Does having security guards at schools prevent attacks?

In my mind, this is coming from someone who is not a LEO or ex-mil, having a single guard who sets at a desk all day is of minimal value. Its some level of deterrent but it would be easy for a determined attacker or attackers to take out that single guard in a static post.

To have some real effect in stopping/minimizing shootings you need multiple guards on random patrols around campus. That keeps any would be attackers on edge because around every corner is potentially an armed threat. The threat can come from any direction and the threat exists the moment you make yourself known.

Mind you, I think you get more bang for your buck by training and arming teachers. The "threat" to the bad guys is much more hidden, you have no idea how many and which teachers are armed. Beyond that, armed threats to the bad guy will not stand out (in uniform).

A single security guard at a desk is better than nothing, two or three guards patrolling a school is better but IMO the most cost effective and difficult to counter solution is an armed school official.
 
If we stopped posting gun free zone signs it would be a step in the right direction. After that layers of protection is what is needed. Regular patrols, trained teachers able to carry if they choose to, plus a periodic guard. The idea is to make the potential killer think about possible armed resistance as opposed to a shooting gallery of easy targets.
 
Not really, mayosligo. Such shootings happen regardless of whether the zone is gun free or not. School, business, and home mass shootings occur because that is where the shooter had a problem or believed a problem to exist. The same holds for several had in public locations. Single-triple shootings (so not classified as being mass shootings) happen all over as well. If you are out for revenge, regardless of the consequences, or just have a death wish and want to be on the news, then police, security, and armed teachers are pretty meaningless to you.
 
Okay, list the attacks where teachers knew there was about to be trouble and reported it. It didn't happen at Columbine, UT, VT, Appalachia Law School, Pearl, NIU, Thurston High School, Westside Middle School, Cleveland Elementary School, Sandyhook, CSU Fullerton, Lindhurst High School, Amish school, etc.

Sure, lots of people claim they knew "there would be trouble" AFTER THE FACT, but don't see to say much about it beforehand. Also for all those feelings that there would be trouble, the notion is either so vague as to be actionably useless, or nothing comes to pass.

The notion that having armed guards protect the school makes it like a prison, but having armed teachers somehow doesn't is preposterous. Either way, you have armed security. To say one is a police state and the other isn't is just plain silly.
Click to expand...

You named all the cases where SROs or armed staff did not work. However, that being said the cases were armed students and staff STOPPED a shooting is far longer.
 
Yes. Once the shooter got rounds off these people ran got armed and subdued the shooter before any further damage could be done.

The list was released due to Sandy Hook and is floating around. Got to head to work, but I'll see if I can find the list.

The notion that having armed guards protect the school makes it like a prison, but having armed teachers somehow doesn't is preposterous. Either way, you have armed security. To say one is a police state and the other isn't is just plain silly.
Click to expand...

Armed staff and civilians is nothing like a police state. Having a SRO who is granted power and never regulated can quickly get out of hand. You implement a SOP for armed staff then liability gets a little more serious on how to handle situations.

Arming staff or hiring a SRO will not solve our gun violence in schools. You must look MUCH deeper than that. Sadly no one wants to. The focus is always and will always be around the tool used: firearms.

To make it simpler...unless funded by the private sector this nation can not afford hiring armed guards in state and federal levels of budget.
 
Ike

Eisenhower once said: "The only way we can all be totally secure is if we are all in jail." The concept of armed guards in the schools, or in the courts, or around the president, or around our homes simply makes us less free.

The point of the Constitutional protections are not to make you safe. It has been shown repeatedly that security is all an illusion. In the end you aren't safe from anything. The point of Constitutional protections are to protect your free will. This gives you the choice of having armed security or not. Of sending your children to school or not. Going to the movie theater or not. Carrying a weapon or not. God endowed man with Free Will. Government didn't endow man with anything (except a very large pain in the a$$).

