Air Marshals, Armed Teachers, and Gun-Free Zones: Are You Consistent?
A school, contrary to an airplane, obviously has no comparable screening process for entrance; perpetrators contend only with possibly locked doors and closed windows. And the locked doors are only an issue if the perpetrator is not a familiar face nor already bearing a visible weapon that would prevent him from being buzzed in. Indeed, the killer is almost always familiar to the occupants of the building.The Newtown killer did need to contend with a locked door, but was quickly able to break the glass and to open the door from the inside.
Once in, the only remaining barriers to his massacre were the heroism of the adults present and his own mental capacity.
So — two situations comparable in attractiveness to a murderer and in vulnerability of the potential victims present:
– A large segment of society has demanded that one of these situations be secured with the absolute best available security apparatus, and further feels additionally safer with an armed undercover marshal present.
– This same segment of society does not demand the other situation be similarly screened and secured, and further feels more vulnerable by the thought of an armed undercover marshal present.
Are you one of these people? If so, have you taken your child on a plane since George W. Bush expanded the air marshal program, or taken them anywhere else with an armed guard, such as a museum or sporting event?
Why did you feel your child was safe there?
Is your rejection of school marshals logical, or emotional?
Also read:
let’s look at the big picture, shall we?
1. as we jumped hard on the problem of using airliners as bombs to kill Americans, many of our personal, constitutional freedoms were forfeited.
2. as we prepare to jump hard on the problem of mass executions of our children, many personal, constitutional freedoms will be required to be forfeited.
3. as we refuse to seriously secure our southern border or enforce our immigration laws and thereby allow millioms of undocumented foreigners, some who hate us and are possibly armed with wmd’s, to roam freely anywhere in our country, our lives and the lives of our children may well be required to be forfeited.
which one of the above threats to our people/country/way of life do you believe has the greatest potential for our death and destruction? #3 obviously has the potential for our total destruction. cities gone in a flash.
to me, its sorta like giving everything to blindly secure the windows to one’s house, while foolishly (purposely) leaving the doors wide open.
now, what was the excuse for not wanting to secure that border, or enforce our immigration laws? and, who are the people who profit from leaving our doors wide open?
Beslan, September 2004. School seized by Muslim terrorists. Total death toll was 385.
Something to think about…
If your child attends a public school, they are not safe. Anyone who can get in can shoot and shoot, and kill and kill, unopposed until the police arrive. In Newtown, police took 20 minutes to arrive.
Gun free schools are killing zones. Your children are not safe.
Amy you are correct, police are second responders in a case like this; teachers and faculty are the first responders. There are other things we can do to make schools safer. Have shooter drills, just like we do fire and earthquake and tornado drills. this way, everyone knows what is expected if a situation happens. Training is the key. we train on everything else, so that reaction is second nature if something happens.
Install reinforced doors to classrooms that can be secured from the inside.
Have reinforced doors between hallways that can be shut to prevent intruders/shooters from having free reign of the hallways.
Teachers can get training on firearms if the local school systems approve, then they could carry a weapon.
But at a minimum we should have schools practice drills for a shooter situation. we practice fire drills and such all the time, but not shooter drills. I cannot remember the last time I heard of children being killed in a school due to fire, but we practice drills all the time. why not practice defending against what is endangering our kids?
As an elementary school teacher, I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that we can just train teachers to be shooters. I am 100% in favor of private gun ownership, but guns do not belong in our classrooms as preventative weapons. Your notions of secured doors and hallways makes considerably more sense. Our school district prepares and practices with students for the unlikely scenarios where a dangerous individual enters the building. The students and teachers have protocols which will keep all or nearly all safe in a bad situation.
The idea that we want to arm a bunch of teachers with lethal weapons on the infinitesimal chance that some lunatic will come into our rooms, guns blazing is ridiculous. First, simply having guns in the school is a hazard. Second, who is to say that even with training, that any or all of these heat-packing teachers would be able to pull the trigger effectively. Do you want to see gun battles that put kids even more at risk?
The best thing we can do is get past the guns and get to the issues that are causing our society to crumble and cause people to step into public places with the intent of killing. If we arm the teachers, then it’s the mall custodians, and clerks, and bus drivers, and nurses… where does it end? Shall we arm the entire nation to the teeth because we have a .00001% of people who have potential to preprtrate crimes like this? The term “overreach” comes to mind in a hurry. Go hug your kids and leave the weapons at home.
CA Kelly, your proposal has absolutely no effect on anybody with the slightest interest in actually entering a school to kill.
The Newton school HAD allegedly ‘secure’ security – he got in anyway, with little trouble.
‘Secured doors and hallways’ – I’ll simply stand a short distance from one of those doors, wait for somebody to open them to come out, and quickly catch the door. Bam, entry achieved, nobody the wiser until I start killing.
Unless you plan on putting bulletproof, shatterproof glass on every single window and door, if somebody isn’t concerned with a quiet entrance, entry is the matter of one bullet into the window.
And for your final, intellectually dishonest point about, ‘do you want to see a gun battle in our school.’ HELLO – we ALREADY HAD a gun battle in a school. You are literally saying that instead of a teacher and an assailant shooting at each other, you would prefer a man walking up and down and executing unarmed children with impunity because nobody could stop him. I would FAR rather there be a gun battle between 2 armed adults. If one or 2 children were hit in a crossfire, that is a FAR cry from the 20+ dead we ended up with.
If you don’t want teachers to be armed – fine. Put security guards at the school who ARE armed.
You know what all of these shootings have in common? They take place in allegedly ‘gun free’ zones. The Aurora theater? You were not allowed to carry a weapon on the premises. Virginia Tech? Word for word, ‘gun free zone’. Newton? Guns now allowed on the premises.
When was the last time there was a shootout at a firing range? At a redneck gun store? These scumbags go where they can cause the maximum amount of casualties.
Which I believe is the CORE of the problem – the media. The media splashes these dirtbag’s name and photo across the US for weeks, which is exactly what they want. If the media refused to identify them and simply referred to them as “Scumbag #5″ in the news, these things would go down significantly.
CA Kelly…maybe not you but how odd is it that the same liberals who are screaming we must yank guns from the hands of every law abiding American because of the danger they pose to our kids are the same ones screaming we cannot allow well trained, certified teachers to carry firearms in the classroom because a shooting is only an infintesimal chance….Seem odd to anyone else?
If school shootings are such a rarity and such a small chance that we should “overreact” by arming school personnel than isnt banning guns just as much an overreaction?
CA Kelly,
Do you seriously think an armed teacher fighting back would cause more harm? Do you think the teacher in Ct, who died protecting her kids, is better off having had no defense against the madman? You also write of the infinitesimal chance of a lunatic invading schools. Does your school practice fire drills? Do you know the last student fatality in a school fire was over 50 years ago? Why be ready for a fire that just isn’t going to happen?
Also, regarding fortified schools, any madman intent on attacking kids at school need only wait for recess, or dismissal. How are locked classroom doors going to protect kids on the playground, or on the bus?
I’m all for anybody being armed at work, home or anywhere they choose to be, but think about this one..
Would you like to arm the Teachers Unions?…
This is a stupid comment. Private schools are just as vulnerable.
1. In response to the problem of foreign agents abusing airliners as bombs to kill Americans, effective measures such as ensuring most passengers are properly armed and trained in the use of those arms were avoided, and, instead, draconian, privacy violating measures were pushed through by the corrupt politicians. Proper background investigations on visa applicants were never considered by the corrupt politicians and bureaubums, though some INS veterans suggested it.
2. In response to the problem of mass executions of our children, it is being used as a pretext for further violations of the US constitution and attacks on the liberties of US citizens.
3. The congress-critters and bureaubums actively refuse to secure our borders or enforce our immigration laws, and they thereby allow millioms of illegal aliens (both invaders and visa over-stayers), some who hate us and are probably armed with WMDs of one sort or another, to roam freely anywhere in our country. Our lives and the lives of our children may well be forfeit.
