Guns In Schools From A Teacher’s Perspective

AaargoJay gives his opinion on the matter:

3:04 – “The teachers need to have background checks” – Whoa what?  You mean to become a teacher in the first place you don’t have to undergo a background check?  I’m asking, because I actually figured working with kids likely required that.

I respect the fact he made this video, but it seems risky from a career standpoint if some of the higher-ups have a wildly different opinion than him, and happen to catch wind that this is how Jay feels.

AaargoJay-YouTubeBefore someone else points it out, yes MrColionNoir made a video on the same topic a few days ago.

AaargoJay is wearing the California No Right To Bear Arms T-Shirt from ENDO Apparel.  He’s got an older version though, the new one is distressed.




Brannon LeBouef June 22, 2013 at 12:45 am

Yes, almost every state requires a background check, including fingerprinting, to be a school teacher. “specialized training by FBI AND local LEO AND LOCAL school district..” nah

SittingDown June 22, 2013 at 05:12 am

Background checks are a stupid idea, it’s a waste of money, and it’s there for only one reason: to make white people feel safe. (based on George Carlin’s rant on airport security). LOL ;)

Jim P. June 22, 2013 at 07:24 am

I do agree that there needs to be training. A hundred kids running down a hall makes a difference in tactics.

The Buckeye Firearms Association has already started the training for Ohio teachers and staff.

Dale S June 22, 2013 at 10:39 am

All teachers in Texas already go through a very involved background check and are fingerprinted. I wouldn’t necessarily have an issue with a yearly background check (for teachers), as the background check they do is only a snapshot at that particular point and time.

There is currently only one school in Texas that allows concealed carry by teachers, and it’s not every teacher. The teacher must approach the administration and ask permission. Once the admin approves it, the only people that know which teachers are carrying are the principals, superintendent, and the school board president. No other teachers or parents are informed of who carries.

A couple of other caveats…. First, the firearm MUST be loaded with frangible ammo only. Makes sense. Second, the teacher must have additional handgun training from a certified firearms instructor (think some type of advanced combat pistol class).

If there are other schools in Texas that are going this route, they are keeping it pretty quiet. But I don’t have doubts that there are more than the one. Especially with the amount of rural areas and small isolated towns.

Brannon LeBouef June 22, 2013 at 07:36 pm

Frangible ammo doers not make sense.

rjparis June 22, 2013 at 08:31 pm

limited over penetration.

Brannon LeBouef June 23, 2013 at 12:57 am

Does not make sense. Have you been in a school lately? They are made of concrete and the doors are solid wood with wire fused safety glass windows.

It does not make sense. It is people who have no idea what they are talking about from a defensive firearms standpoint making policy.

Dale S June 23, 2013 at 01:29 am

Um…. not all schools are new and built in such a manner. In my hometown, only the exterior walls of the elementary and middle school are brick/cinder block. Interior walls are not. The windows are single pane tilt open windows. So yes, it does make sense in some cases.

Aaargo Jay June 22, 2013 at 11:17 am

I posted this vid on Young Guns TV the same day Mr. Colion Noir posted it to YouTube! I guess great minds think alike! We do go through background checks, but to possess a firearm in a school, in my opinion, would require an additional BC and possibly a psych eval. I’m just saying, I have some crazy, unstable ass co-workers. I thought about the risk of making this vid, but the necessity of the idea far outweighed the risk. You would be surprised how many of us feel like this. But if they want to take action on me for my “feelings” and “thoughts”, I’ll be buying .50 cal BMG’s for everyone. My attorney is a beast!!!

Jim P. June 22, 2013 at 06:25 pm


The problem with extended background checks is that they don’t really provide anything other than revenue for whatever government that is conducting the check. What will they find? The guy saw a shrink at age 20 for depression? He’s now 40, does it really matter? How about the guy that got in a fight with his brother at 18 and was nailed for DV but not convicted? What about the guy that passed the extended check and then is given mix of drugs by a shrink that leads to psychosis?

Just think what you would do if they dropped the NFA rules and you could now buy an M-16. Would you go and shoot something up other than “crap” at a range?

