Hundreds of Utah Teachers Show Up for Weapons Training

Dec. 27, 2012: Clark Aposhian, President of Utah Shooting Sport Council, demonstrates with a plastic gun during concealed-weapons training for 200 Utah teachers. (AP)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28/teachers-in-utah-ohio-get-free-gun-training/#ixzz2GMPfmSzP

SALT LAKE CITY – Gun-rights advocates in Utah offered six hours of training Thursday in handling concealed weapons for hundreds of Utah teachers in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

The latest effort to arm teachers to confront school assailants was organized by the Utah Shooting Sports Council, which hosted the training session to help educators become eligible for concealed firearm permits, FOX 13 News reported.

More than 200 teachers flocked to the training class in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Valley City. Raye Ann Blauer, a kindergarten teacher, told FOX 13 she is considering using her permit to carry a firearm at school.

“[A]fter everything that happened in Connecticut, I want to be aware of how I can help in the classroom and protect my kids and whatnot. Be aware,” Blauer said. “I think it’s really smart. Especially with everything that’s happened lately.”

English teacher Kevin Leatherbarrow holds a license to carry a concealed weapon and doesn’t see anything wrong with arming teachers in the aftermath of the deadly Connecticut school shooting.

“We’re sitting ducks,” said Leatherbarrow, who works at a Utah charter school. “You don’t have a chance in hell. You’re dead — no ifs, ands or buts.”

In Ohio, a firearms group said it was launching a test program in tactical firearms training for 24 teachers. The Arizona attorney general is proposing a change to state law to allow an educator in each school to carry a gun. (Read more here.)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28/teachers-in-utah-ohio-get-free-gun-training/#ixzz2GMPPg8JU

  • Manny

    Love it! :)

  • Sus

    ” Gun-rights advocates in Utah offered six hours of training ”

    So more guns are the answer. These teachers can sling their Bushmasters over their shoulder while writing on the chalk board.

    Six hours of training DOES NOT QUALIFY ANYONE TO CARRY A GUN IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND/OR OTHERS!

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      It certainly does not. Ask anyone who has done any time as a soldier. (I have.)

      • Sus

        Thank you Fabio. I have not been a soldier but I have shot guns at a range. It is not the same.

    • Mara

      How do you go from a training class on concealed carry to carrying a not-so-concealed rifle while at the blackboard? You are so funny!
      Have you taken a class for concealed carry? I have taken the class, passed all parts and then decided that I did not want the responsibility that is involved. But, it was a very good education class to attend.
      In my state, when you take the class, there is considerable time spent on the state law for carrying a concealed gun. Then, you have to pass a written test. Don’t pass the test and you don’t go to the range. Then, there is the range time. If the instructor determines that you are not qualifed to handle a gun, then you don’t pass that section. If you are able to pass the complete class, then you pay $$, get fingerprinted and the state bureau of investigation does the background search. There is no guarantee that you will get the permit.
      By the way, there are only two states that allow concealed carry in schools. In my state, there will be a discussion to change that, but I understand that the proposal will require the person to pass a higher level of training (law enforcement level). And then, the individual school districts will have to decide whether to allow additional personnel in the school.They will have to decide the risk and liability issues.

      • Sus

        “In my state, when you take the class, there is considerable time spent on the state law for carrying a concealed gun. Then, you have to pass a written test. Don’t pass the test and you don’t go to the range. Then, there is the range time. If the instructor determines that you are not qualifed to handle a gun, then you don’t pass that section. If you are able to pass the complete class, then you pay $$, get fingerprinted and the state bureau of investigation does the background search. ”

        Where is the combat training? Without that, you are not qualified to protect yourself or others with a gun.

        • Mara

          Why does anyone need combat training to protect oneself?

