A real problem with armed guards, or guards of any kind, is maintaining an attitude of vigilance. In a typical situation nothing happens ever, or not for year after year, and thus the guards develop a sense of complacency. It is extremely difficult to instill and maintain the necessary attitude for guards to be successful against a truly dangerous attack. Anyone can stop a law abiding individual who is not supposed to enter a building, just by telling the person that they cannot enter because of whatever. But being ready and capable of stopping an armed individual, intent on entry and on killing others, who has no need to plan an escape since he/they plan to die in the action, is much more difficult. Being careful not to betray a confidence I will be somewhat vague but years ago I had a friend who was the director of a highly secure environment. Even after 9/11 the guards, armed with fully automatic weapons and with elaborate physical barriers with locking turnstiles, etc. for security, had to be constantly trained and tested to avoid becoming complacent. Day after day they would see the same authorized staff enter and leave the plant with no untoward events, yet they were expected to be highly vigilant and prepared for the possibility of an armed group of terrorists who might attempt to storm the entrances and gain access to the plant. Having one or two police officers assigned to a school will not be effective if security procedures are lax, if the officers are exposed to a sudden armed attack (since it is likely that if the perpetrator knows that the school is protected, he will first plan on eliminating/killing the armed guard or guards) they will more likely become victims than they will be able to stop the attack. My youngest son's high school, not too many years ago, had an armed police officer seated at the desk where visitors were supposed to sign in. If there were an intent to kill students or others, it would have been extremely easy to just walk in and then shoot the officer, thus eliminating the only armed individual who could stop the shooter. There is no easy answer to this highly unlikely event taking place at a specific school. Neither having a cop or two hanging around nor passing an AWB will do anything meaningful to provide true security to the students in the school.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Armed guards at Columbine...why "ineffective"?
- Thread starter Skadoosh
- Start date
However, in today's world school doors are locked and the front entrance is the only (legitimate) entrance during most of the school day.
People always assume that however things are locally, that's how they are globally.
A lot of schools around here are sprawling, with multiple buildings. They don't have a single set of front doors to lock.
pax
The tactic should be in my opinion...
That members of the school staff patrol, while the armed security guard or policeman remains at the most effective point (the front door) in reserve.
The armed security should remain indoors to intercept an attacker. Patrolling outside or being outside will place him in the same position that the deputies found themselves in at Columbine.
Would it not be much better (how much less time to kill defenseless students!) to have some of those same staff (those that are willing and able) to already have a handgun on their person? I know the principal at out local Jr/Sr. High is a .mil veteran ..... as are some of the teachers..... don't know how many of them are willing, but certainly some are able. Faced with confronting an armed nutter, I am sure they'd rather have a gun.
Alabama Shooter
New member
I do not believe that most schools will sign up to allow armed teachers in their school for the purpose of defeating an armed gun man. The liability concerns will trump any perceived benefit for most schools. Besides most of the teachers I know are unwilling or unable to effectively defend themselves much less others during an active shooter event.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
pax said:People always assume that however things are locally, that's how they are globally.
A lot of schools around here are sprawling, with multiple buildings. They don't have a single set of front doors to lock.
Good point. That model of school design was discredited so long ago that, even though I have been involved in education design for decades, I haven't even considered that such schools still exist.
A related problem is schools that have outgrown their building(s) and are housed partially in modular classrooms. Those are essentially FEMA trailers with blackboards (or whiteboards, or smartboards).
Besides most of the teachers I know are unwilling or unable to effectively defend themselves much less others during an active shooter event.
So, because many are unwilling or unable to do the necessary, all must be prohibited from having the tools to do it if they are willing and able?
This was the very same argument that was used to outlaw concealed carry for so long. It did not ultimately hold up ....look at where we are today.
Alabama Shooter
New member
So, because many are unwilling or unable to do the necessary, all must be prohibited from having the tools to do it if they are willing and able?