I don't understand the circumstances regarding the attack on the school children in Thailand so it's hard to know if the attackers are the greater threat to the children or if the soldiers manning the school building are. Anywhere government "security" personnel are providing protection leaves the citizens under their protection vulnerable to such protection. Hippocrates said "First, do no harm." This doesn't only apply to the medical profession. It applies to all governments as well. Especially members of the executive branch. The power entrusted to such men is neither a joke nor an illusion.

So in the end it boils down to a simple choice: Do you want to place your life &/or the life of your family in the hands of another? Or do you want to keep it in your own hands? There is great risk either way. The Constitution protects your right to Free Will. Which means the choice belongs solely to you. You are free to do as you wish. That is what the 2nd Amendment protections are all about. That is what all Constitutional protections are all about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we stopped posting gun free zone signs it would be a step in the right direction. After that layers of protection is what is needed. Regular patrols, trained teachers able to carry if they choose to, plus a periodic guard. The idea is to make the potential killer think about possible armed resistance as opposed to a shooting gallery of easy targets.
Click to expand...

While this band-aid approach may seem to be a solution, it does not address the real issue - why are these events taking place at all? Kids used to bring guns to school because they were going hunting after school or were on the school ROTC drill team or other reason - and no one would have even considered shooting up the place. Until the societal issues that cause these shootings are addressed, all the "protection" in the world won't help. Driving by schools now, they look more like prisons than the prisons do (and the activities inside are more like a prison).......no wonder some tend to freak out

Cure the societal ills, the violence stops
 
In my own Fairfax County, SROs are, indeed, fully sworn, uniformed, and armed Fairfax County Police officers, driving marked and equipped FCPD cruisers. They are cops, first, last and always. They may or may not have a particular charism for dealing with bumptious yutes, but they are cops, enforcing the law.

Sadly, there is far more need in our schools for enforcement of the criminal code against the pupils than there is for protection from outside lunatics. Our local high school was home to Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, and Michael Kennedy, who stole guns from his stoner dad, carjacked a vehicle, and attacked the local police precinct, killing two brave officers, MPO Michael Garbarino, and Det. Vicki Armel, both parents of young children. Police also broke up a major league heroin ring, scoring dope from Baltimore, and a prostitution ring.

This in one of the wealthiest communities in the country.

Don't think the students aren't drawing the "right" lessons.
 
In my own Fairfax County, SROs are, indeed, fully sworn, uniformed, and armed Fairfax County Police officers, driving marked and equipped FCPD cruisers. They are cops, first, last and always. They may or may not have a particular charism for dealing with bumptious yutes, but they are cops, enforcing the law.
Click to expand...

Most places don't have the options that Fairfax County has. It is one of the wealthiest counties in the country with very high property values with high taxes. Fairfax County can afford the protection but most of the country can't. Here is the less affluent end of the state, there has been talk of allowing employees to conceal carry. I don't think it is necessary for a lot of employees to conceal carry but I think the possibility that someone might have a weapon would be a deterrent even if nobody actually had a weapon. Scattered small schools in rural areas would make it unaffordable and impractical to have armed law enforcement at all of them.
 
In the early 1990s I was an armed security officer. The company I worked for was contracted to provide armed security service to a private school that was holding dances for Middle School aged kids. My responsibilties were traffic control during drop-off and pick-up. I was also charged with the safety of all there. There were no incidents at these dances other than some kids trying to leave the dance area for other locations. So in my experience a properly trained armed officer can be a big benefit to prevention of many illegal activities on school property.
 
I never said that removing the signs would stop these incidents. However, not telling the would be killer where to go would be a step in the right direction. There is no one solution to this problem unfortunately there are too many people who think putting this sign up makes sense and it simply does not. It is an invitation.

I also pointed out the there needs to be layers. As the Dr. pointed out there are also societal issues. Year after year for several decades we have allowed generations to think the answer is hand over your rights to the government. This hardly works.

We have generations of people who think laws stop mass murderers.
 
