Another School Shooting

[Chaz88]

The same question should be asked about any of the other prohibited places. Post Offices, etc..

I agree. I was just sticking to the school aspect of the thread.

That's getting a little carried away.

Roughly 3/4s of DGUs occur at home. There are an estimates 1-2 million DGUs a year. "Rampage" school shootings average 1 every 18 months or along those lines, probably not even that ofte

Please do not interrupt my moral outrage with pesky facts!

 

[shortwave]

The question I ask is if am qualified to CC what magic line do I cross when going on a college campus or school grounds that suddenly makes me too dangerous to CC? If those same people are on the CC side of the line with me they are safe but if we cross that line they are not??

This has always seemed odd to me as well.

There are thousands of people that cc on a daily basis. They carry at stores, malls, restaurants, etc. They walk, jog, sit out in public and sometimes, I'm sure have an occasion to even talk to other people on the street that may have children standing next to them while these conversations are taking place.

Bottom line is, children(just like adults) as the result of cc becoming legal, are very likely to be in close proximity to someone concealed carrying whenever they leave their homes.

Does that make them unsafe?

If we want to talk about 'studies'. There were people claiming at the onset of the legalization of cc that the states 1st to legalize cc would be like the wild west with shootouts in the streets everyday. Didn't happen.

Deaths as the result of the legalization of cc did NOT increase. It did not increase for adults, it did not increase for children.

How many years has cc been legal now?
What better study do we need.

Along with many others here, I cc on a daily basis. I share the same stores, malls and very often even enjoy the same restaurants sitting right next to families with children.

For those that think their children would be less safe if teachers were allowed to cc, do you feel less safe for your children while your family sits at the table next to me while dining at a restaurant?

Probably not...you don't know I'm carrying.

What about at the mall, stores or walking down the street when I walk past your children while cc'ing?...Do ya feel less safe for them?

Again...your children just brushed by someone with a gun that you, or them were unaware a gun even existed.

For those thinking we can totally stop these school shooting tragedies by more secure construction of the buildings? Here's something to think about...do we not lock all our doors/windows at our homes? Do we not put up security lights ,install security sys., camera's, have dogs and in some cases, even bars on windows? Do we not do all these things and still have a gun or three inside our homes for protection?
And still yet, if a BG wants to get in that home bad enough, he will. Happens everyday.

Same if someone that has made up their minds to kill someone. They will figure out a way to get past means of security to do their destruction.

My kids are grown. I have one 25yr old in college and several G-children that are in school. I cannot fathom the idea of the pain and misery we would feel if one of these tragedies would occur at one of the kids schools. I know if a member of my family was in a school with a deranged killer, rather then waiting the minutes it would take LE to get to the school, I would be praying that there was at least one armed, sane person already inside that school doing there best to fend off innocent lives being lost till LE arrived.

Please do not interrupt my moral outrage with pesky facts!

Please carry on Chaz88.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Roughly 3/4s of DGUs occur at home. There are an estimates 1-2 million DGUs a year. "Rampage" school shootings average 1 every 18 months or along those lines, probably not even that often.

Most mass/rampage mass shootings occur at home as well. They certainly occur with more frequency that such workplace or school shootings.

 

[TimSr]

Another consideration is the fact that teachers are not hired for their ability to deal in deadly force and honestly, many of them may be ill suited for the task. Even if there are Teachers who are well suited for deadly force responsibility, I think that protection is important enough to be a singular task and not one where a persons wears half a dozen different hats.

I can guarentee you that when there is a active shooter, there is no teaching going on, no multitasking for a teacher to deal with. Every teacher has te task of trying to protect their students when all other defenses have been breached. They do not choose this role but that WILL be the only hat they are wearing at that time. It is forced upon them by circumstances whether they want it or not. Nobody is suggesting they patrol the schools or be the primary line of defense. They are the last line of defense. Again, I go back the tecaher at Sandyhook. When the last obstacle between a shooter and your child is a teacher, janitor, or other school staffer, would you want that person armed?


No tecaher should be forced to carry. It should be strictly voluntary. Several instructors and ranges here offer basic CCW courses and advanced CCW courses to school personnel FREE OF CHARGE here in Ohio. Carry Stipends are far less expensive than hiring full time security, but are rarely necessary as volunteers are easy to come by.

A school in a rural county in Texas has a great system. They allow qualified personnel to carry but will not reaveal which staffers have accepted, or even how many.

 

[rwilson452]

A lot of people stress training as a must have. Here in PA there is no training requirement. A license to carry is shall issue and cost $20. The last gun homicide in my county involved a shotgun in a love triangle. Altho I think training is a good thing, I think practice and mind set are primary. "speed is good, accuracy is final".

NYC "highly" trained LEOs are a prime example.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Most people don't want to carry. Most people who get permits or licenses don't carry that much. The data are pretty clear.

The carrying teacher need not be an official ninja. They simply should meet the state's requirements. Then be allowed to carry.

If you don't like your state's rules, that's a different issue.

A class survey we did as a stat project years ago found that the percent of college faculty and staff who had CCW permits etc. in two Oregon and two TX schools wasn't really different from the general population.

 

[FireForged]

1. Why should teachers be denied the right to protect themselves and have to rely on exterior defenses which are easily breached in any common sense scenario?

Its isn't "why should teachers be denied" .. its "Why should others have the final say in that decision". Teachers usually act under some auspices as opposed to the private individual conducting personal daily endeavors. Teachers typically act on behalf and answer to some unified Authority or Governance. If that is the case, it would seem reasonable that any decision to extend the responsibilities and training of teachers would fall to that Authority as a business decision. I do not have a personal objection to Teachers being armed, I just don't think its the most practical or best business decision. If established security efforts are [easily] defeated then the wrong people are involved in the planning or carry out those efforts.

2. I can come up with teachers who are veterans including marine recon, rangers and real SEALs. Plus civilians who train.

Sure you can.. again, there are many capable Teachers but isn't the task of protection worthy of people with that singular responsibility. When is a teacher going to recognize that an attack is underway... too late I would say. Once you set a policy of protection in place it would be subject to scrutiny if it were to fail and that's is when all the finger pointing begins. If it were me, I would rather answer those hard questions from a position where I could show that my efforts were designed to stop violence well away from those I sought to protect.

3. So rather than have fortress schools, I might suggest that if plain old schmoos can carry in the mall - teachers who care about their students should not be left with their thumb up their orifice, waving their IPAD or becoming human shields.

A school can be protected without being a fortress or prison. Many facilities around the globe have a reasonable measure of physical protection that in no way are fortresses or prisons. All it takes is making security part of the process from the construction phase and not something you try to apply cheaply and in haste after something happens. Fewer protectors are needed when a facility is designed properly where as a poorly designed facility may need 3x the number of protectors to make up for issues that work counter to security needs.

4. If one believes teachers can't carry - then I doubt the doubter should carry either. Why should I trust that person in the mall, parking lot, religious service or anywhere?

Individuals who are not acting under the auspices of any organization or authority typically have the luxury of making certain decisions for themselves which those who represent an employer or organization may not. As I said in the very beginning, [in general] I don't support the arming of Teachers simply because I feel there is a more effective method to protect and one that would foster a proactive effort and not a "last resort" effort. Police would be my first choice but that effort should come with the budget to hire enough for the specific size school. If not the Police then a someone who meets a very specific set of requirement and who are only assigned to the protective task.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sigh - since I work in a school, I find your arguments specious. It's not worth going through them in great detail, so just a few things.

1. You would recognize the school is under attack if you hear shots fired. In many cases, the shooter moved from room to room.

2. The teacher does not have to act under the authority of the school as pseudo-cop. Just allow carry under the typical permit laws.

3. Immediate response is necessary in many cases. Assume the law or resource officer will arrive 2 minutes later and can identify the threat.

A shooter can kill many folks who are sitting ducks in a classroom and move to the next before help arrives. I don't know how fast you shoot but the folks I know will shoot 20 kids before any help arrives.

You don't ARM teachers. You allow them to carry. That is the flaw in your position.

As far as fortifying a school, Sandy Hook had its door shot in. I doubt your statement that you could keep out a determined shooter with easy modifications or heavy manpower expenses.

 

[FireForged]

Sigh - since I work in a school, I find your arguments specious. It's not worth going through them in great detail, so just a few things.

I had to look up "specious" ..

1. You would recognize the school is under attack if you hear shots fired. In many cases, the shooter moved from room to room.

That is not a security plan..

2. The teacher does not have to act under the authority of the school as pseudo-cop. Just allow carry under the typical permit laws.

That is not what I am talking about.. I am talking about who's pockets the money comes from when the actions of a employee are the subject of a lawsuit. People with a responsibility to protect get sued all the time, those who have use of force authority.. get sued all the time. The Police are insulated to a certain degree and are unique in their own organization which could be argued in many cases is separate and apart from any School District.

3. Immediate response is necessary in many cases. Assume the law or resource officer will arrive 2 minutes later and can identify the threat.

you are still working from a [protection begins] when a badguy has made contact with the people who are being protected

You don't ARM teachers. You allow them to carry. That is the flaw in your position.

again, in the event something goes wrong.. who's pockets?

As far as fortifying a school, Sandy Hook had its door shot in. I doubt your statement that you could keep out a determined shooter with easy modifications or heavy manpower expenses.

Schools not being properly designed to bar unlawful intrusion is a problem.. yes. You cant design a school like a fast food joint or a grocery store, you have to design it with specific security in mind if protection is the goal. Yes it costs money but actual manpower can be reduced with proper tech and design.

 

[TimSr]

I am talking about who's pockets the money comes from when the actions of a employee are the subject of a lawsuit.

I think most people in an actual situation would prefer to risk the lawsuit.

 

[Sierra280]

If the school had an official policy that allowed teachers to carry in case of a situation, then lawsuits would be non issue. If there was an active shooter in the school, lawsuits are the last thing on teachers minds. Plus, if the teachers are union members, they would have lawyers to go to bat for them.

There is no such thing as absolute security.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think most people in an actual situation would prefer to risk the lawsuit.

Yep, but most won't bother to be armed and only after the fact will lament that they were not, just like people out on the street who get robbed and wished they would have had a gun.

Most people with CCWs don't even bother to carry a gun despite having the legal ability to do so. Sad but true.

 

[shortwave]

Most people with CCWs don't even bother to carry a gun despite having the legal ability to do so. Sad but true.

While I would say that you are spot on with that statement...it would be very interesting if we could get an accurate estimate of just how many do carry along with the % of time they carry. Would be interesting.

Hell I don't even like to carry a wallet so you know I consider cc'ing a king size PITA. But IMO, in today's society, it is a very necessary evil.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As I said in the other school thread - some of you are simply tools of the Schumer/Bloomberg school of unarmed victim hood.

When evil gets past your fences and doors - be a human shield and die waving your kung-fu IPhone. Bah.

 

[shortwave]

As I said in the other school thread - some of you are simply tools of the Schumer/Bloomberg school of unarmed victim hood.

As I said in the other school thread - some of you are simple tools of the Schumer/Bloomberg school of unarmed victim hood.

...fixed it for ya Glenn.

 

[FireForged]

They are the last line of defense. Again, I go back the tecaher at Sandyhook. When the last obstacle between a shooter and your child is a teacher, janitor, or other school staffer, would you want that person armed?

If you are saying that in addition to Teachers there are other obstacles like Police or similar competent protection personnel who are on site actively performing a protection task, then yes I think there could be some limited provisions for arming some Teachers as the last layer of a multi layered mechanism. My argument is that simply arming Teachers and saying [ that's good enough] is not a well thought out plan in the face of much better options. Still I don't think the practice would be practical and those suited or willing would be few and far between.

 

[shortwave]

...those suited or willing would be few and far between

FireForged

Just in case you didn't read these articles in the other thread(Teachers with Firearms) you posted in about the lack of interest by teachers that would carry:


As far as the number of teachers that would voluntarily carry when going to work...we may be surprised:

www.northwestohio.com/news/story.aspx?id=844026

http://www.guns.com/2013/07/10/ohio-...ict-will-allow

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...2012/12/27/gun

There are many more articles on the net...just do a search.

 

[Al Norris]

And with that, we have just crossed over into duplicate thread territory. We are long past the CO school shooting in this thread.

Closed.