Thank you for bring up a taboo subject. You are absolutely right. The biggest threat to us and our children is the refusal of our elites to secure our borders and and enforce our immigration laws. However, very few have the courage to discuss this in public.
All this talk and hand-ringing about whose fault it is and what should be done to protect our kids. There should be no such thing as a gun free zone, soft targets will always be the first attacked. If every American was armed or thought to be armed the attacker would look for a softer target, hopfully their head in their basement. As for whose fault this attack is we only need to look at the attacker and his mother. She knew or should have known that he was going over the deep end and locked up her guns, a gun safe is less then $500, but her being a teacher means she had no, zero, common sense, her husband should have locked them up. Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.
ABORTION AND BANNING GUNS IN MORALLY CRAZY AMERICA
What are innocent children infrequently killed by gunfire in savage mass murder attacks compared to the holocaust of unborn children-one million a year-brutally murdered in abortion clinics? Which is worse? A senseless AK-47 that can’t shoot itself (and is neither good nor evil) but can be used to protect life from killers or take it in crime? Or an abortion doctor serially killing one unborn baby after another on a deadly assembly line? Now I’m no more for killing abortion doctors for their evil practices and crimes than are people on the Left for killing gun manufacturers or retailers who do nothing wrong when selling guns to law abiding citizens. But those who want to uphold the laws that keep mass murdering abortion clinics and doctors in business-and a president who pours out his heart over young Newtown victims but believes in live birth abortions (the most heinous kind)-are hypocritical for wanting to ban guns, any guns, because they could be used to kill innocent children or anyone. Where’s the moral sanity in this?
Amen Brother! Can I get a witness?!
It is patently absurd to object to armed guards, teachers or administrators in order to protect the kiddies.
To believe that banning guns will keep ones children safe is to believe in the tooth fairy. And the evidence is overwhelming that those who aim to kill will get their hands on guns – legally or otherwise. As such, the only ones unarmed will be those who are in their cross hairs!
Color this blogger none too bright, but how in the world does that make sense, unless of course one wants to rely on the gov’t to come to ones (pretend) rescue through their all powerful paternal powers.
Please.
So, if you really care for the kiddies think twice before you give all CONTROL to those who want NOTHING less than TOTAL control.
Though sidearms are harder to come by in Israel for the average citizen, due to different laws on the books, it is decidedly the case that the schools are safer due to armed guards at the gates – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/18/pa-prez-abbas-commiserates-with-islamist-in-chief-obama-over-slaughter-of-innocents-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/…but that’s not what the MSM and the goons in Obama’s administration really are after!
Why the hesitation in protecting the most important thing in our lives? A much lesser thing,banks are well guarded.Schools ARE a target because they represent safe zones! A mutant cowardly teenager would only attack things that are safe to attack!Teachers and administrators who are anti-gun make their own bed and volunteer to be victims!
“Gun Free School Zone” equal “unprotected children”. Check what happened in Beslin back in September 2004. Muslim terrorists took over a school, and when it was all over, there were 385 dead in total. Among these 180 dead children. Don’t think that our terrorist enemies don’t know about these school shootings and how defenseless those inside are. It is time that we started looking at these sorts of vulnerabilities and start doing something about it!
“Most of the U.S. supports the air marshal program, fewer support “school marshals.” Is this rational?”
Maybe because then people would have to actually admit we are not safe every minute of every day, and worse yet the one thing all rational people want to keep safe are your children. But because they are not with you, you personaly cannot keep them safe at school.
Getting people to admit this fear would be the first step.
Yeah let’s arm teachers. Don’t see how that could blow up in our faces.
You give them firearms, the teachers union becomes just like the police unions…untouchable. All the good work in areas like Wisconsin goes up in flames.
I cannot wrap my head around the fact so many people are okay with arming liberals and socialists. You want to fix this problem…STOP SENDING YOU KIDS TO BE INDOCTRINATED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
Problem solved.
Good Point. Home schooling would be Much safer!I see how my children have been influenced and have taken up a left leaning view of things.
On most campuses, you will find military vets who would be willing to be armed. (I am one, for sure.) The problem is with the elementary schools, most are totally run by women, with very few men on the campus.
“Yeah let’s arm teachers. Don’t see how that could blow up in our faces.”
I am ambivalent, trending towards disfavoring on the idea of arming,(or allowing), teachers to be armed because teachers are hired to teach, and any policy which requires them to use deadly force to protect students will create a conflict between those two mandates.
Armed security guards, on the other hand, should have NO OTHER FUNCTION than to protect the children…the Principal and the school administration should have no say whatsoever in the performance of that duty. Thus the chance of a student getting hold of a teacher’s gun that was left in an unsecured purse is minimized.
The guards wear their guns on their persons on the school grounds during the work day, and keep them until the last of the students have gone home.
No dude. Nobody is abdicating passing out revolvers at the afternoon faculty meeting. The idea here is just to ALLOW responsible, well trained teachers to carry their own concealed firearms with them on campus. Uniformed security guards stick out just as much as uniformed school resource officers, and are painfully easy to avoid. The AWARENESS that a school has unidentified teachers carrying guns is all the deterence needed to STOP all these attacks (just like in Israel where teachers are armed). AirMarshalls are not uniformed and rely on their anonimity to be effective, nobody knows who has the gun.
The other falacy that needs to be addressed is the unbridaled faith in law enforcement personel. The truth is, cops are generally not very profecient with firearms. They have a lot more things to do than keep up their skills on the range. Teachers with CCW permits are much more likely to hone and maintain their skills with their personal weapon. Besides, for them it’s not just a job, it’s their lives and the lives of their students they are protecting.
Cop unions are next, they aren’t less of a conspiracy against the public than the teachers were. Firefighters too.
Give them the air traffic controllers option.
We’ll get by better than they will, and they will fold.
I’m not in favor of arming teachers. But I could see the use in arming the janitor (especially if he happens to be retired military); he’s nearly invisible walking round the school and has the keys to every door and utility room.
Or arming the lunch ladies; they keep the sharp kitchen knives out of reach of the kids already by keeping the kitchen off-limits, so a precedent for their responsibility already exists.
Etc, etc.
I know a 54 year old man with enough college credits to be a paraprofessional in a school helping the teacher and being a good role model for the boys. He is also a certified firearms instructor and was a competitive pistol shooter. looks like Santa Claus and sounds like him too. He would and has placed himself between a gun and innocents before. There are probably hundreds of people who match this description or have similar experience. This person can be an asset in more ways then in just protection.
Do you really know Santa Claus? What does he sound like? Does he look exactly like in all the pictures. This is silly, do we think these people are going to volunteer for a full time security job? Or are we now talking about paying for an armed security guard for every school in the US? For what? How often does this happen? This is an out of control overreaction. Maybe teachers can be allowed to carry their own weapons, but I am not sure that is a great idea either. Certainly training and equipping a school secret service on the other hand? No Thanks.
not every teacher absurdo … they would of course choose to be armed and trained … the liberals won’t volunteer but they’ll be glad someone does …
Hey — we already have a highly trained, professional security force experienced in keeping us safe that could be made available for screening in our schools. They are even unionized already!
.
Of course, we would need to get rid of all those laws, regulations and other restrictions preventing feeling up good looking girls, public strip searches and concerns with potential pedophiles having free access to children in our schools.
.
I mean, the TSA has already been reported as doing their work in railroad and bus terminals and have announced that they intend to start random stops on the highways.
You only make those marshalls, teachers or administrators targets. It would have to public knowledge that those carrying guns for protection be known to the communities in order for the parents can feel safe that those carrying guns in schools have been properly vetted, analyzed for mental stability before this can come to fruition.
Make the Marshall’s and some school administration targets? Look at whole picture.
Crazy’s hit schools, malls, movies, and any place they want BECAUSE THEY CAN! Razor approach to problem is look at objective of crazy person. To NOT HAVE A FIGHT OR EXPERIENCE ANY RESISTANCE. These people do not want to have a fight, just kill. To cause as much death as they can to hurt society before killing self or stopping.
