A post about protecting these kids in these schools

[DHC]

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?

[DHC]

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?

[cstone]

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.

[DHC]

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.

[Guylee]

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.

[DHC]

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.

[Irving]

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.

[Atrain1]

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.

[DHC]

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.

[cstone]

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.