Question on the NRA - President seems to be a bit extreme

[cstone]

To the best of my knowledge, every public middle and high school in Colorado already has an armed police officer present during school hours. They are School Resource Officers (SRO). We have been paying for them since just after Columbine. They are expensive, armed, and cannot provide a safe environment for every student regardless of how high-speed and low-drag they might be. SRO's are as effective as any police officer. They can protect you if they are there when the attack happens. Otherwise they just have a faster response time than all of the other officers who will be responding by vehicle from wherever they might be when the attack happens.

If guns in schools are bad, why are SRO's armed?

If some trained adults in schools with guns are good, why aren't more trained adults with guns in school even better?

My preferred option is that law abiding citizens perform the functions of self-defense and defense of others where they are present and at no additional cost to the tax payers. This function is an unpaid, volunteer position, like performing CPR or the Heimlich maneuver for someone in need. If I was suffering a heart attack, I would rather receive first aid from someone who is right there next to me, with an expired Red Cross card than wait for a trained EMT who is only 10 minutes away.

I realize that not everyone shares my opinion, however, that does not in any way lessen the value of my opinion. It is worth exactly what you paid for it

Be safe.

[james_bond_007]

Cstone and I are of one mind here. This comment was how I wanted to reply, but Chuck said it better than I ever could. My kids (now grown) are just as important as his kids are and if firearms inside of a school are so dangerous for my kids schools, then they're too dangerous for his kids schools as well. There is no gray area on this one, it's black or it's white.

Ginsue, I see a possible "gray" area here...and I'll ask before I being, that you try not to take my comments the wrong way. I'm not DISagreeing, but trying to point out something that may have been overlooked.

First, I am in favor of having trained armed personnel to help protect our students. I am reaching a bit, but assume* that these "guards":

• are trained in Close Combat urban situations (...I said "reaching " right ?)
• have access to Intel. during a situation (radio to other members of the team to find out what's going on around them, radio for backup, etc.)
• train as a team
• have weapons retention devices (holster locks and lanyards attaching pistol to duty belt, etc....again reaching)
• etc.

*(this means I would HOPE they have taken some of these measures...)

I would be opposed to having Barney Fifes with 1-bullet serve as a guards.

I am generally OK with teachers having CCW permits carry in schools, but am concerned that they might need additional training, beyond that to obtain a CCW.
I don't think they could operate in the same capacity as what I outlined above for the guards, without more training, equipment, and organization.
I know MANY people who have a CCW, but don't practice or train at all...so just "having" a CCW does not, in my opinion, make them the "ideal" persons to wield a firearm to protect my kids.
Then there are other CCW holders that I would not hesitate to entrust using a firearm to protect my child's life.
In short, I don't think the CCW is a sufficient minimum requirement to allow teachers to carry in schools.

My concern is as follows:
When we speak of schools, we include K-12 and colleges. I'm thinking about the high school and college students.
In more troubled/rough areas, having gangs and other organized student groups, it would be pretty easy for a group of students to gang up on a teacher and disarm the teacher...or teacher(s). This would now pose a different kind of threat to the rest of the students, rival gangs, other students and teachers, administrators, etc. It would "kind of" (again reaching) be like a prison riot situation.

In summary, the gray area is perhaps teachers, under-trained, perhaps careless about allowing access to their weapon (in a desk, in a purse, in a backpack, etc. ), could pose an internal threat, if they are overcome by a student uprising (not the K-4 students, but high school and college students). I would be more comfortable with allowing teachers to carry in schools if the teachers had to "train and pass" some additional training requirements to carry in a school. At this point they are no longer carrying just for SELF defense, but for the defense of their peers, students and administrators. They have essentially become the "guards". I believe they need the additional training as such. ALL teachers would not have to carry...just those that want to and can meet the training requirements.

Your thoughts ?

[sabot_round]

To the best of my knowledge, every public middle and high school in Colorado already has an armed police officer present during school hours. They are School Resource Officers (SRO). We have been paying for them since just after Columbine. They are expensive, armed, and cannot provide a safe environment for every student regardless of how high-speed and low-drag they might be. SRO's are as effective as any police officer. They can protect you if they are there when the attack happens. Otherwise they just have a faster response time than all of the other officers who will be responding by vehicle from wherever they might be when the attack happens.

If guns in schools are bad, why are SRO's armed?

If some trained adults in schools with guns are good, why aren't more trained adults with guns in school even better?

My preferred option is that law abiding citizens perform the functions of self-defense and defense of others where they are present and at no additional cost to the tax payers. This function is an unpaid, volunteer position, like performing CPR or the Heimlich maneuver for someone in need. If I was suffering a heart attack, I would rather receive first aid from someone who is right there next to me, with an expired Red Cross card than wait for a trained EMT who is only 10 minutes away.

I realize that not everyone shares my opinion, however, that does not in any way lessen the value of my opinion. It is worth exactly what you paid for it

Be safe.

^^^^AGREED^^^^

[cstone]

First, I am in favor of having trained armed personnel to help protect our students. I am reaching a bit, but assume* that these "guards":

• are trained in Close Combat urban situations (...I said "reaching " right ?)
• have access to Intel. during a situation (radio to other members of the team to find out what's going on around them, radio for backup, etc.)
• train as a team
• have weapons retention devices (holster locks and lanyards attaching pistol to duty belt, etc....again reaching)
• etc.

*(this means I would HOPE they have taken some of these measures...)
...
Your thoughts ?