Heard and understand that the Aurora movie shooter went to three movies theaters, and did not go in because they allowed Concealed Carry, or he assumed they did.
Why do they not attack Congress or the President? He has ARMED Secret Service with ASSAULT WEAPONS. Secret Service will tell you to Number One,
So what? They have a death wish anyway. Stop justifying an acceptable number of deaths to sustain your argument. 20, 10, 5 or 1 is still unacceptable in thses circumstances.
It is exactly your sort of idiocy that brings about useless feelgood measures such as pretending sign make a school gun free.
We are of course accepting a certain number of deaths in return for the benfits which just liberty brings. We accept such because we are adults.
People who imagine anything else can go on to any good net effect are functionally children.
HRiver said:
“So what? They have a death wish anyway. Stop justifying an acceptable number of deaths to sustain your argument. 20, 10, 5 or 1 is still unacceptable in thses circumstances.”
HRiver, you seem to be postulating the existence of a solution that will stop all mass murders, and the people you are arguing with don’t think that such a solution exists, as mass murder has been going on since Samson cut down a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.
Allow me, if you would, to flip your argument back at you. If one death is unacceptable “in these circumstances,” to what lengths would you be willing to go to prevent that one death? Metal detectors have been passed over. Shall we build an entire school of soft, breathable plastic, with padded walls and floors, and mandate that all students and teachers be admitted to Soft School only after being stripped and cavity searched by federal agents, and not be allowed to bring in any outside objects? If you think this is over the top, please remember how much drugs and murders take place in prison.
So if you believe that even one murder in school is unacceptable, please be aware that this is the level of violation and degradation you are advocating, and it still probably won’t work. If you do NOT believe that the solution I have outlined is what you are advocating, then please propose a solution that guarantees that there will never be even one murder by a dedicated attacker.
If you cannot come up with a foolproof solution, then you are left with the fact that there must be some compromise between perfect security and total freedom.
I’m not saying that I approve of murdering children, but that we are not willing to pay the crushing price that it would cost to prevent it 100% of the time.
Make the Marshall’s and some school administration targets? Look at whole picture.
Crazy’s hit schools, malls, movies, and any place they want BECAUSE THEY CAN! Razor approach to problem is look at objective of crazy person. To NOT HAVE A FIGHT OR EXPERIENCE ANY RESISTANCE and kill as many people as possible. These people do not want to have a fight, just kill. To cause as much death as they can to hurt society before killing self or stopping.
Heard and understand that the Aurora movie shooter went to three movies theaters, and did not go in because they allowed Concealed Carry, or he assumed they did.
Why do they not attack Congress or the President? He has ARMED Secret Service with ASSAULT WEAPONS. Secret Service will tell you to Number One, HARDEN THE TARGET.
As a society it is necessary to accept that our schools, movies, malls are all targets. If our President and Congress can have armed protection and see it a necessary, why do our children have to be in GUN FREE ZONES that are nothing more then an inactivation to kill victims. Why does it not make as much sense as having armed security with President.
If government believed Gun Free Zones were safe, they would not have security or secret Service.
And yet, armed private security guards are frequently seen (but are not everywhere the public is, and the public would be better off more commonly exercising CCW or open carry), and CCW holders generally do so anonymously.
What planet are you on? you aren’t on this one, let alone in America.
There are zillions of soft targets in America. You want to arm the proprietors of all of them? Schools, day care centers, restaurants, theaters, nightclubs, strip malls, etc.? And what training are they going to get, other than a few weeks at a shooting range?
An armed teacher is not equivalent to a sky marshal in training or temperament. A sky marshal is a government agent, in either law enforcement or counter-terrorism:
Federal air marshals or civil aviation security specialists go through an intense, two-phase training program. The first phase of the program is a seven-week basic law enforcement course. This training is completed at the Federal law enforcement training center in Artesia, New Mexico; air marshals also receive follow-on training at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in New Jersey. Their training is tailored to the role that the federal air marshals will be performing while on the job. Some of the specific areas covered in this training include constitutional law, marksmanship, physical fitness, behavioral observation, defensive tactics, emergency medical assistance, and other law enforcement techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service#Training
We’re not going to train teachers in “constitutional law, marksmanship, physical fitness, behavioral observation, defensive tactics, emergency medical assistance, and other law enforcement techniques.” And we’re certainly not going to give that kind of training to every citizen who operates an establishment that’s a potentially soft target.
This is why we have a police force and not vigilantes. Police get training and testing that vigilantes don’t.
Anyone who thinks that vigilantes can protect America isn’t living in the 21st century, but the 19th.
“There are zillions of soft targets in America. You want to arm the proprietors of all of them? Schools, day care centers, restaurants, theaters, nightclubs, strip malls, etc.? And what training are they going to get, other than a few weeks at a shooting range?”
Yes. Let people defend themselves, through a CHL program if you like. Make training mandatory if you like.
Anyone who thinks that people who can defend themselves effectively are de facto vigilantes is living in… well, their head is planted deeply in their anus, and I am startled that they are able to breathe.
And anyone who thinks the police can protect our children also has their head somewhere that it doesn’t belong. Oh, and if you look closely at the training that a police officer gets, you might be surprised that it’s not always what you think. Protecting yourself and your family is your job. Period. If the gov’t makes schools protection-free zones, then they should be held responsible for the fallout.
You and your hyperbolic nay-saying again?
Look, this is a serious adult discussion, and you are contributing nothing to it.
Go elsewhere to show off your skill at knocking down your pathetically ridiculous straw-man arguments.
IOW: pipe down, sonny…the grown-ups are talking.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away. In the case of the tragic school shooting, it took the police 20 minutes to arrive. Anyone who thinks the police will protect them is deluded. People have the obligation and responsibility to be their own first line of defense. How they exercise that responsibility is up to them. They can go on fat, dumb and ignorant and hope for the best. They can take sensible precautions like avoiding dangerous situations and being aware of their surroundings. They can buy products like Mace or Alaska Guard bear spray. Or, if they think suitable, they can buy firearms. That’s what freedom is about – letting people make choices for themselves. Freedom of choice is (or should be) more than about abortion.
I had this same argument about the guns. In the time it took the police to arrive, he could have reloaded a revolver dozens of times and done the same damage.
Mace as well as Alaskan Bear Spray ALL do as much damage to everyone around as to the intended target. Spray any Mace in hall or room or even a elevator to protect yourself, and you will be as blind and chocked as the target you are trying to stop.
Mace must be used in open so you do not go blind and chock.
Mace is bad idea as then cannot get children out due to them chocking and blind, not saying anything about possibly terrible respiratory problems. Mace is not made for children, may kill children in high doses.
Connecticut is a liberal state–Obama beat Romney by 17 points.
The teachers there are all liberals and they’re going to refuse carrying guns.
End of story, right there.
Not all of them. Really, just one would have almost certainly have done a lot of good here, and certainly showed up long before the police. 100% certain all deaths would have been stopped.
Certainly not.
100% certain the situation would be drastically improved?
Yes.
Look up the percentage of the total population that fought in the War(s) of Independence. Pretty small, but here you sit amost 300 years later, able to spread your BS because of that small segment of society willing to die to be free.
“There are zillions of soft targets in America. You want to arm the proprietors of all of them?”
Not at all. I do propose that any person or institution, offering goods or services to the public and opening their property to the presence of the public in the normal course of business, be held strictly liable for the predictable consequences of requiring the public to abandon it’s 2nd amendment rights in order to partake of such goods and services, while also doing nothing reasonable to assure the public’s safety. Either that or let private business owners go back to discriminating against, say, blacks–if that’s what floats their boat–the same principle applies. Entities doing business with the public at large may not do so in a way which conflicts with the basic liberties of the public without legal consequences. I suppose in the same way some clubs still prohibit black, Jewish, or female (or male) membership, private clubs could continue to prohibit CCW holders or weapons carriers.
“Gun free zones” will vanish overnight, or liability insurance providers will require reasonable REAL security be provided. And, we get to see who the very committed hoplophobe bigots are.
“This is why we have a police force and not vigilantes. Police get training and testing that vigilantes don’t.
Anyone who thinks that vigilantes can protect America isn’t living in the 21st century, but the 19th.”
Anyone who thinks the government’s spear chuckers can provide us with protection, when it takes them 20 minutes to show up in densely populated freaking CT, is insane. What you call vigilantes are just individual people, and they are most commonly better trained than the police
If they were pro-actively hunting down criminals and hanging them without benefit of due process, that would be vigilantism.
Are you really trying to sell to adults the notion that defending yourself is vigilantism?
Are you in fact an adult? Seriously, are you a teenybopper with no real world experience?
You have WAY to much confidence in law enforcement training. Most LE officers are pretty poor marksmen. Obama may indeed pull a rabbit out of the hat on this one with a new public school air marshall program. Think a whole new union workforce under control of the Dept. of Education. Maybe that’s what they were buying all that ammo for.
gee, the police didn’t do such a great job protecting those kids now did they … maybe your definition of protection is different than mine … or maybe you’re an idiot which of course depends on your definition of idiot which based on you definition of protection could mean you’re really not that stupid …
Do you realize that many school districts have on their staff and faculty ex servicemen, ex- police officers and in our rural districts teachers advertised in
firearms and willing to continue schooling and qualifying to make our schools safer for our kids. I am a retired police officer that substituted teaching history.
The problem is the few seconds needed for a quick response confrontation in the event of an assault by Terrorist or a mental case as in Sandy Hook, law enforcement officers have other duties that they will have to break away from that will take time to respond to the school incident.
The knowledge that an armed confrontation may take place is a deterant to a perpetrator. In our rural district at the point of forcible armed entry or non-compliance to the rules of entry onto the premises into our school there will be an organized confrontation which can and maybe will result in the perpetrator withdrawing and if not getting neutralized.
As for only the Highly trained Air-Marshall being the only ones to handle a volital situation, Where were they on 9/11? It seems only after training and arming Commercial Airline pilots did the hijacking stop.
Why not just leave the decisions and implementation to individual school districts/PTAs? In many cases, a couple of trained guys — likely ex-cops or military — known to be rotating anonymously and at random through the district would be a significant deterrent. Mix’n'match among districts as needed to spread uncertainty and raise the stakes.
No reason why teachers can’t be encouraged to train and carry, either. They’re used to racking up credits and cash for phoney/lightweight paper qualifications, so the chance to learn and apply something truly useful would surely appeal to some. Are they all unteachable? The rest would bray and whine as usual, but the kids would come out ahead.
Meanwhile the fretting escalates, and the slogans get louder. Generally, you get the gov’t you deserve.
Many school districts currently appoint a law enforcement officer to be present on campus during schools hours. These individuals are armed and trained. Why not simply expand the program? This just seems so obvious to me.
That’s a practical solution where budgets and police staffing allow. In some smaller communities, there may not be enough off-duty police officers on the force to cover all the schools during the day.
how about retired cops or retired military … lots of old geezers would be happy to volunteer …
Both are good ideas. We might have to modify federal law to allow it, though. From what I understand, it’s illegal for non-law enforcement people to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a school unless you happen to live in that zone. So, even if you heard shooting at a school and responded, you could likely get arrested when the police arrive (if not shot by them).
If you are feeling uncomfortable with arming teachers, then why not give them tasers? Tasers are capable of stopping a shooter without permanent harm. We have lots of alternatives here, that are capable of stopping a shooter, yet no one seems to want to discuss it.
One of my coworkers is a career Army firearms expert. When his son’s high school principal asked him for advice last Saturday, he recommended this stuff. It’s rated for handling bears on Kodiak island, which are like grizzlies on steroids. It’s inexpensive, legal, easy to use and will make whomever you hit with it wish you’d shot him instead.
Former Navy Seal Sniper Brandon Webb rightly said when asked about the Aurora shooting that he (the gunman) could have probably been stopped with a flashlight. He was right. I had said prior to reading that, that we’d become a victim culture to the point where all we do is stampede each other to run for the exits. One of the first things they teach you in boot camp was to charge an intruder, not run away from him. In infantry school you were taught to charge into the ambush.
When Charles Whitman was shooting at people from his clock tower, the police credited civilian gun owners for minimizing the carnage by pro-actively shooting at Whitman whenever he tried to take a shot.
Now, in a situation like Newtown, which is the most horrific scenario, you don’t want kindergartners running at a gunman, but people have to be re-educated to be more reactive in situations like those. Even if you were to implement the idea of school marshals, Sandy Brook would have been the last place anyone would have thought to put them. A suburb for the very wealthy with virtually no violent crime. I sometimes have to agree with the militant blacks in cases like this. Why does it take a sleepy town of white kids being killed to suddenly draw the ire of the do-gooders in Washington. Where are they when black kids are getting gunned down by gangs in urban neighborhoods?
What this should be is a lesson to many. Don’t leave your guns lying around. I am waiting to find out how easy, or hard, it was for Adam to take procession of his mother’s firearms. Did she have a safe? Did she keep the default combo? Where they in a case with a ridiculously easy lock to defeat? Knowing, as she did, the state of her son’s mental health, having weapons like unsecured was a terribly tragic idea.
As linked yesterday on InstaPundit, in many large cities with high murder rates, most of the murder victims are criminals being killed by other criminals. Yes, it’s just as tragic when a black child (or innocent adult) gets killed in the crossfire as what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Perhaps it’s time for those communities to revisit what Bill Cosby said about their culture several years ago.
I’ve been getting increasingly disgusted by that myself. Why is it only now that the media expects us to feel outrage for a school shooting? I worked for three years in a tough, inner city school. Every day, those kids entered school through a metal detector past an armed security guard. So all this hand-wringing over armed guards in the schools means very little to me. I entered the same way they did.
A 4-year-old was shot in the head in an drive-by in my city and was taken off of life support. His death was no less tragic than that of any child at Sandy Hook, but the media doesn’t care about him like they do these kids. I guess they don’t expect people to feel outrage for him like they do for these kids. What does that say about our media? What does that say about who they think the rest of us are when they rank the news like that?
To me, a child dead for only being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a child dead. Every child is precious, and every senseless death is a senseless death.
But to get back to the original issue … Why would people feel squeamish about having your children go to school past armed guards or through metal detectors? Some kids already do in this country and have for a long time. Are they not kids to you?
So…if anti-gun regulation and licensing doesn’t keep us safe from madmen, why have anti-gun regulations and limitations to begin with?
‘Shall not be infringed.’ Period. Dot. End of discussion.
Of course, you can continue be regulated and licensed by the government in spite of any provison to the contrary in that so-called Bill of Rights. Abandon your adult responsibilities and ask permission from daddy and mommy government politicians and bureaucrats so that you can do anything, before you do it. Let the politicians and bureaucrats and thungs in government wipe your nose and deny you permission to visit grandma over the weekend.
That way, you have little to complain about when you end up with militarized civilian cops wearing body armor and carrying military grade weapons, checking your papers and asking you what you business you’ll be doing, today. Then, there’s the public pat downs and strip searches. You must enjoy thos. It’s the only thing that makes sense of your submission to those indignities and sexual and physical assaults on your person and your rights and freedoms.
So, yeah. Hire some more government thugs to keep a watchful eye on your kids, for you. Why not? Let them do public stroip searches of your kids. Public pat downs. Your kids will have to submit to the searches, answer the thug’s questions or be detained, without cause or resort. After all, you have to do it when government thugs do the same to you, right?
You’ve given up responsibility for almost everything else. Why not this, too?
Back in the 1950s, there were no SWAT teams, and cops didn’t have the kind of heavy firepower they have now.
