View Full Version : A post about protecting these kids in these schools
I have the resources to put armed guards at these elementary schools through my company. I just have to figure out how to go about doing it. I need to know who to talk to to get it approved? My wife does not think it will happen because she says parents would not feel comfortable with an armed guard on school grounds, which I find stupid you would think they would feel more comfortable. These guards would be well trained and very good marksmen. I run the company as far as being in the field I just do not take care of the business side of it. Any input and or help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Leave that job to the city LE & SRO program.
Great-Kazoo
12-15-2012, 04:04
The ins plus liberal opposition makes it impossible. They don't want protection, only a perfect where crime & gun's don't exist.
The ins plus liberal opposition makes it impossible. They don't want protection, only a perfect where crime & gun's don't exist.but its for the children , drugs are illegal and nobody does those right ? [Coffee]
Fortunately incidents like these are relatively rare. Maybe two or three a year, usually over very quickly, randomly scattered across the country.
Armed private security at a public school will not be a popular idea.
cmailliard
12-15-2012, 07:08
Leave that job to the city LE & SRO program.
Unfortunately this to me is part of the problem. They are stretched to thin - One SRO may cover 2-3 schools. When they are in school they are helping school security break up arguing matches, busting kids for smoking, other nonsense that distracts them from providing true security. I know an SRO who was 10-15 reports behind one week, do you think he is at the door, in the cafeteria or otherwise being a sheepdog? No he is doing paperwork. SRO's need to be supplemented by additional SRO's or I believe private security. SRO's are there to be the liaison between school and LE and to provide subject matter knowledge to school administration on matters of the law, not provide security. Security is just an additional, albeit small, benefit of a LEO in schools. All this MJ money schools are going to be getting now - Put it towards additional armed security.
Pardon me for being captain obvious but this sort of thing didn't happen nor were armed guards needed in schools before they took God out of school.
Yes, the pledge of allegiance and catholic school for everyone, that fixes it...
Religion doesn't stop crazy people, if anything it makes it worse. From visiting a lot of psych insitutions due to an ex GF who lived in them as well as my current job. All to many cling to the idea of religion and spout it, take actions on it, but don't actually have the first clue about it. (Just whatever twisted version they make up.)
Would be nice if that somehow actually somehow was the easy answer, but it just isn't.
Mental Health system in this country and enforcement is non existant. There is no money in it for corporations and the backlash from the old days of padded rooms and shock therapy has everyone too limp wristed about putting any restrictions on the "freedom" of the deranged.
Bailey Guns
12-15-2012, 08:13
Pardon me for being captain obvious but this sort of thing didn't happen nor were armed guards needed in schools before they took God out of school.
School violence in the US goes back to at least 1927. I don't necessarily disagree with your premise but I don't necessarily think allowing prayer in school will solve the problem, either.
The problem is there are crazy, unhinged people in our society and they aren't always easy to spot. There really is no effective way of dealing with all these people. As I heard on the radio yesterday (attributed to an FBI profiler and paraphrased), "You can rest assured there is someone, somewhere, planning an even more horrific attack than this one".
We live in a free(?) and open society. One of the risks of the freedom and openness we enjoy is having to endure unthinkable events like this. We can't stop it. Ever. We can fortify schools until they resemble maximum security prisons...and then someone on the inside will go berserk and kill someone. We can put armed guards in the schools and they won't be in the right place at the right time to prevent a tragedy.
Every time something like this happens we ask ourselves the same questions over and over. Feel-good, knee-jerk reactions lead to new "security" measures and new legislation and the same thing eventually happens again.
The bottom line is schools and other "gun free zones" are soft and attractive targets for someone looking to vent their maniacal rage. As soon as we take guns away, they'll use a bomb, or fire or a knife (happened recently in China). When we fortify the schools they'll attack a hospital or a church or a mall (they already do).
There really are no good answers as to "why does this happen?" and "what can we do to prevent it from happening again?" and we might as well realize that.
DireWolf
12-15-2012, 09:25
I think there are quite a bit of good-bang-for-the-buck measures which can be undertaken by the schools to enhance security without going off the deep end in the wrong direction....For example:
1. All entrances should be locked throughout the entire school day except for active (in-use) entrances which are fully monitored
2. CCTV cameras above all ingress/egress points, with alerts to administrative staff eny time an external door is opened
3. Classroom doors are locked while in class
4. This one may not fly with the school disctrict, but there should be a requirement that at least one administrator is onsite at all times who has undergon annual urban CQB training and is carrying concealed...
Just my 2 cents...
dwalker460
12-15-2012, 09:34
It should be a requirement for all teacher applicants that they possess not only a quality and approved firearm, but also receive training and carry specific certifications BEFORE they even apply for a teaching position. Once hired, they are required to test out every year they are employeed as a teacher or substitute teachers.
They should also be required to have passed several courses in actual crisis management, restraining out of control individuals, etc. along the exact same lines as those who work with the mentally ill or with "troubled" youth.
And they would need to pay for this training themselves, prior to even being considered for employeement.
SuperiorDG
12-15-2012, 09:34
There are a lot of low cost measures that can be put in place to slow any intruder down enough that a QRF police unit could get to the school in time to have an effect.
cmailliard
12-15-2012, 09:52
It should be a requirement for all teacher applicants that they possess not only a quality and approved firearm, but also receive training and carry specific certifications BEFORE they even apply for a teaching position. Once hired, they are required to test out every year they are employeed as a teacher or substitute teachers.
They should also be required to have passed several courses in actual crisis management, restraining out of control individuals, etc. along the exact same lines as those who work with the mentally ill or with "troubled" youth.
And they would need to pay for this training themselves, prior to even being considered for employeement.
Yeah that will not work - But a group of teachers, A Well Regulated Milita if you will, is more in the realm of possibility. Same ideas you have but not mandatory for all. I think people would be surprised how many teachers and admins would actually go for this. Crisis Management is needed, big time. Most teachers and admins turn into a soup sandwich at any hint of crisis.
dwalker460
12-15-2012, 09:55
Uh it CAN work, it works in other countries and there is not ONE THING other than libtard BS that would prevent it from working in this country. As a bonus, the gun hating left might actually refuse to follow simple requirements, not be able to be teachers, and our kids might actually learn something of value.