I did not say that. What I am saying is that in most places it will be ineffectual as a deterrent.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
Well they were following their protocols and set up a perimeter to wait. Too bad that in that time Harris and Klebold were able to kill most of their victims. I wonder if training has improved any since then?
A new type of training loosely called 'Active Shooter Response' has since addressed Columbine-type incidents. Enlightened police agencies have had this training. Mine is definitely NOT enlightened, but even WE have had it, so I am guessing most have had it.
If you want to know if your agency practices this type of response, ask them.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
A new type of training loosely called 'Active Shooter Response' has since addressed Columbine-type incidents. Enlightened police agencies have had this training. Mine is definitely NOT enlightened, but even WE have had it, so I am guessing most have had it.
If you want to know if your agency practices this type of response, ask them.
Does it matter? Really?
The bottom line is in the truth that all police officers know, and some acknowledge publicly -- "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
Newtown, Connecticut, is by almost anyone's definition a small town. Small in population, small in geographic area. The first call to 9-1-1 came in almost immediately after the shooter had entered the school. Yet, by the time the first responder had responded, the incident was over, the shooter had killed himself, and there was nothing left for the police to do but take photos and make note of how many empty cases they picked up.
One early report I saw said the police were on the scene in 5 minutes and the shooter had committed suicide in 3. Another, later, report said the police took 20 minutes to get there. 5, 10, 15, 20 -- however long it took, it was too long, and whether or not they rushed in to engage or set up a perimeter was meaningless because by the time they arrived there was nobody TO engage. The same was true in the recent mall shooting, and the same was true at Aurora (except the shooter in Aurora didn't kill himself, he just walked out of the theater and surrendered).
It HAS to be recognized that the best the police can possibly hope to do is stop the carnage. If your child, or yourself, is one of the first victims, how does that help? What's needed is to engage a shooter before he can start, and the only way to accomplish that is with "boots on the ground" -- an armed presence of some kind in every school.
I did not say that. What I am saying is that in most places it will be ineffectual as a deterrent./QUOTE]
Nutters won't be deterred....... By that, or anything else, either.
What I am saying is that a gun in the hands of the people already on scene is the only thing that will stop something like this.
If the Admin that went to confront this guy had shot him DRT instead of trying to hold the door shut, the body count would have certainly been lower.... and if you can't trust the teachers and Admin to carry a gun discreetly and responsibly, then how can we trust them with the instruction of our children?
in another post (closed) a link to the following article was posted.
http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...ol-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
The conclusion of the presenter was that armed guards are not the answer. They are a part of the answer. Our schools must place the same priority on security as they do on fire safety.
Glass doors and windows can be hardened by applying laminates similar to that used for window tinting. Fire doors to classrooms should have good locks in working order. Repairing security devices should have the same priority that repairing fire code devices has.
School staff and LEOs should practice active shooter drills in the same manner that they conduct fire drills.
Improvised weapons should be identified and practiced with. A Simple ABC Fire Extinguisher is an excellent weapon for disabling and/or degrading an attacker. They have a range of 20 feet.
Schools currently have fire marshals to ensure that the school does not receive a failing grade from the local fire inspectors.
Perhaps we need to have a "Security marshal" with the same powers the the fire inspector has. I have made that recommendation to the Governor.
Based on my experience I concur with LTC Grossman that denial is the greatest impediment to having and effective school security program.
http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...ol-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
The conclusion of the presenter was that armed guards are not the answer. They are a part of the answer. Our schools must place the same priority on security as they do on fire safety.
Glass doors and windows can be hardened by applying laminates similar to that used for window tinting. Fire doors to classrooms should have good locks in working order. Repairing security devices should have the same priority that repairing fire code devices has.
School staff and LEOs should practice active shooter drills in the same manner that they conduct fire drills.
Improvised weapons should be identified and practiced with. A Simple ABC Fire Extinguisher is an excellent weapon for disabling and/or degrading an attacker. They have a range of 20 feet.
Schools currently have fire marshals to ensure that the school does not receive a failing grade from the local fire inspectors.