Starting in the 1960s, cops started demanding more firepower because they were having to confront criminals who were now much more heavily armed than they were.
Without a clear definition of a problem, we will never solve it. I summarize the problem: How much latent force do we permit in society in order to resist violent crime within seconds of the first gun shot? The key, ignored, element is time.
I have read diametrically opposed professional opinions on whether a mentally insane killer can be identified, by experts, months before the slaughter. Let the debate proceed, with the clear understanding that they have been useless to date, e.g. Newtown, et al. It is obvious that in the minutes, hours, days, and months that a wider circle of expertise can be brought to bear on a massacre. This is useful, but does not stop the killing. Some want to confiscate all weapons, yet readily admit this will not stop the rampage (I wish the absurd myth that they would allow hunters some prescribed weapon that does not kill, would be dropped from public discourse.)
The latest government report on the Benghazi killings provides a piece to a frightening puzzle which is appearing: The government does not want American citizens to have defensive capability, will be too slow to rescue the victims and will, after a time, issue a detailed report which will find faults which will require lots of money, but never identify one person who is at fault and should be sanctioned. Unless he is a dead killer.
Lawyers know a phrase, “.. time is of the essence..” but it never is used in our discourse on the legal defense against mass murder.
a clear diagnosis is that these same schools have turned out millions of people who will not take responsibly for their actions.
several generations now look to the government to solve the unsolvable problems.
Mace as well as Alaskan Bear Spray ALL do as much damage to everyone around as to the intended target. Spray any Mace in hall or room or even a elevator to protect yourself, and you will be as blind and chocked as the target you are trying to stop.
Mace MUST BE USED IN OPEN so you do not go blind and chock. Alaskan Bear Spray gets everyone in closed space as it permeates the whole area, not just target. If NOT used in open area, you will not be able to run as you will be chocking as spray is now part of everyone’s breathable air…
Mace is bad idea as then cannot get children out due to them chocking and blind, not saying anything about possibly terrible respiratory problems. Mace is not made for children, may kill children in high doses.
Everyday we place our trust in teachers to take care of our children. We allow those, with no special training, to drive the buses that take our children to their school. Once there, we think nothing of allowing teachers, who have not been psychologically evaluated, to be alone with our children, take them to the bath rooms (especially the very little ones like kindergarteners), watch over them during recess, and shape their young minds so they will become productive adults.
It doesn’t always work out. New York has their infamous “rubber rooms” where teachers, some who have been found to have molested children, are placed to sit and read the paper or play on their Gameboy all day while drawing a pay check.
But what if a teacher snaps? some say. Well, what if a teacher snaps and stabs children with the standard pair of scissors that can be found in every school in the nation? Do we insist that only round tipped scissors can be allowed in schools? Is the taking of the lives of 5 students less than the taking of the lives of 20 students? Does the number make the crime more henious? Or do we value each life with equal importance.
Do you even know what the 911 response time is in your area? The Newtown shooter created that much carnage in less than 10 minutes. Is anyone asking how long it took the Newtown PD to respond? I read a lot of comments where people say that they wouldn’t have an objection to an off-duty police officer being on the school grounds during classes. Well, gun “free” zones apply to them, as well. It is better to see an off-duty cop packing than a teacher, who has been well trained in firearm safety, as well as crisis management?
We have a high rate of our former military who are looking for jobs. Perhaps these are the very people that we need to fill an ever increased need for teachers.
Educating children is a large responsibility. Part of that responsibility is keeping those children safe from harm.
Having amateur volunteer teachers randomly packing conceled handguns is not going to work.
To be effective you need to stop the attack before it happens. That means a gated school with openly armed security. We are going to have to spend some money to keep our children safe.
“Having amateur volunteer teachers randomly packing conceled handguns is not going to work.”
The assertion of that is not the proof. In fact, within a week of this event, a non-police CCW holder stopped the Clackamas Mall shooting merely by confronting the attacker, and in a Texas movie theater, an off-duty police officer who was carrying stopped a different “active shooter”.
Every single fact opposes you, what is your damage that you persist in imagining solely what is counter to the facts?
“To be effective…to keep our children safe.”
Well, no. A determined attacker will always find a way, what you propose will fail if relied upon in the sense of “stopping” if by “stopping” you mean 100%. Static, predictable defenses are not able. They can slow and make an attack unattractive to the rational, but the motivated will find a way.
Simply by being unpredictable, CCW holders becoming more ubiquitous provide better security against this sort of thing at lower cost.
however having specially trained teachers armed in schools may work. Are you saying teachers can’ shoot?
I think Sinz54 is saying that. Most teacher’s likely can’t shoot…this is not generally true of the ones who have CCW licenses.
I used to live in Colorado Springs less than a mile from the New Life Church. In 2007, a man shot and killed 2 church members and wounded others before being confronted by an armed, non-law enforcement female security guard. When confronted by someone shooting back, the killer committed suicide.
Having concealed carriers does not turn a soft target into a hard one. All it does is give you a chance of doing something once the shooting has started.
A guard would be able to screen people before they ever got to the door looking for suspicious behavior, packages, and so on. By the time a teacher knows something is wrong the shooter is in the building.
We could save a lot of money by just sending off duty teachers to the embassies with .38 revolvers if this was such a great idea. The whole point of the Marines is not that they can fend off a determined attack, but that uniformed Marines with rifles and a decent perimeter will deter most of them and have the maximun effect per man if one is attempted.
Either this is a serious problem or not. Getting by on the cheap tells me that it is not and we should just accept a certain amount of this.
The main mistake many of you are making is in assuming that most of these shooters are somehow professionally trained marksmen. They aren’t. Lanza was something of an exception in that his mother apparently took him to a firing range on a regular basis. But look at the Clackamas shooter who fired 60-some rounds and only hit two or three at most. The Aurora shooter didn’t show any special ability beyond good planning and the ability to shoot into a confused moving mass of panicked people, and he might have had the guns fitted with night vision. Lanza supposedly shot his mother while she was asleep and shot a bunch of frightened kids, all from close range.
Why would a teacher need to be a highly-trained commando? Obviously, there needs to be some special training above and beyond the norm to ensure that a teacher would be not be a danger to his or her students, but does the teacher need SWAT training to counter a random shooter? I doubt it. The shooter is just as much a civilian with a gun as any other person in almost all cases.
The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator first killed his wife, and committed suicide with his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.
Wiki- Bath School Disaster
bullet resistant glass in the doors accessing the school, with hardened locking mechanisms for all access points that can be triggered from several locations, plus an armed “school police officer” may have prevented this crime. If the triggering mechanism as used in a Texas school 20 miles from a police station, could also once trigger do an automatic 911 call, and together with the bullet resistant glass could make a school withstand at least gun fire until police arrive. I have no problem with armed school police officers using retired police, or ex military, paid a decent salary as protection. I can see it for schools, malls, office buildings, or pretty much any place. The same Texas school I mentioned also has some teachers who armed, trained in the use of weapons and use bullets that if miss the target and hit a wall will break into small plastic pieces that will not ricochet.
My research is dated, but I do not believe it is possible to design any large structure using “bullet proof glass”. The material is not glass, is extremely expensive (the glazing cost might be more than the cost of the structure), and most barriers can not stop high energy bullets, of certain characteristics. This the reason tanks do not have windows.
No civilian location can be made impregnable to a moderately skilled, and equipped attacker.
(There may be worth in designing hard rooms within schools, for short term protection against extreme conditions: poured concrete, metal doors, heavy locks, etc.)
There are several projectile design options which would lessen the danger of collateral damage in densely populated combat.
The debate must center on defenses that is immediately available to normal occupants in an unexpected attack. What training, what weapon, what projectile, what communication, should allow a civilian to possess real defensive capability.
As stated elsewhere, the government has zero chance of preventing a nut from obtaining a weapon. They could drain the ocean first.
I did unclassified engineering in ballistic engineering some years ago.
How about getting the madmen off the street in the first place?