I can support background checks as they are now; it discourages bad guys from buying from an FFL. but it doesn’t get too far in the way of the legal citizen.

If you know a CCW/CHL that is displaying aberrant behavior and you don’t report it why isn’t it you fault when they go off? But if you have a coworker that is a little weird, is that enough to deny them a CCW/CHL?

This is the argument that followed Sandy Hook for universal background checks. How would have background checks stopped the kid from killing his mother and using her weapons?

I can agree to an additional training requirement, and I would expect it. The typical CCW/CHL course is aimed to you standing in a convenience store and the bad guy with a shotgun walks in. The tactical situation in a school is a different animal.

rjparis June 22, 2013 at 08:33 pm

I think he’s suggesting background checks for TEACHERS and staff that wish to carry a gun on school property. Not an umbrella for all of us.

Aaargo Jay June 22, 2013 at 08:36 pm


Aaargo Jay June 22, 2013 at 08:35 pm

More of a psych eval than a BC. Trust me, as an insider, I know that is a must for many reasons.

Jim P. June 22, 2013 at 09:17 pm

I can see the psych eval. The question is how often?

At the recommendation of a fellow teacher? Every year? Before they go wild and shoot someone? Afterward? Because he said he liked the “ST: The Search for Spock”?

The problem with your argument is that generally, people know they shouldn’t be carrying a gun. Even a CCW will leave the firearm home because they know they are probably going to have a drink after work on Friday.

I see no problem with the additional training instructor not giving the certificate or the school admin saying “Teacher John Doe” can’t carry in school. But your argument is trying to say you have foreknowledge of what someone will do.

Ohio has over 300K CCW licenses outstanding over 5 years. Talking to a CCW instructor, so far only three CCW holders have been convicted of murder.

Brannon LeBouef June 23, 2013 at 12:58 am

If they need a psych eval to carry a firearm, THEY SHOULD NOT BE INTRUSTED WITH CHILDREN>

Think about it.

Aaargo Jay June 23, 2013 at 10:00 am

I agree, but unfortunately… There are some unstable people in this profession, and many others that slip through the cracks as well. We all have seen examples of people who probably should not be employed in a nimber of different fields. It is jus the sad reality of society today.

Jim P. June 23, 2013 at 05:15 pm

I won’t disagree. But restricting someone’s rights at a federal, or state level is part of how we have arrived where we are.

I would rather have a principal or school board say J. Doe can’t carry just because we know him and don’t think it’s a good idea. Leaving it to some nanny state shrink is bad.

Maybe write the state law that a minimum preferred armed staff is two. The school will receive an additional $4K per armed staff over two up to eight armed staff. Additional armed staff is not restricted, but the renumeration will not be increased.

So essentially you give the school board incentive to have more concealed carry, but you don’t limit it. But the local people are making the decisions. You keep the MF’ers in the state capital out of your life.

There is a reason that I say this. I was with my lady for 13 years. She passed unexpectedly. I owned firearms, but they were generally tucked away. Mixing me with a firearm at that time could have been a very bad idea. Now eight years down the line I’m back to an upstanding rational person. But taking away or restricting my Second Amendment rights for life for where I was then compared to now is a lack of justice and equal rights.

Dale S June 24, 2013 at 08:35 am

Well said. Keep the government out, especially at the federal level. Let the local folks who have had a chance to interact with the individual on a daily basis make those calls. Jim, to use you as an example….. If Jim was a grieving teacher, and I was an administrator, I would ask him, “Jim, are you in the right frame of mind to be carrying right now? I ask because you’ve been through a really traumatic event and are in bad shape right now. We’ve got your back, and are here to support you and love on you (no homo), but I don’t think right now you need to be saddled with the additional, and stressful, responsibility of protecting these kids lives, at school.”

Nakedgun June 25, 2013 at 04:35 pm

Well spoken, Jay.
Made some very good points. I suggested ccw for teachers to my Department and School Resource Officers after Columbine, but it fell on deaf ears. I think that will all change when one of these psychos goes to shoot-up a school, and meets an armed Teacher or Administrator. But, this Countries’ political environment is all based on knee-jerk reaction. They’s rather install more metal-detectors and higher walls.

Older post:

Newer post: