So much for the idea of arming teachers

[cabanafrau]

But


I have to admit, carrying a gun around everywhere I go and having to be 100% responsible for it is not appealing to me. That, plus the fact I don’t own a carry gun, is why I don’t carry today, and might not ever.

As for how to deter school shooters, I do think there are things we can do at the schools short of teachers carrying lethal weapons that should be done. And I think we should explore any & all of these possibilities.


I think we also need to pause and put things in perspective. As horrific as these shootings are, school is still the safest place our children go. They are much more likely to die in a car or bus crash en route to school than they are to be shot on campus. Worse, kids are still more likely to die at home due to abuse & neglect of their own parents than they are to be shot at school.

These shootings are like plane crashes. They make a lot of headlines for the sheer carnage that happens in the blink of an eye. And like plane crashes, we should do whatever we can to prevent them. But, there are far greater dangers out there.

My comment was to be taken very tongue in cheek in response to what I see as a completely OTT reaction to my first comment, which was that I don't think the answer to school shootings is more guns in schools.

My own kids are college and post-college at this point. The one in college is an education major who is currently fulfilling a field work requirement that has had her back at her old high school this semester. While there she became involved in a very heavy discussion regarding this very situation because of the Parkland shooting. Specific teachers were discussed as being likely candidates to responsibly carry, some as military vets, some as hunters. All but one were familiar to my daughter. Several were her former teachers, many of them teachers she has been doing observation hours with this semester. She has great relationships with all of the ones she knows, some of whom are actually genuine "friends" of hers who have been aware of and supporting her dream of becoming a HS teacher even when she was their student. When talking about it at dinner with us that evening she said she believed that it was true that every teacher mentioned that she knew would take the securing of a gun very seriously and be very responsible if thinking about the necessity of actually using one. She wasn't comfortable with the idea of being a student in their classroom with that potential. Her feeling is that a prospective student shooter would be able to identify the teachers who were carrying/not carrying and tailor their attacks accordingly.

My question to her was why teachers who are hunters were included in their discussion as able to carry. Hunters can absolutely know how to use a gun well and use it responsibly. For me it's a shaky slope to consider those factors as translating well to a situation of needing to respond in a deadly situation with a shooter. I think a teacher with a military background might have the potential to have a more useful skillset to draw from, although then things like ongoing sharpness of their skills or acuity of their coordination, reflexes, eyesight and mental status become areas of consideration. At the end of the day my bottom line is armed teachers brings a pretty high risk level with very little protection potential.

 

[sam_gordon]

Don't you think the voters of this country are ready to pass bond issues to reinforce safety in the schools? I'd vote for it today. There's probably a will to put some federal money into it.

I disagree. Not with the fact that money is needed, but that voters would vote to do so. There are people now who think they shouldn't have to pay money to school (via taxes) because they have no kids in the system. And honestly, I'm not sure security is the best use for extra money. How about more teachers? Better supplies? Better buildings? Improved technology? Restoring programs that have been cut?

I'm not saying security isn't important, but is it the best use of the money?

 

[Wishing on a star]

Very thoughtful comments! Cabanafrau.

Two very good factors... a potential shooter could likely be aware of many specific teachers and areas to avoid.
The comments about those who might be familiar with guns as hunters, which could involve a very different background, skill-set, and maybe even being more familiar with hunting rifles than handguns.

I will just slay what I have posted here before.... My husband has been trained and cleared and does have a CC permit. About carrying.... He is like the old credit card commercial... 'Don't leave home without it...."

If he had opportunity to spend time on school property/campuses, why should he then be forbidden to carry, and in the very slight possibility of any event, to protect students????

Why should school staff who might already be bona-fide CC permit holders not be able to carry, within good policy and guidelines and oversight.

While I think that the possibility of making that effort to encourage teachers or other school staff to carry guns, should be considered and discussed very carefully and thoroughly.... I am also of the thought that schools being totally 'Gun Free' zones is problematic.

 

[LSUmiss]

We have these discussions after every incident and nothing changes. After 10, 20x, shouldn't we accept our fate?

Yes we should b/c there are too many ppl unwilling to make any changes b/c they say they won’t help. But, we can’t absolutely know nothing will help unless we try. I just don’t understand that mentality. To me it’s like saying, so many ppl run red lights so we shouldn’t bother having them.

 

[LSUmiss]

I'm curious, do you envision guns just laying around everywhere for anyone to grab?
I don't support arming teachers, but I do support more guns in schools (Police or even trained armed security).
The solution is that if there are people who armed, it may deter a shooter from trying, or if a shooter does come into the school, an armed individual may shoot them before they have a chance to shoot others.
The truth is, we have NO idea whether this would work or not. Our feelings don't matter, data does.

But there was an armed police officer at this latest school. That didn’t seem to be a deterrent. And most of these shooters kills themselves so again not a deterrent.

 

[CarolAnn856]

The thing with putting officers in schools is a lot of areas are already woefully stretched to the limit. Also, they probably aren't sending their best officer to mostly just walk around the school 99.9% of the time.

This argues even more strongly why teachers should not be called on to carry. If there isn't enough money for more and/or better trained officers, then where the heck are they going to find enough money to screen teachers and provide enough ongoing training for them to defend others while under fire?? Giving them a safety briefing and an hour at a range obviously wouldn't be nearly enough. Even prior teachers who are former military or law enforcement would need ongoing training, and they're the first to admit it.

On another note, the psychological implications of asking a teacher to shoot someone who they may have, say, taught last period are huge. LEOs and the military generally expect to go up against an adversary. And while anyone shooting at you is an adversary, if that's a kid you know well, pulling that trigger might not be as easy as you think.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Now seeing the latest post that came in....
I can't see the safety and security of our students as anything other than a good use of money.
It shouldn't only be an option... It should be an obligation.

Right now, I am not seeing this as an issue of spending money to train and screen and arm teachers.... Is it not more of an issue of allowing school district employees who are already permit holders to have the option....

I am not seeing a huge expense there.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

It never ceases to amaze me how many gun, risk assessment, and political experts we have on the DIS!

 

[LSUmiss]

The thing with putting officers in schools is a lot of areas are already woefully stretched to the limit. Also, they probably aren't sending their best officer to mostly just walk around the school 99.9% of the time.

Exactl! Parkland probably has the budget for that. But, I can promise my district in Jefferson Parish Louisiana does not.

 

[mom2rtk]

But there was an armed police officer at this latest school. That didn’t seem to be a deterrent. And most of these shooters kills themselves so again not a deterrent.

Kind of hard to be a deterrent when you won't even enter the building. And one guard for a school with what ........ 3500 kids? is not enough.

I also think schools in FL have a harder challenge when it comes to securing buildings. I heard they tend to be more spread out with separate buildings and outdoor passage between classes. What a nightmare to secure. But our high school, with around 1200 students is 1 large building would be much easier to secure.

 

[mom2rtk]

I disagree. Not with the fact that money is needed, but that voters would vote to do so. There are people now who think they shouldn't have to pay money to school (via taxes) because they have no kids in the system. And honestly, I'm not sure security is the best use for extra money. How about more teachers? Better supplies? Better buildings? Improved technology? Restoring programs that have been cut?

I'm not saying security isn't important, but is it the best use of the money?

I really don't want to get into a big discussion about school funding since that would really need to be a separate thread. But yes, I believe security is more important than all of those things. They somehow manage to pass bond issues here for new stuff all the time. And none of the rest of what they do in school every day matters if kids aren't safe. We secure court houses, politicians, movie stars, banks...... why not our schools?

 

[LSUmiss]

This argues even more strongly why teachers should not be called on to carry. If there isn't enough money for more and/or better trained officers, then where the heck are they going to find enough money to screen teachers and provide enough ongoing training for them to defend others while under fire?? Giving them a safety briefing and an hour at a range obviously wouldn't be nearly enough. Even prior teachers who are former military or law enforcement would need ongoing training, and they're the first to admit it.