It seems that this killer was set off by the knowledge that his mother was petitioning the court to have him involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility. How many hoops would his mother have had to jump through to get this unsafe young man off the streets?
In our small town high school the local police department assigns an officer to be on duty at the school every day. This enhances the safety of the school but brings other benefits as well. The officer builds relationships with the students, who are then more likely to cooperate with the police when necessary, for example, in our ongoing effort to keep drugs out of the school and arrest the dealers in town.
As a New Zealander, I read all this with astonishment-this is just not an issue here. Our police aren’t armed, we don’t have armed security guards in schools or anywhere else and our schools are not fortresses.
My reservation with armed teachers would be that a killer would have no qualms about using their gun, and would have none about shooting someone who was trying to get theirs out-and I suspect that many of us would be fumbling for it with shaking hands. I certainly would be. Also, a handgun would be of little use against an assault rifle.
I wish you luck with this issue.
A) CHL holders in Texas typically train more often with their personal firearms than police do with their issued sidearms. They also have a considerably lower rate of breaking the law than commissioned police officers do. Think on that… better shots, more law-abiding.
B) Spree killers have often committed suicide upon first encountering armed resistance. Do you think that a lunatic with a gun would kill fewer people if uninterrupted, than he would if someone was trying to kill him first?
C) People with shaky hands and weak spines don’t bother jumping through all of the legal hoops necessary to carry a firearm concealed. That just makes no sense.
New Zealand friend. Different culture, What works in New Zealand, Japan, China, or Mexico is fine for those countries and culture’s. Like putting water in gas car, it will not work. Some countries think massage in Europe in prison or putting the criminal back in society to shame and experience family shunning, as in Japan, works there because their culture conforms to that style of punishment.
China has a problem on a bus full of people and all the people will submit to a search for instance, we live as independent responsible people and will not submit to a search without conceit or sworn warrant. We have the 2nd Amendment in the BILL OF RIGHTS, that keeps untrusted government from control and power over us. So what is working in one country may not be feasible in any other country. In China they execute people with a no tolerance policy. Some people think it is a good policy..?
We cannot turn back the clock to another time when these things were not a prevalent. Our country and reality is, we are here today and schools as well as many other mass gathering places have become targets. Do we give up freedom and let government lock us in our house while watching us or do we take our freedom and fight back by not allowing these crazies to control our lives and take our children in GUN FREE ZONES? What is the freedom approach, not how much can we restrict people hopping it will stop.
We can take all guns away and criminals, crazies will have more power over us because they don’t care about laws. Do you truly think that a person that wants people dead and plans to do just that will CARE ABOUT ANY LAWS OR GUN LAWS?
I agree that you and the rest of your country are too mentally unfit to own and use firearms.. whatever the purpose, target practice, Olympic even training, etc.. Oh, does New Zooland have electricity? It’s a dangerous substance that must be kept from lessor species. Then there’s this other stuff we call ‘metal’.. you see you can create a very thin edge on this stuff and cut through meat (like an arm) and make sandwiches. But New Zooland must still eat off the bone, so no need for metal down there..
My wife and I visited your beautiful country back in 2009. Your culture is quite different from America. For one thing, a high percentage of gun-related murders in America are criminals killing other criminals, often related to illegal drugs. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law so new restrictions on gun ownership will do nothing to stop them. They make their livings by not obeying the law.
The very term “assault weapon” is poorly defined. In military circles, it refers to a weapon that can be fired on fully automatic or semi-automatic. Without a difficult and expensive to obtain federal firearms license, it has been illegal to buy or sell fully automatic weapons in America since 1934. When you see movies where every two-bit gangbanger is firing a fully automatic weapon, you should keep in mind two things. First, it’s a product of Hollywood and has very little resemblence to reality. Second, if they do somehow have a fully automatic weapon, they obtained it illegally. Once again, criminals by definition don’t obey the law. If they can bring in tons of illegal drugs across the borders every week, smuggling in illegal guns wouldn’t be all that difficult.
As for the usefulness of a handgun against a rifle, at close quarters, a handgun can be very effective. You might want to read some history about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to learn just how effective.
Try this. Change the conceal carry laws to exempt school administrators and teachers in schools. Allow them to carry in a school. Put a small gun safe in the classroom and require the teacher to place the firearm in it. Make it optional to carry or not. Make every classroom capable of lock down so that it is “Target Hardened” This creates two problems for the shooter. It takes him longer to access the classroom and he might get shot by another teacher while he is doing it. This creates a significant deterrent effect and allows the Teacher to still hug and play with her kids. The only thing I know for sure is that the brave heroic teacher that attacked the armed wingnut with her bare hands to save her kids would have given anything to have a fighting chance. May not have changed the outcome, but you never know.
FWIW, I don’t think anyone is wanting Ms. Whoever to suddenly walk into a classroom of young kids toteing hardware. The schools SHOULD select the best teachers (physically and intellectually) to take the required courses required in that area to carry. It should be noted that a National organization, Oath Keepers, is offering their services (FREE)to those teachers who want to protect their students. Strictly voluntary. They will be taught handgun usage, hand to hand disarmament, how to distract so kids can clear out,etc. Texas has ONE school district which allows CHL holders to carry on the premises. This was done in 2007, and has worked well, since no one except staff knows who is carrying. Whether or not a school system allows this, it would behouve teachers to take advantage of the other than carry training they can receive. Members of Oath Keepers are Vets, law officers, first responders, and have the background to do this properly.
Really now, how serious is the threat in grade schools? I am not aware of any grade school shooting before Newtown- Columbine was not a grade school, Austin Tx was not a grade school; several others that come to mind have all been high schools or colleges. Teachers who want to be armed ought to be allowed to carry a concealed gun, and it should be encouraged, but teachers who don’t feel comfortable should not be required to carry a weapon. It goes without saying that precautions need to be taken against unruly students getting hold of the teacher’s gun.
Elementary school mass shootings are pretty rare but I did find this case from 1979.
Here’s what obummer knows – if he commands the US to turn in all guns, his ‘People’ will not..
Ask yourself why he armed the Moooslim Bruthahood ? The drug criminals in Mexico?
He’s OK with that but not 310,000,000 American citizens (minus approx 10% that he’s OK with).
The left remind me of gnats. Swat them, squash them, mash them and the rest of them keep coming to fly in your face, in your eyes, totally annoying little bugs. The left is one massive insect population that has teeny tiny little brains and huge, monstrous, obnoxious mouth the size of Hil-lie-a-day Clinton’s rear end (and that is getting larger by the day..)
There is a correction to be made for this article. It is true that there are air marshals on some flights. Don’t count on them being on all of them.
What was not mentioned is the additional Federal Flight Deck Officer program. Those airline pilots who wish to be armed are trained and certified by the federal government to carry weapons in the cockpit. This is much more akin to a teacher being armed in a school. It has been a successful program and adds another layer of security to aviation.
Here is a link
http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/federal-flight-deck-officers
Good point on pilots but I think we need 1 more layer to keep the OP honest.
1. Air Marshall = Hired Security
2. Flight Deck Crew = Principal and Assistants
3. Flight Attendant = Teacher
I say we let the best teachers focus on teachers and provide both them and the students more attention to securing our schools. I also will not support a Pilot or Principal with a gun unless the program that permits it maintain’s more focus on the specific work area than just CHL permit.
The Colorado killer specifically targeted a movie theater some distance away Because it was a gun-free zone. VA shooting, campus was a gun-free zone. Schools in CT even have multiple signs, gun-free zones. The weapon of choice, ie, the method of carrying out their murder while similar, has nothing to do with the attack. It’s an attack by the cowardice upon the weak and defenseless. Keep adversiting where the sheep are, and stop being surprised that’s where the wolves go.
OBAMA SLOWLY BUT SURELY TRANSFORMING AMERICA INTO ANOTHER UNARMED NATION OF ISLAM. Barack Hussein Obama, is slowly poisoning andeating away at our Constitution and national framework. With the constant and steady persistence of the Muslim Brotherhood and conspiratorial influence of the corrupt and world leadership schemes of the … READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/12/obama-slowly-but-surely-transforming-america-into-another-unarmed-nation-of-islam/
There is merit to permitting an armed civilian population, and there is danger. Since no one can, with any certainty, predict the target of an insane killer, the arena for combat should essentially be everywhere. The essence of weapon possession rests on personal responsibility, self discipline, which our society is losing. Can a person carry in a bar? Mixed Martial Art contest? Religious house? Kindergarten? Community Watch? If they are self disciplined, and trained, the answer is yes.
Three essential factors must be discussed:
1.) Weapons training is secondary to their primary duty. We can not pay, should not pay, for guards everywhere. The Homeland Security Department has grown from nothing to an elephantine agency, with little to show for the cost. Government killers should be few in number and highly trained. (For many reasons, these warriors should occasionally visit schools.)
2.) Martial training requires a deep personal commitment. It is impossible to order a teacher to carry a weapon; it is guaranteed incompetence. The first meeting in weapons training starts with a clear challenge: You are here to learn how to kill. Go to your church, synagogue, mosque, or bar, consider this fact, and come back if you seek this skill.
3.) An armed population, of rudimentary skilled people, carries some risk. But we now know the results of insane killer being the sole armed person among our loved ones. The deciding factors are the rarity of these horrible events, and the judgment of those who would carry weapons.
I dont understand you people. How on earth can you logically think that the introduction of tens of thousands of guns into a place where there arent any guns will result in LESS gun incidents. I visited Pompey in Italy once. The place is overrun with dogs. Thats because a few years ago they decided the best way to deal with a rat problem was to introduce lots of cats. Then they were overrun with cats. To combat the cats, they introduced dogs… I see this logic on display here.
You people wanting to arm teachers arent solving anything, you are simply trading one problem (maybe) for another (definitly). Guns will be stolen, guns will misfire, there will be accidents and accidental shootings.
You want to arm a single adminstrator. Ok, possibly, but ineffective in my opinion. Maybe a better answer is for towns and cities willing to pay a little more in taxes to put a school resource officer in every school. A trained police officer, on premises all the time in every school. Not just for security, but as another positive influence in kids lives. Working with students, building ties with the community, and making schools not only safer, but more connected.
One simple point to blow up the analogy – while the sky marshal program may be well supported I don’t think you would have the same support for arming all the stewardesses. That is the accurate analogy to arming teachers. Maybe it makes sense to have an armed guard at all schools but that is a very different suggestion.
People don’t want police or armed guards posted at schools because it would cost a lot more money – tax money. It is SO MUCH CHEAPER to either: a) grab all the guns in private hands; or b) leave vulnerable places filled with vulnerable people effectively defenseless; or c) come up with stupid non-solution solutions that won’t work (which is what all these stupid proposals about teachers arming themselves or 5-year-olds all rushing a murderer armed with semi-automatic weapons effectively are). It really does all come down to the money, doesn’t it. It always does. Well, think about this: We spend over $600 per year for “national security”. How much security does that actually buy us? We have multiple incidents of multiple innocent people being killed each year due to domestic security failures. Couldn’t we re-prioritize here?
In my above post, that should have been $600 billion spent on defense.
Sorry: ideally every school should have an armed guard, but if you really think having the teachers pack heat is the answer, you have not spent a day in a school for a long, long time (and probably not enough in your life overall).
Let the teachers with CHL carry on campus – they train more often than the cops, have a better record for both accuracy of fire and obeying the law than the cops, and they do it on their own dime.
No more soft targets.
One question: Why do you have to be consistent? Different situations call for different security measures.
Thoughtful article. I would add that I don’t necessarily believe more than one school employee has to be armed. If just one person, the principal perhaps or, yes, a teacher has a weapon and everyone knows it – criminal types and deranged – they may give second thoughts to going to said school. No guarantee, of course. But there’s little doubt we have so few home invasions because criminals might find themselves on the wrong end of a gun. Deranged may not reach that logical conclusion, but that’s why one person actually has a weapon.
No easy answers. I don’t trust criminals to obey gun laws and I don’t trust government to always be my “friend”. History – guaranteed to repeat itself as long as humans run the show – backs me up.
I have no problem with armed teachers. That said, I think they should be volenteer, trained, and screened for psycological disorders and requalify and under go mental evalulation every year. They should also be annonamous. The mear thought that several teacher could be packing heat would deter would be attackers. Placing one armed guard at every school would just mean that the attacker had to shoot him first and he’d be a sitting duck. I’d venture a guess that most schools, (especially larger ones) have at least one if not more prior military people or guardsmen on staff that could fill this role. They should be compensated for the role of “school marshall” and again trained. This is the only way to stop would be attackers. I bet if you made it manditory that each school had at least one or two armed teachers serving this role they would think twice about attacking a school.
I can see the usefulness of one or two teachers or administrators in schools having access to a firearm but only if they are very well trained and proficient with their weapons. Also, those weapons would have to be secured at all times in a safe bolted to the floor and preferably with some sort of biometric locking mechanism. It has to be impossible or nearly impossible for the students to gain access to the gun.
What I haven’t seen discussed is any mention of “less than lethal” options available in schools. Things like pepper spray, tasers, etc. IMO, teachers should have access to those not only for the mentally ill psycho but to stop an attack by a student against teachers or other students by a student carrying a knife or other weapon.
“Less than lethal” must be judged with skepticism and caution. Unless used by extremely skilled combatants, which should not normally exist in a school, the weapon system is either ineffectual, or deadly. Somebody would die accidentally. This defective thinking led to the murder of office Terry in the Fast and Furious criminal debacle. Under orders, he went into a gun fight, with bean bags in his weapon. Things go bad quickly in combat. The military uses “Less than lethal” in mob conditions BUT with armed back up.
I would endorse martial arts training, with funding, for faculty/ staff. But let us be clear, Martial arts is the means of killing, without modern weapons.
This is the decision, who holds the defensive power to kill an assailant?
I don’t think it’s necessary to require any teachers (or other school personnel) to carry guns. Just replace the “Gun-Free Zone” signs at schools with signs that say something like “School employees who are licensed may carry their guns. No other guns allowed.”
The deterrent of uncertainty is strong. Deranged shooters are, apparently, attracted to places they expect to have time to kill a lot of people.
I’m having problems getting my mind around this debate.
I live in Jerusalem, Israel.
Around my 11 year old daughter’s primary school there is a high wall, made of concrete and/or steel bars.
There is one entrance locked at all times which is opened by an armed security guard for the children and for anyone who can identify himself as belonging there.
If this set up had existed at the Newton school the massacre wouldn’t have happened. If someone should shoot the guard the gate remains locked and alarms are set off bringing armed responders.
If Israel can do this, why can’t America?
This is a clear case of apples v oranges. Do air marshals have another job to focus on while in flight, or are they just supposed to be air marshals? Teachers became teachers because they wanted to fight ignorance; if they wanted to fight crime, they would have become police officers. Would you want a person whose life goal was to be a police officer teaching your kids biology instead? Probably not–they would be unlikely to do a good job, regardless of how much training they received, because THAT’S NOT WHERE THEIR SKILL SET LIES. Securing a building’s physical plant makes more sense; installing armed guards who are actually trained and have no other job to do except being armed guards would make more sense. Statistically, though, schools are safe places for kids to be, regardless of whether they are “soft targets” or not. As for the person who commented that home schooling would be safer than public schools, from a gun-injury standpoint that isn’t true. More gun injuries occur in the home (and not because of armed home invasions, but because of accidents or family disputes) than in schools, and it isn’t close. Let’s drop the crazy rhetoric on both sides and think about actual solutions, please.
Yet objections to the armed security presence have remained minimal. Airplanes in flight are likely never again to be “gun-free zones”; they will instead approach “gun-mandatory zones,” and you likely are pleased with this.