I don't want armed guards at my kids school...we are not a 3rd world country that needs military presence in every public location
The easy answer is to allow CCW's to CCW in school. Just one teacher with a permit could have stopped the carnage.
Uh it CAN work, it works in other countries and there is not ONE THING other than libtard BS that would prevent it from working in this country. As a bonus, the gun hating left might actually refuse to follow simple requirements, not be able to be teachers, and our kids might actually learn something of value.
Tell me what country has mandatory armed teachers? Deescalation training sure, restraint? I don't think a lot of teachers are in physical shape to do that.
DireWolf
12-15-2012, 10:11
one teacher with a permit and training...weapon handling and target engagement are not skills to be taken for granted.
Tell me what country has mandatory armed teachers? Deescalation training sure, restraint? I don't think a lot of teachers are in physical shape to do that.
Israel
i would rather our teachers be allowed to ccw then see armed guards/LEO at schools
dwalker460
12-15-2012, 10:23
Tell me what country has mandatory armed teachers? Deescalation training sure, restraint? I don't think a lot of teachers are in physical shape to do that.
If they cant do the job, then they dont get the job. Simple.
Might even help with the obesity issues in this country.
Might help with the Litard crap spewing from our schools
Would be a lot nicer than having uniformed officers patroling the halls
Would be a lot safer than waiting for an officer to run from one end of the building to the other, then up two flight of stairs, to deal with a situation.
Might actually instill a sense of safety and confidense in the teaching staff and lead to similar feelings in the students.
An armed teacher would 1 do their job as a teacher.
2 then a secondary aspect would be to protect the children and act in the way they were tught and with mandatory timed training would probably do a great job.
A placed leo or armed guard would 1 cause distraction, 2 be wrapped up in government BS, 3 want more pay etc etc etc, and would probably cause more problems than good.
I kinda like a couple of the ideas presented here. one of them being a single teacher with a CCW and CQB training and Restraint training. I also like the "Well Regulated" militia idea. why not combine them? there are some older teachers out there that love to each but simply have passed their prime age and have grown a little to accustomed to classroom life who simply can not preform the movements required for CQB training. However they can still carry concealed though...so why not let them. off it to the teachers on their little meetings, something to the effect of "There is a CQB/Restraint training goin on on this date and at this time, anyone who would like to attend is more than welcome." However making the training and CCW a requirement for employment is kinda dumb. I'm not trying to be ignorant of the ways of the world, I understand that Israel has that kind of requirement, but I dont think it fits into an american school. the turmoil in Israel is much worse than it is here.
anyway, my mind is starting to wonder into the kitchen and my coffee pot. just my two cents on the issue.[Coffee]
Holger Danske
12-15-2012, 10:53
Im just spitballing here... tIf teachers dont want to carry firearms, then why not madate all faculty and students wear bullet proof vests. At least give the adults a chance if they had to rush an active shooter. Also, lots of schools allow archery as a sport. Train teachers to shoot a bow and allow them to keep it in their room.
Do as the FAA does with pilots.
Armed teachers? Have you seen the teachers these days? Most if not all of them are weak sheep. They would just be a vehicle to bring the guns into the school. Then they would be easily overtaken. I don't want the person that is there to save lives being distracted (teaching) with ANYTHING other than that. Volunteer armed PARENTS that pass background checks (no nut jobs with a half baked desire to be the cop they never could be), advanced training (in conjunction with local LEO so tactics and info. are consistent) and arduous PHYSICAL requirements. Then they, WE, I, would have a stake in the game. MY kids to protect! The guards must have a kid in the school to be considered. Have a rotating core of however many you need to cover all of the days that school is in session. They communicate, they train they watch. They don't bust kids for smoking or ditching or stealing or fighting or ANYTHING. They shoot bad people that try to shoot our kids.
Sign me up.
dwalker460
12-15-2012, 11:30
Armed teachers? Have you seen the teachers these days? Most if not all of them are weak sheep. They would just be a vehicle to bring the guns into the school. Then they would be easily overtaken. I don't want the person that is there to save lives being distracted (teaching) with ANYTHING other than that. Volunteer armed PARENTS that pass background checks (no nut jobs with a half baked desire to be the cop they never could be), advanced training (in conjunction with local LEO so tactics and info. are consistent) and arduous PHYSICAL requirements. Then they, WE, I, would have a stake in the game. MY kids to protect! The guards must have a kid in the school to be considered. Have a rotating core of however many you need to cover all of the days that school is in session. They communicate, they train they watch. They don't bust kids for smoking or ditching or stealing or fighting or ANYTHING. They shoot bad people that try to shoot our kids.
Sign me up.
No.
Parents need to be earning a living so that the kids have a home to go home to. Unemployeed parents need to be out looking for a job.
Teachers are being PAID MONEY to do a job, part of which is to provide for the safety and security of the students in thier care. If they cannot do this, then they need to be let go.
Now the argument is going to be that teachers are just people and should not be asked to put themselves in harms way. Bull-fucking-shit. They are not being asked to put themselves in harms way, they are being required to know what to do if the worst happens. They would be required to have at least the MEANS if not the fortitude, to do what is right. Maybe they turn and run with thier gun still locked in thier desk, but maybe one of them actually stands up and does what needs to be done, BEFORE 20 kids are shot, or a fellow teacher is killed.
Swear to God the level of personal responsibility and fucking stones in this country has diminished to the point I feel like I'm in France.
Leave that job to the city LE & SRO program.Yeah cause that is working great.
Fortunately incidents like these are relatively rare. Maybe two or three a year, usually over very quickly, randomly scattered across the country.
Armed private security at a public school will not be a popular idea.Wow what country do you live in? And 1 a year is to much. And they are over very quickly that is why I want to do this, I might not be able to stop all deaths but it would not get up to 26. Who knows I might not be able to stop it at all but I will sure try.
It should be a requirement for all teacher applicants that they possess not only a quality and approved firearm, but also receive training and carry specific certifications BEFORE they even apply for a teaching position. Once hired, they are required to test out every year they are employeed as a teacher or substitute teachers.
They should also be required to have passed several courses in actual crisis management, restraining out of control individuals, etc. along the exact same lines as those who work with the mentally ill or with "troubled" youth.
And they would need to pay for this training themselves, prior to even being considered for employeement.I completely agree with this but it will never happen. This is pretty much what I said in the other post.
I don't want armed guards at my kids school...we are not a 3rd world country that needs military presence in every public location
The easy answer is to allow CCW's to CCW in school. Just one teacher with a permit could have stopped the carnage.Maybe if he was not shot and killed first. I think all teachers should carry and have to train at least every six months.
i would rather our teachers be allowed to ccw then see armed guards/LEO at schoolsWhy would you not want to know that there is a well trained guard who's only job is to watch out for this situation and to be able to take care of it. What comfort do you have now? What if this would have been your kids school that this happened to? It is people like you who I do not understand and will probably be the reason I will not be able to do this. I am going to fight for this and go as high up as I need to go as I feel it is necessary. I know this is not a 3rd world country but you are wrong if you think we do not need armed guards/staff/police on site. Nothing has worked so far and this is getting worse. When I was a kid they had metal detectors and police at my school, and guess what there were no shootings after that. I guess my point is I do not care about what the parents think about having armed guards at schools, my only concern is keeping this from happening again. I am going to home school my kids until there is a safer environment in the public schooling program.
An armed teacher would 1 do their job as a teacher.
2 then a secondary aspect would be to protect the children and act in the way they were tught and with mandatory timed training would probably do a great job.
A placed leo or armed guard would 1 cause distraction, 2 be wrapped up in government BS, 3 want more pay etc etc etc, and would probably cause more problems than good.Why do you think this? I believe it would help more than anything. I am talking about having a well trained guard sit in a unmarked car outside of the school maybe in uniform maybe not, it depends on the situation I guess. As far as wanting more pay I am willing to take a pay cut to do this, and anyone who works for me that wont I will can.
DireWolf
12-15-2012, 11:57
Why do you think this? I believe it would help more than anything. I am talking about having a well trained guard sit in a unmarked car outside of the school maybe in uniform maybe not, it depends on the situation I guess. As far as wanting more pay I am willing to take a pay cut to do this, and anyone who works for me that wont I will can.
One of the main issues is also going to be response time. Having one or more responders inside the school itself at all times, who are familiar with the daily routine, along with control over all ingress/egress point would go a long way...I think the mandatory for employment option is way out, but that it may be possible to require the training for a minimum number of personnel, based on job/role.
Anytime the government gets involved in anything it goes to shit. And for awhile we had deputies on our school grounds ended up alot of wierd stuff going on in the high school.
But hey a retired LEO that really doesn't want to be retired might be advantageous.
Another depressing thread. There isn't enough money or resources to provide full time security at schools. Not only is it not cost effective, but it is just not necessary. People have to be able to defend themselves. That is all it takes. That's it. Extremely simple. Right now, it is impossible to effectively defend anyone at a school, even yourself, from someone armed with a firearm. Once people are allowed to defend themselves at schools again, this problem will go away.
My $0.02 worth.
I want to thank Atrain1 for bringing this issue up. I think this is a great start at thinking of alternatives to protect our children.
There are a ton of people on this forum with infinitely more experience in planning for these matters than me. I hope we might engage them in a well-thought-out plan that is not knee-jerk - and right now there is plenty of knee-jerk going around. There is the knee-jerk from those who have been deeply and emotionally affected by the tragedy. There is knee-jerk from those who anticipate the likely push to attack our liberties as gun owners. Too much knee-jerk helps no one and fails to advance a workable solution.
I honestly don't know a workable solution right now, but am quite willing to engage in a debate to advance one. I see problems with some of the options mentioned upthread. It starts with response logistics. From my admittedly limited understanding of how events unfolded in all the school shooting incidents (and intentionally separating those from the Aurora theater incident), the one thing that bothers me is that the shootings began and concluded in a very short amount of time and in a relatively small geographical area. If my understanding is correct, then having armed ANYONE in an area more than a few yards away is likely to not have much real effect on the outcome - unless one counts the possible deterrent effect of knowing there are firearms on campus. Can someone/anyone with more information - or a different understanding/opinion - please chime in?
The parallel to the airline decision to arm pilots is an idea worth exploring, IMO. Again, as I understand it, this is an entirely voluntary program and those pilots who choose to be armed must undergo background checks. The weapon is transported and kept in a locked container that is readily accessible to the cockpit crew in case of an emergency. I would be willing to bet there is a fairly large proportion of teachers willing to undergo additional scrutiny and training in order that they might be allowed to carry arms in school. Whether they would carry at all times or the weapon would be kept locked yet accessible is a point for further discussion.
I just watched an online video with Piers Morgan in which he shouted down an opposing viewpoint with the declaration that "More guns is NOT the answer!" Gotta confess that it rankles me more than a little bit listening to him spout his agenda with that British accent and his British examples - but that aside, I think the answer *IS* more guns - in the hands of those checked and trained and willing to use them.
Thoughts - criticisms?
Another depressing thread. There isn't enough money or resources to provide full time security at schools. Not only is it not cost effective, but it is just not necessary. People have to be able to defend themselves. That is all it takes. That's it. Extremely simple. Right now, it is impossible to effectively defend anyone at a school, even yourself, from someone armed with a firearm. Once people are allowed to defend themselves at schools again, this problem will go away.
The anti-gun crowd would take your position as promoting the notion that 6-year-olds should be armed, and I am sure that is not your intent. So then the question becomes - at schools, how, exactly, do people (children) defend themselves?
I wholeheartedly agree with your basic premise that the issue is these gun-free zones that are used by crazies purely because they know they will not meet armed resistance. So how to address that in the case of an elementary school?
Do as the FAA does with pilots.
TSA runs the FFDO program for pilots, not the FAA.
https://www.ffdoa.org/
http://www.secure-skies.org/FFDOTrainingGouge.php
If you want something done right...
Be safe.
One of the main issues is also going to be response time. Having one or more responders inside the school itself at all times, who are familiar with the daily routine, along with control over all ingress/egress point would go a long way...I think the mandatory for employment option is way out, but that it may be possible to require the training for a minimum number of personnel, based on job/role.
I cannot subscribe to "mandatory" requirements for someone to be armed and respond. For one, that merely leads to a sense of false security. For another, given the mindset of many of the teachers and school administrators I have met - the last thing they would want is to have anything to do with guns - so I don't want them associated with firearms either. Far better, in my mind anyway, that the system be voluntary and all volunteers (teachers, staff and other school workers) would be required to undergo a thorough background investigation, and then participate in initial and ongoing training. I am willing to bet there are plenty of teachers and staff who would be willing to participate.
The only reason this happened was because those poor kids were forced to go to school. The only way to prevent these situations in the future is to ban public education.
The only reason this happened was because those poor kids were forced to go to school. The only way to prevent these situations in the future is to ban public education.
I have children in public schools right now. Putting aside your attempt to be light-hearted, I did consider the option of home-schooling as a response. I suspect others will as well.
The anti-gun crowd would take your position as promoting the notion that 6-year-olds should be armed, and I am sure that is not your intent. So then the question becomes - at schools, how, exactly, do people (children) defend themselves?
I wholeheartedly agree with your basic premise that the issue is these gun-free zones that are used by crazies purely because they know they will not meet armed resistance. So how to address that in the case of an elementary school?
You answered your question in your own post before you addressed my post. I expect the people who care about safety and security to be the ones to provide safety and security. What is the ratio of active neighborhood watch participants to neighbors living in the neighborhood? What is the ratio of school staff (teachers, administrators, janitors, cooks, nurses, coaches), and anyone else who might be on the grounds at the time (parents, speakers, delivery people, maintenance personnel) to total occupancy of the school? It doesn't matter. As long as there is an opportunity to fill the role, the role will be filled.
It makes no sense to require everyone to participate, not everyone will be willing, or even capable. I don't want a school full of combat trained individuals. I want diversity in the staff. You don't learn anything from people who are all the same. Again, right now, there is zero change that anyone can defend themselves effectively at a school. The answer is to allow that opportunity to exist, nothing more, nothing less.
My $0.02 worth.
I want to thank Atrain1 for bringing this issue up. I think this is a great start at thinking of alternatives to protect our children.
There are a ton of people on this forum with infinitely more experience in planning for these matters than me. I hope we might engage them in a well-thought-out plan that is not knee-jerk - and right now there is plenty of knee-jerk going around. There is the knee-jerk from those who have been deeply and emotionally affected by the tragedy. There is knee-jerk from those who anticipate the likely push to attack our liberties as gun owners. Too much knee-jerk helps no one and fails to advance a workable solution.
I honestly don't know a workable solution right now, but am quite willing to engage in a debate to advance one. I see problems with some of the options mentioned upthread. It starts with response logistics. From my admittedly limited understanding of how events unfolded in all the school shooting incidents (and intentionally separating those from the Aurora theater incident), the one thing that bothers me is that the shootings began and concluded in a very short amount of time and in a relatively small geographical area. If my understanding is correct, then having armed ANYONE in an area more than a few yards away is likely to not have much real effect on the outcome - unless one counts the possible deterrent effect of knowing there are firearms on campus. Can someone/anyone with more information - or a different understanding/opinion - please chime in?
The parallel to the airline decision to arm pilots is an idea worth exploring, IMO. Again, as I understand it, this is an entirely voluntary program and those pilots who choose to be armed must undergo background checks. The weapon is transported and kept in a locked container that is readily accessible to the cockpit crew in case of an emergency. I would be willing to bet there is a fairly large proportion of teachers willing to undergo additional scrutiny and training in order that they might be allowed to carry arms in school. Whether they would carry at all times or the weapon would be kept locked yet accessible is a point for further discussion.
I just watched an online video with Piers Morgan in which he shouted down an opposing viewpoint with the declaration that "More guns is NOT the answer!" Gotta confess that it rankles me more than a little bit listening to him spout his agenda with that British accent and his British examples - but that aside, I think the answer *IS* more guns - in the hands of those checked and trained and willing to use them.
Thoughts - criticisms?I have giving the option of arming teachers another thought and in my opinion it is a bad idea. I know people that work in the school district and know a lot of teachers that in their opinion should not be teaching let alone have a gun. My reasoning behind this is all it would take is one unstable teacher to lose his marbles and shoot up the whole class room. I know there can be BC on people to see if they qualify to posses a handgun on school grounds but even that is not a guaranty, it would also cut down on a lot of potential applicants that would probably make good teachers (mainly talking about people that are against guns) also the teachers job is to teach. As far as as law enforcement patrolling or even being on school grounds at all times would be better than nothing, but I still think private security is a better option. As a private security guard I and or my employee's can concentrate on their only job they are assigned to which is protecting the school. I am not talking about having Rambo running around on school grounds with an M4 and full tactical gear. What I want to do is put a armed guard at the school in a patrol vehicle and mainly just have him watch the school. This guard would have a list of people who are supposed to be there and just mainly watch out for anything suspicious. Depending on the school maybe even do foot patrols every so often. My goal would be to stop anyone from entering the school that (A) should not be there (B) looks suspicious (C) stop anyone from removing any children. I have not worked out the detail nor do I even know if I can get the funding or approval, but you should be able to kind of get an idea of what I am trying to accomplish.
You answered your question in your own post before you addressed my post. I expect the people who care about safety and security to be the ones to provide safety and security. What is the ratio of active neighborhood watch participants to neighbors living in the neighborhood? What is the ratio of school staff (teachers, administrators, janitors, cooks, nurses, coaches), and anyone else who might be on the grounds at the time (parents, speakers, delivery people, maintenance personnel) to total occupancy of the school? It doesn't matter. As long as there is an opportunity to fill the role, the role will be filled.
It makes no sense to require everyone to participate, not everyone will be willing, or even capable. I don't want a school full of combat trained individuals. I want diversity in the staff. You don't learn anything from people who are all the same. Again, right now, there is zero change that anyone can defend themselves effectively at a school. The answer is to allow that opportunity to exist, nothing more, nothing less.