Perhaps we need to have a "Security marshal" with the same powers the the fire inspector has. I have made that recommendation to the Governor.
Based on my experience I concur with LTC Grossman that denial is the greatest impediment to having and effective school security program.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I don't think so.ltc444 said:Glass doors and windows can be hardened by applying laminates similar to that used for window tinting.
Search around Internetland for a window film that will stand up to 5.56x45 rifle rounds. If you find one, post a link to it.
I don't think even quarter inch Lexan will withstand rifle fire. Ever take a close look at how thick the glass is on your bank's drive-up window? And even that isn't considered "bulletproof" -- it's only bullet "resistant."
Alabama Shooter wrote:
Arming willing teachers is not meant to be a deterrent...
What I am saying is that in most places it will be ineffectual as a deterrent.
Arming willing teachers is not meant to be a deterrent...
The same was true in the recent mall shooting,
A good case for armed teachers right there..http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Our Gov wants to allow teachers to carry in school and will provide State PD levels of training for the ones that want to do so. Some of our colleges already do so. Some have a complete police force.
Arming willing teachers is not meant to be a deterrent...
And yet, you get some deterrence anyway. That's a good thing.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Most teachers:
1. Speak for yourself.
2. How come only roughly 2 to 4 percent of people in shall issue states get the permit or license. And some say that most don't carry anyway, most of the time.
In TX, an informal survey by the CHL instructor organization said that 80% only wanted the CHL so they wouldn't be hassled for their 'car or truck' gun - a useless concept for most SD.
3. How many licensees bother to train to be efficacious in something beyong shooing away a single mugger?
1. Speak for yourself.
2. How come only roughly 2 to 4 percent of people in shall issue states get the permit or license. And some say that most don't carry anyway, most of the time.
In TX, an informal survey by the CHL instructor organization said that 80% only wanted the CHL so they wouldn't be hassled for their 'car or truck' gun - a useless concept for most SD.
3. How many licensees bother to train to be efficacious in something beyong shooing away a single mugger?
Come and take it.
New member
There was one huge security failure at Sandy Hook Elementary that hasn't really been discussed by the media in detail.
Adam lanza almost certianly entered the school before the 9:30 AM lockdown.
The first calls to dispatch came at about 9:30. This meant he was in the school before the lockdown.
Adam lanza almost certianly entered the school before the 9:30 AM lockdown.
The first calls to dispatch came at about 9:30. This meant he was in the school before the lockdown.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Didn't he shoot the glass - so what does that have to do with it?
Shotgun693
New member
I was a Campus Cop for about 5 years at the very end of my career. I had 35 years in Law Enforcement when I retired very early this year. When I became a Cop, we understood that it was our job to stand between the good guys and the bad guys, that the job was dangerous and that sometimes an Officer had to lay down their life to protect others. Later we were taught that our lives were valuable and that we were only to take action if it was safe to do so. Yeah, the idea was to sit back and wait for the cavalry to arrive before doing something to stop the bad guy. I didn't often follow this 'new' philosophy.
I spent very little time outside the school buildings. I counted on being called if needed outside. I walked halls, let teachers take short breaks and met and helped students as much as I could. I even bought a stool that I would sit on in the Main Hall when I needed to get a break. I saw myself as a beat Cop in a small town. With the backing of a new, outstanding, Principle, the Hookers were kept in class, Johns were ran off campus and dope dealing was also ran off. I'm not saying I did a good job or that I did better than anyone else but I do believe that putting Cops in the school is what is needed, not just putting a Cop in a car to watch the grass grow.
