposed to the idea of active defense AT ALL, whether with firearms, fire extinguishers, or rocks. What follows is a draft of a letter which should be sent to every school or school board in the country:

Dear sir or madam (insert title and name):

I am sure you are as grieved and upset as I am regarding the horrible recent events in Connecticut. Because the safety of my child(ren) is my foremost responsibility, I wuld like you to answer the following questions:

1)Who, specifically, is responsible for the safety & defense of the children in your school?

2)Do you have a policy regarding the use of physical force, including all legal, necessary and proper force under the laws of (insert your state), to defend the children who attend your school in the event of a violent assault?

3)If so, what is it?

4)If not, why not, and what is being done to develop such a policy?

Inasmuch as this matter is of vital importance, I would appreciate it if you would respond in writing. Thank you.

James P. writes:

Eighty percent of the public school teachers in Virginia are female. I have no doubt they are overwhelmingly liberal. I expect they would respond to the idea of firearms training in much the same way as they would respond to an offer to train them how to handle tarantulas with their bare hands.

James N. writes:

Do you agree with my observation that female teachers (as a generalization) are opposed to the use of force, even righteous force wielded to protect the innocent?

If that’s true, what possible explanation can there be?

I mean, this Adam Lanza shows up at an elementary school in some sort of a tactical vest, CARRYING A RIFLE, for God’s sake. He had not been invited to lecture on firearms safety. In fact, he had had some sort of a verbal confrontation with administrators and others the day before! He didn’t show up with a concealed weapon, asking to apologize. He came decked out for combat.

And, this has happened before.

So, the one thing AT THAT MOMENT that would have saved everyone would have been a nine millimeter round right between the eyes. Realistically, a proper response would have been as many shots, center mass, as needed to put him down. In the absence of a loaded gun, attacking Lanza with a fire extinguisher or by throwing books would have saved lives. But none of that happened.

What’s so difficult about that? How could any teacher or administrator who was sane not understand?

I was at a “holiday” concert last night, in a hall with a stage full of K-3 children and an audience of hundreds of parents, grandparents, and siblings. Two fathers, to my certain knowledge, and probably 60 others were violating the Gun-Free Schools Act right then and there. I watched the concert next to a friend carrying a .45 ACP with 13 rounds in the magazine, and he had a spare 9 mm available.

THIS WAS A VERY GOOD THING. ALL THE DADS WHO WERE BREAKING THE LAW WERE THERE TO PROTECT EVERYONE ELSE.

What motivates the “wag more, bark less” people?

Laura writes:

Do you agree with my observation that female teachers (as a generalization) are opposed to the use of force, even righteous force wielded to protect the innocent?

Yes, but perhaps this is changing and a significant minority is now prepared to defend itself.

What motivates the “wag more, bark less” people?

A deeply ingrained passivity.

It’s the same passivity that prevents people not just from wielding guns, but from wielding verbal or moral force against their enemies. They have been taught all their lives that if they are open, accepting and tolerant, peace will triumph, and division — all division — will be surmounted.

This passivity makes them think that the possibility of gun accidents is worse than the possibility that a school full of children will be shooting targets. They can’t admit to themselves that to render themselves so passive — even if this particular evil never actually confronts them — is to affect everything in their lives.

JMC writes:

Some years ago I had the opportunity to provide a very basic lesson in shooting a pistol to a female friend. She was living alone in a relatively high-crime area and became convinced she needed a firearm to protect herself. So good so far. But when the time came to handle the weapon (a pocket-sized 9mm) this bizarre attitude emerged. She was clearly afraid of the pistol. She was scared that it was going to spontaneously “go off.” She kept asking where the bullet was going to go. She didn’t seem to believe that it would emerge from the barrel and go in a straight line. There was clearly a sense of this being some sort of magical device that might discharge at any moment. She did eventually overcome this odd fear and was able to use the weapon effectively. Her fear of being attacked was worse than her fear of the weapon. But the phobic response was certainly interesting.

 Laura writes:

That fear is probably common for those who have had no contact with guns all their lives and have read news stories about accidental shootings.

Please follow and like us: