Yes, we have a zillion gun threads already, but I wanted to focus on one specific debate here. In debating what to do to safeguard our children at school, the majority of posters have come up with two solutions: limit guns or access to guns, or improve diagnosis and treatment of mental health. When the possibility of having armed school personnel is raised, it is usually shot down. I wanted to debate that.
Just what do we expect the police to do when they respond to a shooting? For them to respond to the shooter with armed force of their own- someone’s going to have to do that at some point. So why not have someone on site who can do the same without the twenty minute response time?
But to hear some on this board tell it, the public at large are drooling imbeciles when it comes to guns, while apparently the police are taken to be a race of supermen. The presumption seems to be that armed citizens are so incompetent, the ratio of proper use of guns to improper is so low, that every civilian firearm is a net loss to public safety. That if we allowed school personnel to be armed, the result would only be increased bystander deaths and the occasional murder perpetrated by a teacher. I dispute this.
It is true that police are carefully selected and highly trained; but probably about 95% of all the training they receive at police academies isn’t directly related to shooting. They’re trained in law, in proper procedure, in documentation, in public relations, in the use of their squad car equipment, pursuit driving, etc. A citizen who qualifies for a carry permit and drills semi-regularly in tactical training is probably as well prepared for an actual shooting incident as a police officer is going to be.
I believe that qualified school personnel who volunteer (NOT the strawman of making gun training mandatory for all teachers) to serve as armed security would be the best way to safeguard our schools against gunman incidents. But many either don’t believe this or simply find the idea of armed school personnel repugnant. Gun advocates are often accused of being in favor of anything but what would (presumably) work- banning guns. I say that in this case the shoe is on the other foot.
I see two primary tacks to take - one is to reduce the prevalence of firearms. The other is to react to the fact that we will not reduce the prevalence of firearms. I see your suggestion as consistent with the latter. That is, we need to take defensive measures against the current state of our society.
That’s fine, and it’s probably the more pragmatic response to follow. In fact, I suggested armed guards at all public facilities in another thread. Because really, once you go down the road of acknowledging there is a risk involved in having people congregate (i.e. that you need to take defensive measures), then it becomes a liability issue if you ask people to congregate without providing defense.
It’s going to take more money to pay people to do this. I know you proposed volunteers, but I don’t think that’s really a feasible strategy. If armed guards are needed, they will have to be provided and regulated and held accountable like any other staff. Who are the type with the time to volunteer to be armed at a school?
Metal detectors should be a matter of course. We ought to place greater barriers to access to schools too, like cement barriers to keep people from getting too close.
Further, if the threat is such that we need to take defensive measures, what about making kevlar vests and helmets available, at least to the children. I mean, otherwise we arm them, or we ask them to be sitting ducks.
Some of this is taken to the point of absurdity, but only just. If the idea is to avoid any restrictions on firearms, we have to pursue defensive measures, of which your suggestion is only one.
Why is it that when a question about guns and/or gun rights is posted by someone who has been pre-labeled as someone who isn’t 110% “pro-gun” by certain elements on this board, one of the first posts in response is usually “You’re poisoning the well!” because the wording of the OP didn’t meet with the approval of said certain elements, but unsubstantiated strawman statements like the above are met with approval by those elements? Lumpy, forget “some”-can you show one poster who has said anything like the above?
Really? Would you mind linking to one of the posts that describes the public as “drooling imbeciles” and the police as “a race of supermen”? If you can’t, then I don’t see much reason to take your post seriously.
The anti-gun position is really quite simple. For decades, the United States has had the highest rates of gun violence and the greatest number of mass shootings among all first world countries. Other first world countries, in order to prevent mass shootings, have banned private ownership of guns, or imposed such heavy restrictions as to constitute a virtual ban. It’s worked, in Australia and England and other countries, mass shootings have stopped. In the USA, by contrast, whenever some major tragedy occurs, the gun lobby insists that we should respond with more guns everywhere. And the mass shootings continue. It’s worth noting that not all of America’s mass shootings occur in schools. Many have occurred in banks, airports, and other places where there are armed security guards ready to respond. Those with a good memory may recall that in 2004, a man named Chai Vang killed six deer hunters in Minnesota, all of whom were armed. In 2009, a gunman named Nidal Malik Hasan killed 12 and injured 31 at Fort Hood army base in Texas. If the presence of guns actually prevents gun violence, one is obligated to wonder why these things occurred.
In short, the anti-gun position is that we should implement policies with a proven record of success, not policies with a proven record of failure.
I can’t see volunteers working at all-if the incident that goes wrong the school is going to get it’s ass sued. It would have to be licensed and bonded professionals. Kevlar vests and/or helmets for the kids are impossible, and I would want any armed teacher to go through police S.W.A.T. training(or the equivalent) at the very minimum, because that is the type of situation they are trained for.
I can’t say anyone used those exact words, but if you want me to name names, fine: Der Trihs and ElvisL1ves. Their dismal opinion of an armed public (and therefore their presumed exceptions of the police) should be quite familiar to everyone.
Who were, ironically, not armed in accordance with base regulations. Trained soldiers on a base full of weapons and they were helpless.
I suppose what I’m asking is, if armed civilians are taken to be a net loss to public safety, while armed police are a net asset, then just what level of training do you consider the tipping point? I maintain it’s not all that high.
Perhaps kevlar is not possible. However if the mentality is that shit could jump off wherever and whenever, and so I would be stupid not to be armed, it seems more people ought to be wearing body armor as well. Better to have it and not need it…
As we think about armed guards for schools, I wonder what point we would need to reach for the typical gun advocate to ponder whether that would be the society he would want his children to live in.
TSA measures at the school doors? Orange alerts for the school district?
If the teachers at my kids’ school started carrying guns at school, my kids would be out of there so fast it would make their heads spin. Straight into private school, or even home school.
I doubt a semi-trained first grade teacher with a handgun would have had a chance against a 20-year old with body armor and an assault rifle.
If you think guns in the school would be a deterrent, we can debate about having an armed security guard (for all the good that did at Columbine). But arming teachers? No fucking way.
My high school had two or three cops on campus. I’m pretty sure they were armed, but I can’t be quite sure. And that was like 12 years ago. Is that unusual?
In other words, we shouldn’t need armed security in our schools. Fine then, but as others have posted in various threads once upon a time our schools were peaceful and safe despite guns being prevalent in society, to the point that there used to be high school shooting clubs. Maybe we should ask what’s changed in the last 60 years that we have more maniacs than we used to.
Which leads me back to the question I asked: at what level of training is a citizen unqualified to carry a firearm transformed into a police officer who is?
Again, S.W.A.T. training is far beyond the level needed for point self-defense. S.W.A.T. teams are trained in sniping, hostage negotiation, using select-fire weapons and dealing with paramilitary situations. A gunman shooting children is a no-brainer: if you have a gun, shoot the bastard.
Wait…I thought teachers were overpaid baby-sitters. Now we want them armed? Who’s going to pay for it? I mean, some communities can’t even supply teachers with basic school supplies, now we’re supposed to believe they are going to pay for training them to use weapons? Really? Or do we expect the teachers to train themselves and if so, who will be responsible for ensuring their training is appropriate and who will pay for that entity and support systems…or is everything supposed to be run like a bake sale? Where are these trained personnel coming from? Who checks their credentials? Who covers the increase in insurance?
I thought anyone the least familiar with their participation in gun threads would have no doubt. If you want me to slog through their past posts and give you specific cites, fine. It’s gonna take a while.
There are these things called “retention holders” which make it impossible for someone to sneak or suddenly snatch a gun out of someone’s holster. The police use them.
The kind of training that would give a teacher the capability to make a successful head shot of a below-medium-size moving target wearing a bullet-proof vest with chidren running around, a moving tartget with a couple of handguns that will see you as a threat and doesn’t care who else he hits as he sprays gunfire in your general direction.
Reality sucks.
The school where I teach has had armed security since the 90’s. In addition to a handgun, the head of security also carries a tazer. No “confused” teens have stolen their guns to date.
These guards have received lethal weapons training in accordance with Pennsylvania law. That is to say, they have no more (and no less) training than any other armed private security guard you might see guarding a factory entrance or a parking lot.
Their guns, frankly, have had zero impact on things at work. They’ve never shot anybody nor have they even drawn their guns in the line of duty. The head of security has never even tazed anybody, even at football games where there have been problems with adult spectators. 10 or 15 years ago, he and I brought a student who was accused of murdering a policeman into custody with no hardware whatsoever.
I’m very pro-gun but I don’t see armed teachers as a solution to anything. Denying access with armed security at the point of entry is a better solution.