I have a question just to clarify. I *think* what you suggest is that laws prohibiting firearms on campuses be rescinded so that anyone who has CCW or even open carry would be available to whomever on school grounds. Your premise would seem to be that the deterrent effect of removing a gun-free zone would be sufficient to reduce these tragedies. Do I understand your point correctly?
Edit to add - your other premise is that with a sufficient number of armed people on campus, the ability to respond quickly would be available - something that is obviously not happening at present. Sorry for not mentioning this important point pre-edit.
I have giving the option of arming teachers another thought and in my opinion it is a bad idea. I know people that work in the school district and know a lot of teachers that in their opinion should not be teaching let alone have a gun. My reasoning behind this is all it would take is one unstable teacher to lose his marbles and shoot up the whole class room. I know there can be BC on people to see if they qualify to posses a handgun on school grounds but even that is not a guaranty, it would also cut down on a lot of potential applicants that would probably make good teachers (mainly talking about people that are against guns) also the teachers job is to teach. As far as as law enforcement patrolling or even being on school grounds at all times would be better than nothing, but I still think private security is a better option. As a private security guard I and or my employee's can concentrate on their only job they are assigned to which is protecting the school. I am not talking about having Rambo running around on school grounds with an M4 and full tactical gear. What I want to do is put a armed guard at the school in a patrol vehicle and mainly just have him watch the school. This guard would have a list of people who are supposed to be there and just mainly watch out for anything suspicious. Depending on the school maybe even do foot patrols every so often. My goal would be to stop anyone from entering the school that (A) should not be there (B) looks suspicious (C) stop anyone from removing any children. I have not worked out the detail nor do I even know if I can get the funding or approval, but you should be able to kind of get an idea of what I am trying to accomplish.
Who is paying for the armed guard? Taxpayers.
Non starter.
Schools already do a less than adequate job of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. How could you justify the cost of an armed guard when you can barely justify an art, music or PE teacher? If you can't do more for less money than we are spending now on the public school system, it is dead before it gets out of the gate.
I personally have problems with the idea of a SRO. What 23 year old individual who chooses a career in law enforcement volunteers to spend every shift in a middle school? Either those officers don't want to be there and are looking for something else to keep their selves busy or they are probably not suited to the profession. This is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
Be safe.
I have giving the option of arming teachers another thought and in my opinion it is a bad idea. I know people that work in the school district and know a lot of teachers that in their opinion should not be teaching let alone have a gun. My reasoning behind this is all it would take is one unstable teacher to lose his marbles and shoot up the whole class room. I know there can be BC on people to see if they qualify to posses a handgun on school grounds but even that is not a guaranty, it would also cut down on a lot of potential applicants that would probably make good teachers (mainly talking about people that are against guns) also the teachers job is to teach.
It seems to not have occurred to you that the exact same could be said about any of your security personnel. I have a little experience with non-armed security, and I wouldn't want ANY of those people anywhere near my kid.
I have a question just to clarify. I *think* what you suggest is that laws prohibiting firearms on campuses be rescinded so that anyone who has CCW or even open carry would be available to whomever on school grounds. Your premise would seem to be that the deterrent effect of removing a gun-free zone would be sufficient to reduce these tragedies. Do I understand your point correctly?
Essentially, yes, that is what I am suggesting. In most cases, no one is in a better position to protect people, than the people themselves. Police are great at protecting people, if they happen to be there. To address your concerns about people thinking that I am suggesting arming 6 year-olds, I disagree. If I advocate that families have the opportunity to provide their own protection, no one will suggest that I am hinting at arming my five year-old in order to protect my family, over myself and my wife doing the protecting.
Who is paying for the armed guard? Taxpayers.
Non starter.
Schools already do a less than adequate job of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. How could you justify the cost of an armed guard when you can barely justify an art, music or PE teacher? If you can't do more for less money than we are spending now on the public school system, it is dead before it gets out of the gate.
I personally have problems with the idea of a SRO. What 23 year old individual who chooses a career in law enforcement volunteers to spend every shift in a middle school? Either those officers don't want to be there and are looking for something else to keep their selves busy or they are probably not suited to the profession. This is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
Be safe.
So a couple of the issues to be addressed would be:
* Cost of additional security.
* Qualifications/suitability/capability of armed responders.
What else?
Who is paying for the armed guard? Taxpayers.
Non starter.
Schools already do a less than adequate job of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. How could you justify the cost of an armed guard when you can barely justify an art, music or PE teacher? If you can't do more for less money than we are spending now on the public school system, it is dead before it gets out of the gate.
I personally have problems with the idea of a SRO. What 23 year old individual who chooses a career in law enforcement volunteers to spend every shift in a middle school? Either those officers don't want to be there and are looking for something else to keep their selves busy or they are probably not suited to the profession. This is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
Be safe.I do not know were the funding will come from that is kind of why I started this post. I do not exactly want to sit in my car all day and watch a school either but I will do what I feel is necessary to stop this kind of tragedy. It is not exactly the perfect or ideal job as I would imagine it is very boring. It is a job that needs to be filled by someone that is mentally stable with the proper training. Also I will make sure that my guys have specific training and retrain every 6 months.
Yeah cause that is working great.
Newton CT did NOT have an SRO present where other nearby schools did. The deterrent is working fine. I am in no way suggesting that the SRO program is adequate to protect every student from every threat, rather it is very underfunded and understaffed. I do not believe that armed citizens need to be standing in front of our schools (as much as we want to) and it needs to be left to the PD. There are ways of convincing city councels that there are funds, personnel, and definately a need for more SROs. Using the PD would be an immediate solution as most depts already have a program in place and would be much easier to get by liberals (a large majority of liberals support the SRO program) than an armed security guard out front who is in no better shape than the teachers you are resistant to arm. An ERT cannot get to any school in time to prevent the violence...the officer MUST be physically present every day.
It seems to not have occurred to you that the exact same could be said about any of your security personnel. I have a little experience with non-armed security, and I wouldn't want ANY of those people anywhere near my kid.