On another note, the psychological implications of asking a teacher to shoot someone who they may have, say, taught last period are huge. LEOs and the military generally expect to go up against an adversary. And while anyone shooting at you is an adversary, if that's a kid you know well, pulling that trigger might not be as easy as you think.

I feel like the ppl who support this either have no experience in a school setting OR live in very very different districts than what are in my area.

 

[declansdad]

It always boggles my mind that people don't see the difference between being trained in using a firearm and being trained in using a firearm in a crisis situation.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

Kind of hard to be a deterrent when you won't even enter the building. And one guard for a school with what ........ 3500 kids? is not enough.

I also think schools in FL have a harder challenge when it comes to securing buildings. I heard they tend to be more spread out with separate buildings and outdoor passage between classes. What a nightmare to secure. But our high school, with around 1200 students is 1 large building would be much easier to secure.

I spent the first 2/3 of my life in FL and that is true in my experience as a student. All three of my schools had multiple buildings with outdoor breezeways and multiple ways in. In my elementary school, the doors to the classrooms were all facing outside.

 

[cabanafrau]

Very thoughtful comments! Cabanafrau.

Two very good factors... a potential shooter could likely be aware of many specific teachers and areas to avoid.
The comments about those who might be familiar with guns as hunters, which could involve a very different background, skill-set, and maybe even being more familiar with hunting rifles than handguns.

I will just slay what I have posted here before.... My husband has been trained and cleared and does have a CC permit. About carrying.... He is like the old credit card commercial... 'Don't leave home without it...."

If he had opportunity to spend time on school property/campuses, why should he then be forbidden to carry, and in the very slight possibility of any event, to protect students????

Why should school staff who might already be bona-fide CC permit holders not be able to carry, within good policy and guidelines and oversight.

While I think that the possibility of making that effort to encourage teachers or other school staff to carry guns, should be considered and discussed very carefully and thoroughly.... I am also of the thought that schools being totally 'Gun Free' zones is problematic.

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're saying. If you are suggesting that because your husband has been trained and cleared for CC that he should both be allowed to carry on school grounds and as such potentially be permitted to use during an attack as a measure of protecting students, I would say no. To my mind the only people who should be allowed to carry at a school would be trained law enforcement.

I'm not opposed to CC. Friends and family do so. I have a family member who teaches CC classes. Translating that into a school situation is an entirely different playing field in my mind.

 

[Wishing on a star]

There might be no effective deterrent for someone who has such serious 'issues', and who may also be suicidal.
But, yes, it could, and possibly would, save many lives if a deranged person did try to pull acts like this.

 

[LSUmiss]

Kind of hard to be a deterrent when you won't even enter the building. And one guard for a school with what ........ 3500 kids? is not enough.

I also think schools in FL have a harder challenge when it comes to securing buildings. I heard they tend to be more spread out with separate buildings and outdoor passage between classes. What a nightmare to secure. But our high school, with around 1200 students is 1 large building would be much easier to secure.

But the shooter didn’t know that he wouldn’t enter. The deterrent should be that there was one there & the shooter knew this. Most of these shooters are sucidial in some form b/c they know the risks, and I would argue all are narcissistic. So with that combo there will be no real deterrent. Prevention is the only way, IMO.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If there aren't enough, that's a consideration. But most here are off-duty officers and make very good money so you wouldn't have to worry about the quality of the officers. Lots of police officers are more than willing to sign up for off-duty jobs. They have an entire department at the PD that coordinates it. My son's college campus was in a bad part of town and staffed with off duty police officers. I never once feared for his safety.

Our SRO’s are on duty officers and they are absolutely fully trained, quantity officers. The downside to on-duty officers is they can be called away from campus for other police emergencies.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Thanks Cabanfrau..... I do understand, more fully, your feelings that it should be an actual trained, licensed, paid, LEO.
Not sure if I fully agree or not. Because of some of the other factors being discussed.
But, totally understand!!!

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But there was an armed police officer at this latest school. That didn’t seem to be a deterrent. And most of these shooters kills themselves so again not a deterrent.

He did go out of his way to avoid the officer though. But yes, it’s hard to say what exactly could deter a madman bent on destruction.