Resistance was “minimal” from whom? The public? They didn’t matter. Resistance was HUGE coming from the bureaucracy. There have never been enough air marshalls for all major commercial traffic. The idea was to bluff would-be troublemakers so they couldn’t figure out which flights had armed individuals on them. The feds screwed that up royally by making the marhalls wear suits, and to be ostentatiously boarded first. The most logical solution, allowing armed cockipt crew, was thwartd by bureaucrats as well.
The original gun-free zones were the courtrooms, but they provide heavy security for all the unarmed attendees. It is irresponsible to have a gun-free zone without providing adequate armed security. States should set requirements for either police presence, armed private security, or a certain number of faculty, staff, and/or parents to be carrying–whether open or concealed, for all hours that the gun-free zone is in effect.
I am not for training and arming existing teachers, or just letting those current teachers/coaches/etc. with concealed carry licenses start carrying on campuses. However, I would have absolutely no problem with a “School Marshal” sort of program where schools hire a person to be a teacher, janitor, coach, whatever, who are part of the “School Marshal” program and have to go through extensive background checks and training (just as the Air Marshals do).
I personally think it would be more effective than trying to have a uniformed police officer or something like that on campuses because with a uniformed officer a potential criminal can easily figure out where they are on campus and go to a different area of campus to start shooting and know that they are going to have at least a few minutes before the uniformed officer can get there.
With a “School Marshal” where it is theoretically unknown who that person/people is/are, there is always the chance that the Marshal is across campus and the shooter will still have several minutes, but there is also the chance that the Marshal is the person in the room that the shooter starts in.
The downside, of course, would be the cost to have a Marshal (or multiple Marshals) in every school in America (probably prohibitive to a certain extent, if not completely), and finding enough people that want that job who can pass background checks and the training.
But, I personally think that is a far better route to pursue than just starting to let those people that might already have concealed licenses (or that go out and get them) to start carrying guns on campuses.
What is an armed guard going to do the 99.999% of the time when no homicidal maniac is loose in the school?
Yes, that’s right:
a/ nothing at all
b/ make work
Make work: searching lockers, being the hall monitor, be on call to frown at rule breakers, handyman, mailman, janitor, etc.
Millions of them.
I suppose it would be good in terms of creating jobs.
However, I still don’t see the logic of introducing guns in school no matter what the imaginary menace might be.
For example, what if the guard calls in sick? Then we have minimum staffing issues.
What school service will be cut to pay for more security?
What if the guard is at the opposite end of the school on the day of the attack?
In general I think the emphasis should be on identifying potential homicidal maniacs long before anything happens, disarming them, watching them and if necessary removing them from civil society.
More guns to fight gun violence will not change the paradigm.
Did you read the comments here? Pay any attention to the time line in these shootings.
Competant armed security, preferably dedicated security officers, by their very presence deter these attacks, and they are on scene a lot sooner than the police.
What we need to outlaw are gun free zones with no security presence, they too easily become free fire zones.
As to worrying about the money, we spend more money for less edxucation than most of the civilized world. We can handle it. Maybe we could tale it out of teacher’s union dues?
“Schools fall under federal ‘gun-free zone’ law.”
Yes and no. Federal law does not completely outlaw firearm possession—even concealed carry—in schools. True, it is called the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. But it does not outlaw licensed concealed carry by, say, teachers and janitors, in schools.
18 USC sec 922 (q)(2)(B) allows firearm possession in a school by (ii) a person licensed by the State to carry.
State laws prohibit licensed CCW in school zones, if any laws do. Fed law, for licensed carriers, DOES NOT.
When you arm a government school employee and authorize them to use deadly force on behalf of the government, you have created a de facto cop. It would be incredibly reckless to do so unless that employee receives the same classroom and firearms proficiency training as a peace officer, and the school has the same types and levels of insurance coverage as the local police department. Those employees should demand a corresponding increase in pay since they are the ones looking at potential jail time if they use deadly force in the wrong situation. All of that adds up to more money than this broke country has to spend.
Without meaning to downplay the horrible loss suffered by the shooting victims’ families, the odds of a given person being involved in a school shooting incident are extremely small. Spending huge sums of money to perhaps increase security while definitely increasing the risks of accidental death and injury does not seem like a good bargain.
I both agree and disagree. The essence is the place and requirements of the defensive, protective, person(s).
The place is everywhere; mass killings have occurred in every normal occupied place. Hence we can not staff and pay for ubiquitous defenders who do nothing while normal conditions exist. Thus the decision is to allow, or not to allow, and accept the risks, of armed people who normally occupy the place.
Most police training is to control their conduct leading to an arrest, e.g. creating and controlling the trail of evidence, or valid arrest procedures. Very little time and effort is spent on what is required in the first thirty seconds of armed combat. (I invite rebuttal/ comment from police experts. I am not one.) After the first shot is fired, the mind focuses on stopping the attacker, with whatever options are available. And, calling the cops. If a staff member had a weapon, I would demand that they carry, “a cell phone”, with automatic dialing. There are experts who should prescribe the weapon system, communication, and train the individual.
We must only focus on the bare requirements, of a trained civilian, in the first thirty seconds, to improve the odds that many innocents will live. This is doable IMHO.
Well, the image of one’s kindly kindergarten teacher packing heat is a red herring, as few rational beings are suggesting that the solution is just to give guns to teachers willy-nilly without any training or consideration of their psychological ability to use them to defend their pupils. That would make no more sense than arming flight attendents, and to my knowledge nobody post-9/11 ever seriously suggested that. I’ve taught young children myself and always felt I would and could do anything in my power to protect them from anyone who threatened to harm them, but in reality I very much doubt my ability to handle a firearm. Different kinds of people become teachers and soldiers. But I agree it makes no sense for people to support having armed air marshals while opposing the idea of trained, armed security guards in schools. These guards wouldn’t have to be uniformed; they could be plainclothes just like air marshals. I think what people are most uncomfortable with is children knowing the truth, that there is an armed man in their school whose job is to protect them from bad people. But the fact is, children already know a much scarier truth, that there ARE bad people who want to hurt them, and when they are in school there is no-one and nothing that can protect them. So which is it going to be…scared, unprotected children, or confident, protected, and not-quite-as-innocent-as-before children? I’m not a parent, but it seems to me that for parents, the choice should be obvious.
I teach at a large Central Texas high school, and I have a CHL. Currently, if attacked, I will defend your children with my highly vascularized and easily punctured internal organs, and possibly a heavy textbook and a pair of scissors. That’s long odds against a delusional young man with a head full of spiders and a gun or three. I will likely die doing what I can to save YOUR children, not mine, and it won’t be much.
I’ll try this again since some of you are unusually thickheaded – LET TEACHERS WITH CHL CARRY ON CAMPUS – CHL holders train more often than the police, have a better record for both accuracy of fire and obeying the law than the police, and they do it on their own dime. The only ones who will carry on campus are the ones who know that can do what is necessary come that dark day.
No more soft targets. No more goddamned soft targets.
I read the libs would consider, just consider armed teachers, pilots, air marshals if and only if they wore special colored hats or jackets, so that you knew they had a gun on them.. so you could opt to ummm, stay far away from them if you don’t like guns, or maybe call the police to come and inspect that person for really really being OK with having a gun, or maybe so you could go up to that person and curse them out for being a gun nut, etc.. Of course air marshals already carry whether or not the libs ‘like it’.. they just want to be able to identify them on a flight so they can ask for a different seat.. Liberalism is such an intelligent, common sense way of life, isn’t it?
Actually the illiberal “liberals” would bitterly oppose merely taking down the “Gun free Zone” signs and replacing them with “Armed Security Present”.
Some may have an irrational fear of firearms but the dangerous ones have no phobias to speak of other than the feaar of firearms in the hands of sovereign citizens….they have a phobia of liberty.
Then there are the ones who fear/want to prevent, a repeat of the American Revolution….