          The probablity that I will face a person armed to the hilt and intent on mass murder is slim. And if that person is so intent on killing, then I probably cannot stop it. Hey, McVeigh loaded a truck with explosives and killed many. I heard it, felt it and had to comfort staff as she looked at the gaping hole in the building where her best friend worked. If you lived in OKC at the time, you either knew someone who was killed, injured or impacted by that event.
          Personally, will I be mugged? It happened once. I determined I was at risk, prepared for it and survived. Will I face an intruder? Hasn’t happened yet, but I am prepared. An employee was carjacked, raped and then stalked at home and work. We went back to the police who told us to carry and aim for the central body (and that was pre-conceal carry). If I am back into a work situation where I or my staff are threatened, then yes, I will go for the conceal carry permit and protect myself and those around me.

          If you want to be a victim, go right ahead. I value my life and the lives of others.

  • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

    “More than 200″. But in a state the size of Utah, teachers will be in the thousands. This is a small, shocked, and, to judge by some comments, very silly minority.

    No gun provides any support unless you know in advance who your enemy is. If a man (it always seems to be a man, somehow) just suddenly shows up and starts shooting, you’re dead, even if you’re sitting in a machine-gun empostment and surrounded by weapons. Have you ever seen British soldiers on patrol in Northern Ireland? They always carry their loaded weapons in their hands, ready to be shot at a moment’s notice, and every few steps, they do a complete 360 degree turn about themselves. That is how you have to be in order for your weapons to provide any protection; constantly focused on the potential threat to the exclusion of anything else. Imagine a teacher, with thirty children providing constant distraction as children are always very good at!

    • Dave

      “If a man (it always seems to be a man, somehow) just suddenly shows up and starts shooting, you’re dead.”

      Of course, if you happen to be the very first target, this is true. If not, then it’s not true. Also, schools have other staff besides teachers. And if it is a teacher that’s armed, they’ll figure something out and that would still be better than being a sitting duck.

      • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

        I don’t think you read what I wrote. (I noticed that keen gun-rights advocates tend to wear some pretty distorting glasses.) My point was: in order to have any chance against an armed enemy who wants to kill you, you have to be alert for sixty minutes every hour, and over a range of 360 degrees. Can you imagine a teacher doing that? And to deal with your points, of course any armed raider would go for the teacher first, whether or not they were armed; as the adult, the authority figure, the focus for all the children, s/he is the one who has to go first. What is more, it is very likely that whatever insanity drove the killer to raid a school had an especial focus in the teachers. As for the rest, Yeah, let’s arm everyone, let’s arm the dinner ladies, the cleaners, the career counselors and coaches and nurses. Let’s pile up weapons everywhere, till they crowd the corridors. You people just don’t realize how ridiculous you are.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          I don’t believe I said to arm everyone. But putting up a sign “Guns not allowed on these premises” translates to “Please come here” to a psychopath like Adam Lanza. I don’t even own a gun. Everyone has a different experience, but it seems to me that you are the one that is ridiculous.

          Sure, you can say that an armed raider would go for the teacher first. Yet, that’s not what happened here. It seems that every teacher knew that someone was coming. He had to fight through (i.e. slaughter) the principal and counselor first, and the shots (as well as the PA system) alerted everyone else. They would have had ample time. And even if the teacher is attacked first, each school has at least a dozen teachers, and he can’t attack all of them at once.

          If I get assaulted, my first thought is, “what can I do so that I’m able to defend myself next time?” Apparently, your first thought is, “what can I legislate so that no one will ever get attacked again?” In my opinion, my question is more reasonable, less grandiose, and has a better chance of success.

          I’m not for forcing anyone to be armed, but:
          (1) taking away assurances that no one is able to defend themselves (“no guns allowed”)
          (2) ALLOWING concealed weapons to be carried by licensed, trained, and vetted individuals

          If those two steps were taken, I believe that it would help a lot. Did you know that in the Aurora shootings, the killer seems to have chosen the only nearby theater in which guns were banned?

          http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

  • Bill S

    Gun advocates are making fools of themselves. This would be Saturday Night Live material if it weren’t so sad and pathetic. No assault weapons anywhere for anyone but police and soldiers. Wake up NRA.