Essentially, yes, that is what I am suggesting. In most cases, no one is in a better position to protect people, than the people themselves. Police are great at protecting people, if they happen to be there. To address your concerns about people thinking that I am suggesting arming 6 year-olds, I disagree. If I advocate that families have the opportunity to provide their own protection, no one will suggest that I am hinting at arming my five year-old in order to protect my family, over myself and my wife doing the protecting.Yes that has occurred to me along time ago before we even started my business. My people would be a select few and put through extensive BC and mental evaluation, I would not just put Joe blow off the street on this type of job. As of right now it is just an idea that I and the owner of the company are exploring. As I said before the guard will not be in the school or around the kids, does not even have to be on school grounds he could just be parked across the street. Like I have also said before I might not be able to prevent any deaths at all as it happens so fast, but I can sure cut the death toll down. I am open to better ideas.
Essentially, yes, that is what I am suggesting. In most cases, no one is in a better position to protect people, than the people themselves. Police are great at protecting people, if they happen to be there. To address your concerns about people thinking that I am suggesting arming 6 year-olds, I disagree. If I advocate that families have the opportunity to provide their own protection, no one will suggest that I am hinting at arming my five year-old in order to protect my family, over myself and my wife doing the protecting.
Re: People protecting themselves. YES - wholeheartedly agree for adults. Children, OTOH, need adult protection.
Re: Police protection. I believe the police are well-intended and some LE agencies probably manage to provide proactive protection of civilians. That is clearly not always the case - and certainly has not occurred in the school tragedies that have become so well-known.
Re: Arming 6-year-olds. I was reading your post from the perspective of someone who opposes guns. If you read it from their perspective, the language used in your post could be misconstrued. That is all I meant to point out. I see this distortion by the anti-gun crowd quite a bit right now - which is why I mentioned it.
A few thoughts about rescinding the firearm prohibition on campuses. It rankles me to have to lock up my carry gun when I go to pick up my kids from school. To any thinking person it is painfully obvious that gun-free zones, and campuses in particular, are targeted by those intent on mass shootings. It is NOT a coincidence. Still, I think of states like AZ where anyone who is legally allowed to own a firearm is then legally allowed to carry it open or concealed. In this CT incident, the guns were legally acquired and the shooter was not prohibited from possessing them - at least, that is what I understand from the limited amount of information released so far. Had there been no prohibition against guns on campus, he would have been legally allowed to be on campus with his guns and the only thing standing between him and this tragedy would have been others who had weapons willing to take action. We will never know if the deterrent effect of knowing he might meet armed resistance on campus would have prevented this, or other, school tragedies. If so, the answer might be as simple as rescinding the school prohibition on firearms. I can't help but wonder if it is that simple.
Edit to Add: One other important consideration - even if it were as simple as rescinding current laws prohibiting guns on campuses - what is the likelihood of achieving that outcome. If, as I suspect, the odds of rescinding the laws are minimal - then what from there? What other options are available for protection of our kids? I've seen several possibilities mentioned above:
* home-schooling
* increase the SRO program to be universal. I suppose there is precedent in the TSA program for this type of 'solution.'
* armed private security
* armed teachers and staff - similar to the armed pilot program
What others?
Turning schools into locked down military prisons is NOT the answer. Aside from the logistical difficulties, what message does that send to the kids? Answer: that the world is a very scary place and beyond their ability to affect and control. That's right, it instills a victim mentality from the start. A better solution is to offer strong examples for them to follow and look up to, like competent, confident, well trained and disciplined teachers and security staff. Let's unroll the "bubble kid" mentality a bit. Let them get their ass kicked, skin a knee or 2, lose a game.Pain is a great teacher on why one should not be mouthy/stupid/careless. History and Ethics should be required classes starting in middle school at the latest. I have a hundred other ideas brewing in my skull, but I'm not quite ready to articulate them.
I like the idea of allowing CCW at schools, if not open carry. I don't like the idea of turning schools into some kind or armed camp, if for no other reason than it removes the ability of the kids to BE kids. Seriously, does anyone think that kids can be kept 100% safe and still have recess outside or walk to school?
I'm not a parent, so maybe I'm way off base here, but kids have been growing up for hundreds of years in this country, and only for the last couple of generations has the cry "it's for the children!" been used to leverage massive social change(mostly negative).
ETA: If you haven't read Heinlein's Starship Troopers, I highly recommend it. Especially the classroom sessions at the Academy. We are in what Heinlein called the "Crazy Years".
Life is 100% fatal.
Safety is a relative state of existence. You are perfectly safe 30 seconds before the car you are in is in a head on collision with a tractor trailer.
No amount of money anywhere will make every child in every school safe. I know the government is in the business of creating jobs (/sarcasm), but I personally do not want to pay good money paying top dollar for a highly trained guard to wait for a low probability scenario.
Law enforcement is not primarily about protection. Hardening facilities is like playing Whack-A-Mole.
In my "perfect" world, the responsibility of protecting others is not a profession but a calling for all those citizens who choose to serve. Not all callings are paid positions. I carry because I can, and I feel called to do so for those that I love and my fellow citizens. I'm with Irving on this one. The government should stop restricting those citizens who feel compelled to be prepared for the unforeseen dangers life presents.
Be safe.
Turning schools into locked down military prisons is NOT the answer. Aside from the logistical difficulties, what message does that send to the kids? Answer: that the world is a very scary place and beyond their ability to affect and control. That's right, it instills a victim mentality from the start. A better solution is to offer strong examples for them to follow and look up to, like competent, confident, well trained and disciplined teachers and security staff. Let's unroll the "bubble kid" mentality a bit. Let them get their ass kicked, skin a knee or 2, lose a game.Pain is a great teacher on why one should not be mouthy/stupid/careless. History and Ethics should be required classes starting in middle school at the latest. I have a hundred other ideas brewing in my skull, but I'm not quite ready to articulate them.
I like the idea of allowing CCW at schools, if not open carry. I don't like the idea of turning schools into some kind or armed camp, if for no other reason than it removes the ability of the kids to BE kids. Seriously, does anyone think that kids can be kept 100% safe and still have recess outside or walk to school?
I'm not a parent, so maybe I'm way off base here, but kids have been growing up for hundreds of years in this country, and only for the last couple of generations has the cry "it's for the children!" been used to leverage massive social change(mostly negative).