Since The Ginsue and I have apparently established this psychic bond, a mind meld if I may

Most cops do not have training in CQB. They have access to radios, which may or may not transmit/receive clearly in every location they are required to work. Most of the Intel the po-po receives is either generic like the information you get from reading the newspaper or watching TV, or specific like recent criminal trends in certain locations or types of businesses. You get that at the beginning of your shift and you may get a few over the air broadcasts if anything is actually noticed and passed along. Very few in LE train in groups of more than two. Most cars are manned either in ones or twos. If multiple cars show up for something, you are assigned different areas of responsibility and rarely will you be working in groups larger than two. Tactical teams are an obvious exception and many officers are not interested in that type of work. Weapons retention is important and thumb keepers are especially important when wearing a duty gun in a duty belt, exposed. If no one sees it, they aren't likely to make a grab for it.

As for working in bad areas, those are the areas where the concealed weapon is most necessary. If a school employee necessarily displays their concealed weapon, there should be progressive discipline. First offense could be as simple as, "Don't let it happen again." If the employee has a habit of showing of the gat to the kiddies, that employee has other issues and they should be addressed through psychological counseling and progressive discipline.

I expect adults in school to have the simple decency to look after minors in their care. Most police officers never fire their gun outside of a range. Most school employees who carry concealed in a school wouldn't be any more likely to use their gun at work. I believe we do a disservice to our children and other citizens when we assume that by accepting the responsibility for their own safety and those around them, they are making society more dangerous.

Again, just mine (and The Ginsue's) opinion

Be safe.

[Great-Kazoo]

I am not talking about Obama, but any President. I work in the Defense Industry and I know what powers can be brought to bare by the Presidents orders. What would you do to save your kids if they were kidnapped? He has the power to launch a nuke anywhere at any time without anyone having the authority to stop him. I believe the Presidemts family should be protected. Otherwise, one of those nut jobs would kidnap his kids and force him to blow up Isreal or Turkey or England or .. He is a Public servant, but one you dont want to be put in that position. Again, I am talking any President.

To me, having guards at a school was a seperate subject. I am guessing the school is private and they pay extra in the tuition to pay for the guards. Thats an assumption, anyone know if thats true? If it is then I don't see whats wrong with them paying extra for a private school with guards as long as I have the same opportunity to pay extra for a private school with guards here. Thats an apples to apples scenario. Public school and private school are different. If they attend Public school then thats a different position.

Then the question comes down to would you be willing to have your taxes raised to provide an armed gaurd at your kids school? I would. That would mean a ballot would need to be introduced to raise taxes for security much like they do when they want to do school improvements. That would take a grass roots efforts by parents to get such a ballot going.

I don't have a kid in school anymore, thank god, allah, creator, buddah, what ever diety you choose.
What i don't have is an issue with is ARMED & TRAINED SECURITY At every public and private school in the country, EXCEPT NY, CT, CA and any other liberal gun grabbing in the name of safety, state.
Hell i'd gladly step up to the plate and VOLUNTEER MY SERVICES. Complete with a release form, which disconnects the PSD from any liability, IF a Valid Threat presented it self and i was able to stop said threat, one way or another.
I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS out there who would do the same.

[sabot_round]

I don't have a kid in school anymore, thank god, allah, creator, buddah, what ever diety you choose.
What i don't have is an issue with is ARMED & TRAINED SECURITY At every public and private school in the country, EXCEPT NY, CT, CA and any other liberal gun grabbing in the name of safety, state.
Hell i'd gladly step up to the plate and VOLUNTEER MY SERVICES. Complete with a release form, which disconnects the PSD from any liability, IF a Valid Threat presented it self and i was able to stop said threat, one way or another.
I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS out there who would do the same.

Amen Brother, Amen!!

[sniper7]

I'm glad you ended up joining the NRA, now donate to the ILA so we can fight gun grabbing. That, I believe was the whole point. Our tax dollars pay for armed security, yet he and lots of folks in DC feel that we don't deserve the need to defend ourselves and our children.
If we are going to create armed security for every school it needs to be done on the same budget. This is easily accomplished by allowing teachers to conceal carry on property. Training can be accomplished by the generosity of gun groups such as RMGO and the NRA and NRA certified instructors across the country. It can also be accomplished at police ranges which are already paid for with our tax dollars.

The other thing I have thought of, but haven't completely thought out would be the idea of an so called enhanced concealed carry for the average joe. Just like pretty much anyone can get a drivers license, the next class up is say a motorcycle endorsement or a CDL. The same could be applied to a concealed carry permit which could have federal oversight. again this hasn't been thought all the way through, just an idea so don't bash me...offer suggestions. But it could be done so your endorsement requires extra training and evaluations so you are permitted to carry anywhere in the country, be it school property, federal property, USPS, etc, essentially everywhere. You can still get a standard CCW, but this is also an option.

Honestly I would prefer to be able to carry anywhere and everywhere already as I believe that is my constitutional right, but as things are, I think this could possibly be an enhancement in the right direction if implemented correctly.

[hatidua]

BTW- thanks for not taking the discussion down the drain or virtually "bitch slapping me"

-that has to be earned!

[Great-Kazoo]

-that has to be earned!

No it don't, ok maybe, unless you're one of those flag burning liberals. Did you hear there's a new AWB proposed?

[Ashton]

I'm not really into getting nuked over some kids. That said the more power you acquire the more security you need. Perhaps it's just because I went to school in lafayette but we always had an armed cop or two on our campus, plus actual school security... I think a lot of public schools do have a police presence.