  • Dave

    So, we protect our money with armed guards, but our children are not important enough? I believe that weapons would have to be concealed, and the children would never know they were carrying.

    What is the definition of an assault weapon? Read this article and then comment more intelligently:
    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

    All I know is that if I’m in a place like Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook when some psycho busts in, whether with guns, bombs, or gas, I reaaaaaaally hope that someone around me (or multiple people) are carrying. Anyway, these psychos are cowards and usually gravitate to the places where guns are not allowed. Just by holding this class (with the attendant publicity) and not saying “guns not allowed on these premises”, they have probably reduced their risk by 90%.

    • Bill S

      Arming law abiding citizens as a deterrent to mass killings is insane and it overlooks the calamity of having the 1994 assault weapons ban expire in 2004 without any extension or replacement. I don’t even know why anyone would even need an assault weapon.

      • Dave

        “Arming law abiding citizens as a deterrent to mass killings is insane.”

        Why, exactly? It seems that this statement is the same as saying, “Teaching martial arts to law abiding citizens as a deterrent to assault and rape is insane.” The statistics seem to clearly show (again, read the link) that mass killings are considerably less “mass” when an armed opponent is on the scene. The shootings at the Clackamas Mall ended when an armed citizen showed his presence.

        If you read through the link I provided above, it seems that the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire because it was nonsense. Read the article and then propose exactly what types of guns you’d like to ban.

        • Bill S

          I did some further reading and yes, the 1994 legislation was seriously flawed and did not prohibit the type of guns used by Adam Lanza. So, I take back my statement that the extension of that ban would have prevented the Connecticut shootings. I tried reading the article you sent the link for but it was to biased in favor of the use of guns. Guns with clips containing many rounds that can kill many people are part of the problem, but not all of it.

          I suspect that the NRA and the Republicans will be successful once again in throwing a monkey wrench in the process and we will end up with less than what we really need. Besides, there are too many guns out there already and there is no way to get rid of them.

      • Ted Seeber

        If it wasn’t for atheism, we wouldn’t need to defend ourselves against suicidal idiots.

  • Dr. Peter John Resweber

    If the liberals were intellectually consistent they would not only be applauding this training, they would be asking for the government and/or the employers to pay for it.

    After all, any “right” that isn’t paid for by the government and/or employers is apparently a “right denied”, correct?

    (HHS mandate anyone?)

    • Sus

      This is an unkind comment. When I think of those 6 and 7 year old kids that were gunned down, I don’t connect it the gun crazy NRA gun nuts that are republican.

      • Bill S

        I connect it directly to the NRA’s political clout that has resulted in no extension to the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

        • Dr. Peter John Resweber

          Bill S,

          I would paraphrase some of your arguments on Rebecca’s previous post to note that:

          “Advocates of [concealed carry permits] would point to its benefits to the employee and to the fact that the employer has no right to impose his [anti-constitutional] beliefs on his employees… Where do you draw the line?

          Though extremists will say otherwise, [self-defense] is not murder in this country. It may be in [Russia or China] and maybe some other countries with backwards laws on [gun ownership] but it isn’t here.

          [A school board could be] placing itself, [its students] and its employees in harm’s way due to the overly scrupulous consciences of its [members]. No one except for extremists on the pro-[gun-control] side wants to see this result in massive penalties.”

          …or…

          “By “scrupulous”, I mean thinking that you have or would be sinning when it is not actually a sin. I am pointing out the [school board's] scrupulosity in thinking that they are responsible for decisions made by their employees and that it is wrong to provide [weapons and weapons training] when it is required by the [constitutional rights]. It is the employee and the [constitution/]government that are responsible. They are suffering from an exaggerated sense of their own importance. This is not uncommon in highly successful people. I don’t ever have to worry about having that problem. Ultimately, it is an ego trip.”

          …or…

          “If I were [the school board], I would obey the mandate [to arm and train my employees] and continue to fight it in the courts to the very end. If not for myself, I would do it for my employees.

          At the same time, I would issue an open letter to all employees stating my strong opposition to the use [of firearms]. I would cite the health risks and my beliefs regarding the [carrying of assault weapons] and the dangers [I believe would be] posed to [employees and students]. I would let my employees decide for themselves whether to listen to me or not. [I would pay for their weapons and training and] I would not prohibit them from using [them]; but, I would strongly advise against it.”

          …or…

          “I think [the school board] has met something like 99% of its [statutory] requirements. The [mandate to arm and train teachers and other school employees] seems to be one of the least important [issues]. However, if this requirement were waived for one [locality], it would open the floodgates for waiving all kinds of requirements for all kinds of [other issues in other localities]. [This school board] is putting the [constitution/]government in a no win situation.”

          • Bill S

            These paraphrases don’t work for me. I don’t know where you came up with the idea to use them but I think they are dumb.

            • Dr. Peter John Resweber

              Re: “These paraphrases don’t work for me.”

              Of course they don’t; because, they no longer conform to your preconceptions and therefore the lack of underlying logical coherence has become apparent to you.

              Re: “I don’t know where you came up with the idea to use them but I think they are dumb.”

              I came up with the idea as a way to demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of your original arguments. You think they are dumb precisely because they ARE dumb.

              Just like: “[Paying for armaments and training] is such a miniscule component of such an all encompassing [constitutional right to self-defense]. Only extremists [and anti-gun nuts] would gravitate to it and make it so important.”

              (Now you know.) ;)

      • Dr. Peter John Resweber

        Sus,

        What is “unkind” about the comment?

        BTW, I also don’t connect the shooting to “the gun crazy NRA gun nuts that are republican”.

        I connect it to a cowardly shooter – and maybe to the ridiculous idea that “gun free zones” are somehow safer.

        • Sus

          It is unkind because you are assuming that anyone that votes with a liberal point of view wants the government to pay for us. Let me tell you, although we voted for Obama in this house, there is nothing “free” coming in for us. We are working our butts off to survive and provide a good home for our children.

          HHS Mandate or not, health care should be a right in this country. If you think it’s okay for someone to die because they are poor, that’s fine. I feel differently and thankfully there are others in this country that feel differently too.

          • Dr. Peter John Resweber

            Sus,

            Re: “It is unkind because you are assuming that anyone that votes with a liberal point of view wants the government to pay for us.”

            a) In fairness to you (and to me), I was most directly responding to the logic of Bill S’s responses to Rebecca’s prior post about the HHS mandate. His argument seems to be that if your employer does not directly provide something (in this case contraceptives) then it is no different from actively preventing you from obtaining that thing. This is a ridiculous argument on its face (one which your one response therein seem to indicate you also find ridiculous).

            however-b) It seems quite difficult to say you are voting for Obama and NOT voting for redistribution more generally (since he repeatedly expressed his fealty to the ideas of class warfare and wealth distribution).

            Re: “Let me tell you, although we voted for Obama in this house, there is nothing “free” coming in for us. We are working our butts off to survive and provide a good home for our children.”

            Perhaps you shouldn’t have bought the snake-oil then? His presidency will continue to make it more difficult for you to provide for your children (perhaps, until or unless you are forced to go on the dole yourself)

            Re: “HHS Mandate or not, health care should be a right in this country.”

            Making it a government sponsored “right” leads DIRECTLY to things like the HHS mandate.

            Re: “If you think it’s okay for someone to die because they are poor, that’s fine. I feel differently and thankfully there are others in this country that feel differently too.”