Such shootings happen regardless of whether the zone is gun free or not. School, business, and home mass shootings occur because that is where the shooter had a problem or believed a problem to exist
Click to expand...
.
Yes and no for the mass events. they may have had some connection to the venue, but they used school, theaters and other high vulnerability areas because they are easy targets and the shooters are obsessed with body counts. In that case the likelihood of disarmed victims is a draw to that venue. There are indications directly from the writings of the perps that this was a factor in both Oslo and Newton

Columbine did, indeed, have an SRO. Where was he when the balloon went up? He was outside, eating his lunch in his patrol car.
Click to expand...
Couple of logical problems:
1) Columbine was a long time ago. Presumably that SRO had little to no training in lessons learned from prior shootings. Those lessons learned are now available.
2) the phrasing of the OP question is problematic. the logical question is do they prevent, deter or reduce causalities in some or any? I would say yes.
You cannot use only cases where an attack occurred. you have to postulate deterrence. If you do not postulate or estimate deterrence you are falling into the same logical fallacy of anti-vaccine folks asking for lists of people saved by vaccines. (pro gun control people universally fall victim to the same anti science views of anti-vaccine "activists.")
3) Longitudinal studies comparing equal demographics schools show reduced crime, including crime against persons, in schools with armed SRO/police.
That is why the Senate Dems, even though they initially mocked LaPierre for the suggestion, had to put SRO support in the bill.
Lots of kids are beaten, robbed, raped, assaulted and killed in schools without being victims of a mass shooting. Armed SRO and police in schools reduce that.
 
SROs & "good guys with guns".....

Many US schools & campuses already have security officers, guards or "school resource officers".
SROs have been a growing trend since the late 1970s.
They don't have to "look for work" in many public schools. Drugs, gangs, sex crimes, thefts, assaults, abductions/family court issues, accidents/first responder events can fill up a shift.
;)
I highly doubt anyone is standing around with a gun for 8 to 10 hours a day waiting for something to go wrong.
There is merit to the "good guys with guns" concept but arming janitors or hiring armed guards isn't the best concept for school security IMO.
 
There is no single factor which can prevent ALL school attacks, 100%. Schools are not bank vaults. They are not prisons, and they are not fortresses. It is the unfortunate state of our society that a number of its citizens are not merely highly disturbed with a violent predisposition, but also clever, resourceful and highly determined.

And let's say, for argument's sake, that somehow we had obtain 100% security at our schools. That STILL won't prevent these murderers from obtaining access to them - think of all the places children readily congregate - athletic events, shopping malls, movie theaters, etc. etc. We live in a public society and have to acknowledge that there simply is no guarantee of physical safety anywhere on earth.
 
Sidwell Friends School does

It's where the uber elite like Sasha and Melia go to school. The school has a permanent contingent of armed guards in addition to whatever detail the Secret Service provides for the President's children. Pretty certain it hasn't had any shootings yet.
 
Another point...

As many unstable or EDPs(emotionally distrurbed persons) start to incite sworn LE officers into "suicide by cop" events, more armed guards or licensed security personnel may encounter unstable or intoxicated subjects.

These subjects may see a armed security guard or patrol officer & start shooting. :eek:
James Yeager, the TN area tactics instructor who was a recent scandal about his concealed license, had a Youtube clip about active shooters.
He said most EDPs or active shooters will kill themselves when challenged or confronted by uniformed first responders.
While this may occur often, don't rely on it always happening in a lethal force event. I can recall two incidents where a spree shooter fled then surrendered when encountered by SWAT/LE units.
School security programs need to be detailed & training should be in-depth.
 
He said most EDPs or active shooters will kill themselves when challenged or confronted by uniformed first responders.
While this may occur often, don't rely on it always happening in a lethal force event.
Click to expand...

Not only can you not rely on it happening, but from the tallies I am doing, it doesn't even appear to happen most of the time. In fact, a goodly number attempt to shoot it out with the cops and/or shooting others before surrendering, being incapacitated, or committing suicide. Suicide seems to occur when they feel like there is no other option and they don't want to risk the possibility of being incapacitated and then caught.

That many eventually commit suicide isn't a surprise. Most never had intent to go to prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top