We’re talking about it here. What conversations do you feel are not happening?
1 Like
Why schools do not use the same security measures that inner city schools use. Arming teachers is a recipe for disaster and does nothimg to stop a threat that jas been allowed to enter the building.
I respectfully disagree. I have had a lot of active shooter training over the years. I’ve also been a public school teacher. I firmly believe that if I was in a school with an active shooter, I could save lives. I believe I could save even more lives if I had a firearm. But this isn’t allowed, because everyone thinks my firearm will crawl out of my locked desk, load itself, and shoot everyone at my school.
I disagree with both of your assertions.
The first merely plays into the “guns bad, gun-free zones good” mentality. The second implies that once a threat has entered the school, it cannot be stopped. That’s nonsensical.
1 Like
Agreed with all of this but would like to add, and no disrespect,
But many many former military never saw combat. Also, in-field warfare and combat is not the same as school or civilian defense. I have also seen LE used in House of Worship security and have asked them what specific Mass Shooter experience do they have? Even in LE this is a specific discipline that is not widely taught. Yes, some have the training but many don’t.
Teachers who wish to carry and be taught this discipline would be the best solution. It would also put them in the position of truly a “First Responder”. This would be the 3-7 minute response time that LE would take to get on scene, and potentially a little longer for a mass shooter team to arrive on scene and deploy.
With all this said, I’m not saying vets and LE can’t do it, I’m just saying just because of their title does not mean they have experience or are qualified. (i.e. just because you’re a medical doctor does not mean you are a surgeon)
@Anthony88, I’m not sure how you arrived at the somewhat hysterical interpretation of my statement. I proposed “some sort of indemnification”, which in no way means “a free pass when they pull that trigger”. Allow me to clarify.
As an example, in my state a person involved in a self defense incident who is found to have acted lawfully cannot be held civilly liable for their actions. This is the “sort of indemnification” to which I was referring. It presupposes a certain set of conditions which must be met in order to qualify for indemnification. A far cry from “a free pass”. Let’s remember that in a school shooting situation the teachers are in just as much danger as the students.
Agree. And honestly, very, very few people have actual active shooter “experience,” thankfully. All we can do is train and prepare as best we can for a situation we hope to never be in.
I do think there’s a deterrence to active shooters if the potential shooter knows that someone in the school could shoot back, especially if he does not know who that defender(s) is. That deterrence has value.
No doubt! Some what of the same philosophy of an Air Marshall, and the “Concealed” part of concealed carry.
1 Like
@Anthony88 There are already thousands of armed teachers/staff at schools. I know of no incidents where a single student has been harmed by them. Last time I checked the data, there were no shootings of any kind that have occurred during school hours at any of the schools with armed staff. So where is the proof that this is a dangerous policy?
The training is often donated for free by instructors, raised in donations and/or the teachers pay for it themselves. Teachers also provide their own firearms. So costs can be very minimal.
All of the training programs I have read about are far more thorough than the vast majority of law enforcement officers go through. I would much rather have the teachers who know the students, be the ones responding to an incident. They know the students and teachers that are not the threat. A bunch of adrenaline pumped LEs, who may or may not be properly trained for the situation, finally charging into the building after many students have already been shot and who have no idea who the threats are vs the innocent students and teachers is an incredibly dangerous situation for them and the students.
I agree that there is a strong argument that gun free zones should all be required to have metal detectors and armed and properly trained security since the right of visitors to defend themselves is being denied there while criminals will not follow these bans and will often take advantage of them. Though any school shooting is one to many, there have been so incredibly few mass school shootings that there is nowhere near enough data to say if detectors actually stop mass shooters though they likely do restrict some gang related violence. Metal detectors would not stop someone from shooting up the long line of defenseless kids waiting outside to go through the detectors but would create an excellent target of opportunity. We don’t need to turn schools into prisons with our kids being patted down every day. Sure some schools in high crime zones may need these pat downs and violations of rights. Most of these high crime areas tend to be located in urban settings with already super strict anti gun/anti self defense laws. Wonder what the correlation there might be? What we do need is more counselors, staff and students trained to recognize children in crises and how to best help them.
I would also argue that we should have properly trained and vetted armed first responders on site in the incredibly rare case where the unthinkable does happen. And I believe the best first responders are those who nurture and care for our kids every day.
That is not the definition of indemnification. What I believe you mean to say is Immunity, such as what police have when they fire their weapon.
Indemnify
To compensate for loss or damage; to provide security for financial reimbursement to an individual in case of a specified loss incurred by the person.
“Insurance companies indemnify their policyholders against damage caused by such things as fire, theft, and flooding, which are specified by the terms of the contract between the company and the insured”.
Someone still pays just not the policy holder.
So what is “somewhat hysterical interpretation” about that?
Again, there have been NO mass shootings in inner city schools, that is the proof it works and it has been in place long before the rash of shools shootings.
Your example allows the shootet to enter the school and because a shooting has not taken place is not proof of success.
You are way off base with the fear of Adrenaline pumped cops and kids being eady targets at metal detectors. Where were the nurturing teachers when they ignored the bullying, drugs and antisocial behaviours. The kids in Parkland knew he was going to shoot up the school and said nothing. The e people that housed the kid ststed they were afreid of him, yet they gave him his guns when they threw him out. But all parites have been given a pass on their culpability.
I think you are not seeing the whole picture, up there in Maryland. In Parkland’s County (Broward), the sheriff has been removed and the deputy has been arrested and charged. You are also missing the difference between what you think should have been done and what a teacher can legally do in the case of bullying.
The best defense against a bad guy (or gal) with a gun is a good guy (or gal) with a gun, not more laws, or metal detectors.
1 Like
I have not done the research to see if there have been any shootings at schools with metal detectors. For the sake of argument I will take your statement as fact. So if the fact that no mass shootings have occurred at inner city schools is proof that metal detectors stop shootings then you must admit that since there are no shootings of any kind at schools with armed staff that it proves that armed staff stops all shootings. Both statements are absurd because the sample size is way too small to confirm either hypothesis. These tragic events happen so seldom that it is impossible to draw conclusions on how all of the factors interact with each other to cause or prevent their occurrence.
A significant number of rural schools have multiple buildings that students have to go between during the day. So aside from being a daily infringement of the student’s 4th amendment rights, metal detectors are just not practical for many if not most schools.
I agree that not all teachers are saints. This is why I am in favor of psychological testing and further background checks for staff who wish to be trained and permitted to carry in schools. And is why I stated there needs to be much better training on how to deal with troubled kids in school.
1 Like
Almost all schools in Florida are staged across multiple buildings. Many stairwells are open-air.
1 Like
I do not in any way mean “immunity”. Do not put words in my mouth. Neither my original statement nor my later clarification mentioned or even implied “immunity”. Even if my use of the word ‘indemnify’ was not dictionary perfect, the example given certainly implies a protection from financial judgements being levied against someone who’s actions have been deemed legal and appropriate, whether by insurance or outright prohibition. Let’s also keep in mind that even the police, despite your statements to the contrary, only have “qualified immunity” which protects them only after their specific actions have been deemed appropriate and in accordance with the law and department procedures.
You are the only one to use the term “immunity” in this discussion. I am beginning to believe that you do so in order to mis-characterize this side of the debate in order to imply an extreme or reckless position for you to rail against. A common tactic used by those who feel they are losing on the merits.
Reference Dave Chappelle’s observations on school shootings in white suburban schools.
Not sure how I am way off base here. Mass shooters want easy defenseless targets. What is easier than a large group of students bunched up at a door outside of the security zone?
As to LEs responding. Many are well trained professionals putting their lives on the line in active shooter situations when they are not obligated by law to do so. But not all are. When the police finally cornered the Boston Bombers they fired hundreds of rounds at the suspects hitting their targets a few times but sending far more bullets into the surrounding occupied houses. Regardless of training or ability I doubt there are many LEs who look forward to having to run into a school full of kids and figure out which kids are the threats and which are the threatened. It is an impossible situation.
The only good thing about these mass shooters is that the majority seem to be pathetic cowards who shoot themselves as soon as an armed responder shows up. The sooner that armed responder shows up the better. And as others have stated, the fact that unknown staff members may be carrying is likely a huge deterrent to these cowards.
I missed no points, what you speak of is after the fact. The officer that did not go into to the school to confront the parkland shooter got his job back along with backpay. Had security measures been in place the school would have been locked down and the shooter would not have had free access. Arming teachers is a quick fix, but does not solve the access problem.
1 Like
Reread my statement and learn when something is a question and not a stated fact, good day to you. I have no time for hostilities
1 Like
I have reread your posts and found only one question among the many declarative statements:
The hysterical aspect comes in when you take out my moderate term (some sort of indemnification) and replace it with your more extreme term (immunity) and then take me to task as though I had used the more extreme term. In other words, first you put words in my mouth and then try to blame me for using those (your) words.
The remainder of your posts are filled with statements presented as though they were accepted fact.
Try to understand that having your statements or ideas criticized is, in itself, not necessarily an act of hostility. I do understand that you have neither the time nor, apparently, the conviction to deal with the ‘hostilities’ you have created, which could lead one to conclude that hostility was your entire goal from the beginning.
2 Likes