            Now who is being unkind? I have no sympathy for and/or want to hurt the poor? Where is your evidence for that? Simply because I reject Obamacare specifically and liberalism generally? Sorry, but, not believing in big government is not equivalent to not caring for the poor. That is what I call “The ‘Social Justice’ Shuck And Jive” and it is one of the primary reasons I reject big government (because it hurts the poor). This is an argument I have made here before without any real rebuttal (look for my posts about it on this page: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2012/10/archbishop-chaput-on-politics-and-a-few-reflections-from-me/ ).

            • Sus

              “That is what I call “The ‘Social Justice’ Shuck And Jive” equals conversation OVER.

              • Dr. Peter John Resweber

                Re: “That is what I call “The ‘Social Justice’ Shuck And Jive” equals conversation OVER.

                In other words, you have no actual rebuttal but find different ideas so offensive that you simply refuse to debate them?

                Well, THAT’S quite convincing…

                • Mara

                  Sus – your first comment on this thread was very direct, seeming to indicate that we were to consider that your viewpoint was the only correct view. In other words, your statement meant “conversation over”. Two others echoed your viewpoint to try to impact the discussion. Sorry, there are people who do not agree with you.

                  I hope that the conversation continues in every school district on how best to deal with safety issues. There are fire drills, lockdown drills and severe weather drills. We have storm shelters in all schools – why not have more secure closets so that the teachers can get students go to a very secure area. What else can be given to trained personnel – tasers, pepper sprays, etc? Can the city/district afford to have police officers at the school? What about off-duty officers and other sufficiently trained personnel such as off-duty firefighters or military?

                  By the way – you stated that six hours of training does not qualify anyone to defend themselves. You are incorrect. One hour on the range with a good instructor was enough to make sure that I was comfortable with handling a gun, shooting it, cleaning it and safely storing it. I am also responsible enough to continue practicing. I can protect myself. I will protect others, if the need arises. I did not go for a conceal carry permit since it was stated many times that once you draw the gun, you must be prepared to fire it to kill the person. Anything else means that you are the victim.

                  • Sus

                    I will not have a conversation with Peter because he used racist language that points to the race of our President. That isn’t acceptable in my world.

                    If we want to make an investment and train people like they do in the military and police academies, I might be persuaded. However, the attitude that 6 hours is enough, the investment in training will not happen.

                    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                      I really, really doubt that Peter intended to make a racist remark. I looked up the phrase and one of the definitions on yahoo for “shuck and jive” is “A phrase no one knew was racist until Yahoo said so.”

                    • Mara

                      Ah, Sus…. who ever said that ONE gun class guarantees a CC permit to carry a scary rifle over one’s shoulder (oops, not so concealed) as you write the lessons on the chalkboard. Ha, by some other “standards” mentioned here, that teacher would have to continually do 360 degree turns to ensure complete safety for herself and the class. Hey, the kiddos will love that!

                      If you want us to consider your comments, then please be more specific than more training is needed to protect “oneself and/or others”. I have indicated that I have enough training, in one hour, to protect “oneself”. I will have to decide if I want to go further to protect others.

                      Kill or be killed, that is the question. I will probably opt to kill the evil one, even though it is against my religion. And, if put into a particular situation, I will probably opt to be killed, if there is a chance to save another life, especially if it is a young one.

                      Can you say the same thing? Will you kill to save yourself or others, even if they are not related to you? Can you make the sacrifice?

                      Oh, on the “racist” remark…. there are some people who were not born in this country and did not learn the talk. So, they learned a newer meaning. I’m with Dave in that I did not realize that there was any racist connection with the phrase.

                      But then, I am first generation Latvian & fourth generation Irish-Catholic, so what’s for me to know….oh, I just checked the urban dictionary for Latvian – “an awesome person; totally chill; party hard drinker; comes from eastern europe; best partier; pleasures guys; knows how to have a good time; beautiful girls” Yea…. that described my Mom, but I would have to check with Dad on one of those items on the list. Now to check about the Irish!

                    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

                      Re: “I will not have a conversation with Peter because he used racist language that points to the race of our President. That isn’t acceptable in my world.”