ETA: If you haven't read Heinlein's Starship Troopers, I highly recommend it. Especially the classroom sessions at the Academy. We are in what Heinlein called the "Crazy Years".I do not want to turn the school into a military base which is the whole reason for the security guard idea. Getting hurt and losing 20 innocent children are 2 completely different things. My way of thinking is if there was someone there with the knowledge and tools to prevent this kind of tragedy parents could feel a lot better about sending their kids to school. I am done trying to prove my point after this post as I see a very simple cost effective way of preventing this. If I did it the way I want to no one would really even know there was a guard there until he was needed.
liberty19
12-15-2012, 17:55
Atrain1,
Thanks for the thought provoking post. I am a Certified Protection Specialist with quite a lot of experience in protecting people and am a senior instructor at the top protection school in the country. If you figure out a way to use your funding to help schools, I would be happy to help with my expertise. I have created a Power Point presentation on Violence in Schools focusing on how to keep your school from being selected as target.
Aloha_Shooter
12-15-2012, 18:57
I don't want to levy a firearms training requirement on teachers. Anymore, I'd just be happy if they knew the subject they're teaching and are able to do so without the NEA's "socially responsible" garbage injected (e.g., I'd like them to spend more time in American History class teaching about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. than Cesar Chavez).
I'd love CCW-licensed and -proficient teachers to be able to carry on campus as I DO think an armed teacher could have stopped that CT situation sooner but I have to admit that if I'd been there as a teacher, my attention would have been focused on getting the kids to safety rather than pulling my weapon and looking for a fire zone. Still ... the knowledge that some teachers MIGHT be licensed and carrying might divert the nutcase to a softer target. Sucks for that other target but it's kind of like the yard sign pointing out you won't use your firearms to protect the anti-gun neighbor ...
I don't think an armed security guard would hurt the situation but frankly it's likely to be something that people look at as a needless expense as we get time separation from this incident. I'm not sure I'd disagree either -- just let those with the ability to protect our kids do so rather than hampering them with the crazy "Gubmint will do it all for me" laws.
68Charger
12-15-2012, 18:57
good thread, I haven't read all of it- but thought I'd add how our plan works... there is a fully loaded 12ga shotgun available to the teacher/supervisor of my children during their entire school day, as well as guard dogs on patrol at all times...
It's called home schooling- as a bonus, they get a better quality education than the joke that is our school district.
Technically the oldest is online-schooling (GOAL academy), but she gets the same protections.
encorehunter
12-15-2012, 19:07
Atrain1, I really like your thoughts, but in the society we live in I don't think it would be good. If, by chance, something did happen at a school you were protecting, and only one child was injured or killed, your company would be sued into oblivion. They wouldn't stop to think that the guard had just stopped him from killing who knows how many others.
I have had school violence occur in my family, so this hits close to home. My mother is a teacher who was stabbed 8 times with a ball point pen by one of her students. The student wasn't even suspended from school, and she was reprimanded for not being able to control the student. This happened in the late 90s, and I am happy to say the student (now graduated) is in prison. My mother now teachers in a prison and says she feels safer there than in public schools. At almost 70 years old now she is not in the best physical shape. She is however, VERY skilled with firearms, including being NRA certified instructor in multiple disciplines. There are a few teachers she knows that would be willing to carry firearms. The problem is keeping the students away from it. If they attack the teacher and slip it out of the holster and go on a shooting spree, who is to blame?
BushMasterBoy
12-15-2012, 19:30
The only way this will happen is if a law is passed authorizing funding. I don't have any kids, period. But I don't mind paying extra property tax to protect children in schools. We could petition the federal and state government to fund this kind of protection. If there is plenty of money for bridges to nowhere and other congressional pork, then there is money to protect school children from "active shooters". We could petition the White House and the Governor. Obama already said they were going address this problem and seek solutions. School security officer is a good idea. Feel free to post any links that address the problem with a aim to legislation providing more protection. I can see DHS grants in the future...
dwalker460
12-15-2012, 19:36
Already have people there for students protections. They are called teachers, and they are already being paid.
Already have people there for students protections. They are called teachers, and they are already being paid.
Insufficient protections when confronted with an armed intruder, under the current legislation prohibiting firearms on campus.
Turning schools into locked down military prisons is NOT the answer. Aside from the logistical difficulties, what message does that send to the kids? Answer: that the world is a very scary place and beyond their ability to affect and control. That's right, it instills a victim mentality from the start. A better solution is to offer strong examples for them to follow and look up to, like competent, confident, well trained and disciplined teachers and security staff. Let's unroll the "bubble kid" mentality a bit. Let them get their ass kicked, skin a knee or 2, lose a game.Pain is a great teacher on why one should not be mouthy/stupid/careless. History and Ethics should be required classes starting in middle school at the latest. I have a hundred other ideas brewing in my skull, but I'm not quite ready to articulate them.
I like the idea of allowing CCW at schools, if not open carry. I don't like the idea of turning schools into some kind or armed camp, if for no other reason than it removes the ability of the kids to BE kids. Seriously, does anyone think that kids can be kept 100% safe and still have recess outside or walk to school?
I'm not a parent, so maybe I'm way off base here, but kids have been growing up for hundreds of years in this country, and only for the last couple of generations has the cry "it's for the children!" been used to leverage massive social change(mostly negative).
ETA: If you haven't read Heinlein's Starship Troopers, I highly recommend it. Especially the classroom sessions at the Academy. We are in what Heinlein called the "Crazy Years".
You make an interesting point about advancement of legislation under the banner of protecting our children. Anyone who has been in our domestic court system can probably attest to the imbalance. Taking this example of domestic/family court, the predominant standard used by the Courts in their decisions is "the best interests of the child." Often one or both of the parents fail to consider the gravity of that standard when they present their case(s) and it results in the Court deciding against them. We face the same problem here. The fundamental consideration is protection of our children. When someone approaches this issue with an argument that their 2A rights are being violated - OR - that the likely outcome of public reaction will be loss of 2A rights - it simply fuels those making the child protection argument. Any argument that fails to consider as paramount protection of the innocents is doomed to failure.