I spent very little time outside the school buildings. I counted on being called if needed outside. I walked halls, let teachers take short breaks and met and helped students as much as I could. I even bought a stool that I would sit on in the Main Hall when I needed to get a break. I saw myself as a beat Cop in a small town. With the backing of a new, outstanding, Principle, the Hookers were kept in class, Johns were ran off campus and dope dealing was also ran off. I'm not saying I did a good job or that I did better than anyone else but I do believe that putting Cops in the school is what is needed, not just putting a Cop in a car to watch the grass grow.
if the officers are exposed to a sudden armed attack (since it is likely that if the perpetrator knows that the school is protected, he will first plan on eliminating/killing the armed guard or guards) they will more likely become victims than they will be able to stop the attack. My youngest son's high school, not too many years ago, had an armed police officer seated at the desk where visitors were supposed to sign in. If there were an intent to kill students or others, it would have been extremely easy to just walk in and then shoot the officer, thus eliminating the only armed individual who could stop the shooter.
I think that's the most valid point of all. Having armed security at a school is probably a good thing in general since there are many security and crime issues at any large school. Not just an active shooter. This is why Tulsa Public Schools have their own police force. Not because they really thought somebody with a rifle was coming in the front door. But they were worried about drugs and child abduction (by divorced parents) and gang activity, etc, etc. For those sorts of things, having a cop with a badge and a gun has really made a difference. But one or even two armed guards that are always in the same place... a local who knows the layout will target them first. Been done before.
That's why I think the only real "hard target answer" is to arm a few "somebody else's." Whether that is teachers or administrators or the janitor... your choice. But it needs to be the individuals in the school that are the best qualified based on previous life choices. And who WANT to carry the gun. AND... very important... nobody in the whole school knows who they are. I guess the Principal but that's it. Not other teachers, not the kids, nobody. When somebody with a gun comes in, they don't know whether it will be the math teacher or the football coach or even the American Lit teacher that will suddenly produce a gun and engage them. Not necessarily killing them but tying them down. Stopping the free movement. Creating an interruption to allow time for the paid good guys with badges and better firearms to get on the scene.
One example... I'll use myself. I've been shooting and enjoying guns since I was six years old. Always been my favorite thing. I joined the US Army when I was 21 at least partly because I wanted to get to shoot guns and bigger weapons that I would never otherwise get to enjoy. Also the reason I went in enlisted even though I had 76 hours of university at that time. I was in for 3 years and 5 months. Then I joined the Active Army Reserves and was a Drill Sergeant for 4 years and some months. So I officially have 8 years time in service. I was a 16H so I was in a combat MOS. And I was cross-trained to be the unit armorer. I have a LOT of time with weapons in my hands.
When I got out, I went into teaching at the university level. I taught at OU in Norman. And I taught as an Assistant Professor at Rogers State College in Claremore for several years. Then I discovered I could make more money fixing computers than teaching. Eventually I thought about going back into teaching so I got my OK teaching certificate. I did the substitute teaching thing for a while at all grade levels but that just wasn't me. And I never could figure out how to move up to a full time permanent teaching position so I moved on.
I've had a concealed carry license for over 10 years. I have my C&R. I needed some extra money at one point so I took two semesters worth of classes and then took the test to become a licensed OK Security Guard. I did that full time for a couple of years.
My point is... I have a hard time believing that many people would deem me to be unqualified or dangerous to carry a gun secretly but full time in a school. I'm a 51 year old married man with two children. I've managed to carry a gun all these years and not suddenly go into some kind of irrational rage. Avoided shooting people that hit my car or otherwise "irked me." I think I've proven myself. Once I get the opposing viewpoint person to admit that they can't really say I'm not a great choice to carry in the schools... I point out that I'm not unique. It's just not possible. We have many mega-thousands of prior service soldiers and Marines out there. And a whole lot of them now are combat veterans. Many of them have come home and gotten their CCW's and carry every day. And some small percentage of them have gone into teaching. I'm willing to bet that nearly every school has at least a couple of them. There are your candidates.
I've felt for years that I'm sort of an unpaid asset to my community. Nobody sends me a check or otherwise even realizes I'm there, but the fact is that every day I'm in town or around the area with a concealed firearm. With all my life experience and training guiding my actions. The cops really can't be everywhere at once. But we HAVE to recognize the fact that we have a giant and unappreciated resource in every town in America. Utilize them rather than putting up No Guns signs that make them feel like they are the criminal!!!!
Gregg