                      In a word: Bull!

                      The term has NOTHING to do with the race of the president and is a term I have been using to describe liberals’ misuse of the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church since long before he even ran for president the first time.

                      But, crying racism is ANOTHER favorite tactic of the left (it avoids having to confront actual ideas).

  • Sus

    Dave – when I was six years old a neighbor used to talk about all the N-word people “shucking and jiving”. It was racist then and it is racist now.

    • Mara

      Only in your context – there are others who have never heard certain terms in specific situations. Heck, call me naive, but I always connected the term with New Orleans – you know schuck oysters and jive to the music. Perhaps, that is what some parents taught their children – alternate terms. Don’t go to the racist ones.

      I never heard my mother (born in Latvia) refer to anyone by any slang word. However, she did tell me later how a black child called her “whitey”, meaning to be very insulting. My mother had said hello, meaning to be very nice to the child. But, this kid lashed out at her and the child’s mother ran away, never apoligizing to my mother (hint – that mom knew that it was wrong). It affected my mom, but she never told me until late in her life.

      However, I am well aware of the insults that my mother endured because she had a foreign accent or didn’t know something “local”.

      So, what are we to do about language? Since I am a first-generation off the boat type of gal, I tend to look at alternatives. Did I understand correctly? Is there another meaning? Why? I do not just assume that the other person really knows what the heck they said. I had to correct my mom on a few occasions..ah good and funny stories, but you had to be there…

      So, Sus… can ya chill a bit? Oh, and be more direct in your criticisms? I note that there are a few instances where you are so insulted, but it takes another person to ask why. Just tell us already!

      Oh – have a nice day! I’m glad I found this site, it is so amusing to read the stuff that goes here1

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      Re: “Dave – when I was six years old a neighbor used to talk about all the N-word people “shucking and jiving”. It was racist then and it is racist now.”

      Again, in a word: BULL!

      How dare you call me racist! You know NOTHING about my racial views.

      Again, my use of the term has NOTHING to do with the race of the president and is a term I have been using to describe liberals’ misuse of the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church since long before I had even heard of this president.

      It seems you have NO problem with being unkind and unfair (as long as you’re attacking a conservative – we’re just all closet racists and haters and meanies aren’t we?)

      WHAT A FRICKING HYPOCRITE YOU ARE!

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      @Sus and Post Script:
      There are at least two bits of data which completely undercut your assertion that my use of “The ‘Social Justice’ Shuck And Jive” was meant to carry some racial undertone.

      The first and admittedly weaker point applies if you read my first response to your complaint about the term. A fair reading would probably reveal to most that I “missed the point”. In fact, I was actually thinking that you were offended by my questioning the exclusive social justice credentials of the left.

      The stronger point would be to follow the link I provided. If you had bothered to do so and read just a little, you would have found about 3,000 words developing the concept. You would have found VERY CLEARLY that it was a term and a concept developed specifically to battle the “conventional wisdom [which] embraces a false dichotomy suggesting that the left cares for the poor but not the unborn and the right cares for the unborn but not the poor”. You would have found that those approximately 3,000 words did NOT support your supposition that my ideas were racist.

      But hey, why be fair? Why be kind? Why wrestle with difficult ideas when you can just dismiss everything with a PATENTLY FALSE accusation of racism?

      In the end, I will agree with one thing you said. Until and/or unless you can muster the decency to admit you were DEAD WRONG ABOUT ME AND APOLOGIZE then this “equals conversation OVER” (because you will have proven yourself to be such an unthinking, unfair, rash and close-minded person as to be unworthy of any more of my effort).

  • Ted Seeber

    A gun can’t stop a drone. I’m surprised nobody has simply created a gunpowder bomb delivered by model rocket yet.

  • Pingback: “I feel like I would take a bullet for any student in the school district,” Hansen, a special education teacher in a Salt Lake City school district, told Reuters after the training session. « Family Survival Protocol


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X