That is a part of the reason I was drawn to this thread. I don't actively participate in the forum much, but the title of the thread and Atrain's obvious first priority being protection of the children made me think this thread might be a good one to begin a productive dialogue. I expect this to be very much in the public debate for some time to come and if we can find our positions through reasoned discourse here, it will be helpful when we encounter the zealots on both sides of the argument going forward.
I'm still thinking key facts are missing in this conversation. Forgive me if I missed them.
1. He stole the guns from his mother. No gun restriction save wholesale eradication of every gun everywhere can preclude this.
2. This is another example of (pending confirmation) a killing on SSRIs. Why is this angle generally ignored?
dwalker460
12-15-2012, 20:45
Think your in the wrong thread...
I don't want armed guards at my kids school...we are not a 3rd world country that needs military presence in every public location
The easy answer is to allow CCW's to CCW in school. Just one teacher with a permit could have stopped the carnage.
Stop making sense. :)
They will have the TSA posted up at schools before you ever have a chance. just my opinion.
Stop making sense. :)
I think this takes us back to rescinding the current federal legislation prohibiting firearms on school property. Any idea on steps to accomplish this? I feel certain the NRA and RMGO and other pro-gun lobbyists have been working that angle for some time. If that is truly the answer, then it makes sense to throw the entire weight of our collective efforts behind it.
For my part, I consider the likelihood of rescinding the current legislation as slim to none, hence, seek additional alternatives - though, at the same time, am willing to help with efforts to rescind legislation beyond merely supporting NRA and RMGO that I already do. What else?
They will have the TSA posted up at schools before you ever have a chance. just my opinion.
As a frequent traveler, that is a scary thought indeed. What makes you think this will fall to TSA?
Re: People protecting themselves. YES - wholeheartedly agree for adults. Children, OTOH, need adult protection.
Re: Arming 6-year-olds. I was reading your post from the perspective of someone who opposes guns. If you read it from their perspective, the language used in your post could be misconstrued. That is all I meant to point out. I see this distortion by the anti-gun crowd quite a bit right now - which is why I mentioned it.
I know what you meant to point out. Let me clarify. Any question, or suggestion that I am advocating that 6 year-olds be armed, would be conspicuously ignored. For example, were I on some sort of news opinion show, and I was repeatedly asked to clarify whether I was suggesting to arm children, I might reply with something along the lines of, "I was under the impression that we were going to have an intelligent discussion about gun control and it appears that I was mistaken."
A few thoughts about rescinding the firearm prohibition on campuses. It rankles me to have to lock up my carry gun when I go to pick up my kids from school. To any thinking person it is painfully obvious that gun-free zones, and campuses in particular, are targeted by those intent on mass shootings. It is NOT a coincidence. Still, I think of states like AZ where anyone who is legally allowed to own a firearm is then legally allowed to carry it open or concealed. In this CT incident, the guns were legally acquired and the shooter was not prohibited from possessing them - at least, that is what I understand from the limited amount of information released so far. Had there been no prohibition against guns on campus, he would have been legally allowed to be on campus with his guns and the only thing standing between him and this tragedy would have been others who had weapons willing to take action. We will never know if the deterrent effect of knowing he might meet armed resistance on campus would have prevented this, or other, school tragedies. If so, the answer might be as simple as rescinding the school prohibition on firearms. I can't help but wonder if it is that simple.
Edit to Add: One other important consideration - even if it were as simple as rescinding current laws prohibiting guns on campuses - what is the likelihood of achieving that outcome. If, as I suspect, the odds of rescinding the laws are minimal - then what from there? What other options are available for protection of our kids? I've seen several possibilities mentioned above:
* home-schooling
* increase the SRO program to be universal. I suppose there is precedent in the TSA program for this type of 'solution.'
* armed private security
* armed teachers and staff - similar to the armed pilot program
What others?
blacklabel
12-16-2012, 10:32
It's interesting to see the liberal reaction to concealed weapons being allowed in schools is even more irrational than it has been in the past. I had never seen the "so you want to arm toddlers!?" retort until this year. How irrational do the anti's think we are that they'd suggest that we want to arm 6 year olds?
Byte Stryke
12-16-2012, 10:43
There are a lot of low cost measures that can be put in place to slow any intruder down enough that a QRF police unit could get to the school in time to have an effect.
arent they all supposed to be quick reactionary forces?
I cannot see Hicksville affording a QRF team when they can barely afford the deputy they just hired with DHS Funds.
As a frequent traveler, that is a scary thought indeed. What makes you think this will fall to TSA?
TSA is a long shot, but it is more of a viable option to the government than it is to pay for private security.
Plenty of teachers would volunteer a weekend to get training to defend schools while armed. A small budget could make this Galen, even without extra pay you would stuff have teachers willing to volunteer. You already are forced to trust schools to protect your kids, now they actually have a means to do so.
Byte Stryke
12-16-2012, 11:14
I have giving the option of arming teachers another thought and in my opinion it is a bad idea. I know people that work in the school district and know a lot of teachers that in their opinion should not be teaching let alone have a gun. My reasoning behind this is all it would take is one unstable teacher to lose his marbles and shoot up the whole class room. I know there can be BC on people to see if they qualify to posses a handgun on school grounds but even that is not a guaranty, it would also cut down on a lot of potential applicants that would probably make good teachers (mainly talking about people that are against guns) also the teachers job is to teach. As far as as law enforcement patrolling or even being on school grounds at all times would be better than nothing, but I still think private security is a better option. As a private security guard I and or my employee's can concentrate on their only job they are assigned to which is protecting the school. I am not talking about having Rambo running around on school grounds with an M4 and full tactical gear. What I want to do is put a armed guard at the school in a patrol vehicle and mainly just have him watch the school. This guard would have a list of people who are supposed to be there and just mainly watch out for anything suspicious. Depending on the school maybe even do foot patrols every so often. My goal would be to stop anyone from entering the school that (A) should not be there (B) looks suspicious (C) stop anyone from removing any children. I have not worked out the detail nor do I even know if I can get the funding or approval, but you should be able to kind of get an idea of what I am trying to accomplish.
Public and personal safety is everyone's responsibility.
The police are not obligated to defend or protect you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.