Compared to a bunch of unarmed students 4-5 staff members with some kind of small arms would be a serious force to be reckoned with. One of the key things to remember is tactically the “response team” does not have to directly engage anyone, just keep them pinned, contained, or create a safe zone for students in an area behind them.
From some of the teachers I know…individually arming everyone would be problematic, many people are not cut out for fighting. However a locker/gun safe in the office with say 10 small rifles and a couple hundred rounds of ammo for them could arm a respectable volunteer security force in just a couple minutes.
It’s hard to pin down. Everyones family life and enviromental upbringing is different. And no one type of upbringing is going to define the type of person that will actually carry out with this type of crime. So you can’t make the blanket statement that if you grow up like Jeff Weise, that you too will do as he did. Everyone is different. Who knows really.
What I’m tired of hearing is, just like this case, Jeff Weise had told someone that he planned to do this online. And did that person come forward? Maybe we could start there…
You are still taking a group of people who never signed up to be a volunteer armed force and expecting them to handle a crisis situation. And as stated, how much training are you going to give them? Weapons training is a must. They’ll need some form of tactical training. They’ll need a fair amount of practice if they are going to be able to tell the one armed student from the group of panicing ones. And what happens when the teacher has to kill the student? It will come up. Best case scenarios rarely happen.
And as ParentalAdvisory stated, these things happen fast. A cache of weapons in a locked cabinet in the principals office won’t help the classes closest to the door when the shooting starts. By the time they get the thing open and get themselves armed, it will likely be over.
Face it. Logistically speaking the armed teachers scenario is impractical at the least. It would be much easier to keep an armed police officer or officers depending on school size at the school. They’ll have already have had most of the training.
The problem with armed officers is that they’re a logical ‘first target’ for any kid who decides to shoot up a school. That’s exactly what we saw with this neonazi scumbag. Having teachers with access to guns , and not having students know who was armed, might very well prove an effective deterant.
As for training teachers, how about a 200 hour course? 300? What if you then use a ‘glock in the box’ system and have boxes with electronic locks in selected classrooms? Make them openable only via remote control from the main office and put panic buttons and/or CCTV’s in each classroom so that if something goes down, the box can be unlocked quickly.
I’d also add that recent terrorist communiques which have been intercepted talk about attacks on ‘soft targets’, including schools. Perhaps we’d be less likely to see a Russian style scenario if there were a few armed adults in the school.
How about this: instead of actually arming teachers and faculty, just make it publicly known that certain teachers and faculty (names witheld for security reasons) are armed.
You get the “deterrent effect” (if any, but I believe it will) without the perceived danger of actually having the guns in the school.
Of course, this is only as good as the people “in the know” can keep their mouths shut.
I agree. I have no answers here; but it seems to me that society as a whole has changed in a way that makes this sort of thing more likely to happen. What that change is, I don’t know.
Any thought to what this will do to the mindset of a nice normal teen, much less one that has problems with school? Knowing my teachers were armed would not give me much respect for the school system and what they think of us. In fact, it’d make me downright suspicious and resentful of a system willing to lock me in a room with an armed stranger.
I can see guns in a locked compartment under strict surveilance, even armed security personnel but teachers packing heat? What a great time to be a capable cartoonist.
Words fail me.
Teachers going into class to teach kids wearing firearms.
Words fail me.
How could the classroom function in that atmosphere?
Is that even going to solve anything? Either the kid walks into school and starts shooting (“help somebody get Mrs. Wormwood!”) or he pulls a gun during class and kills the teacher.
OK, maybe it does lessen the chance of mass murders. It’s still crazy.
“because realizing that there are shooting in schools and attempting to take action would…” be pretty fucking stupid, IMO, if that action consists in giving firearms for teachers to carry during class. Anything else I can help you with?
The boards seem to be screwey right now.
Why, exactly, by the way, would having teachers be armed be stupid? I know that there’s a pretty fierce kneejerk response to it, but, honestly, if you can have armed sercurity guards, why not have armed teachers with proper training?
** FinnAgain **, I wouldn’t call arming teachers stupid but I don’t think it is a very good idea. I laid out my concerns with the safety and wisdom of this earlier in the thread. Anytime someone has a weapon in proximity to me I am on edge and consider that person a threat. Call me paranoid if you want but I like to think that I have a strong survival instinct. I don’t think I am alone in this regard. A bunch of on-edge students wairly watching their teachers firearm is not a condusive situation to learning.
Watching their teacher’s firearm? If the students didn’t know which teachers were armed, well, how would they know?
Moreoever, we’ve already accepted that in the name of security you can have armed guards, how is that any different?
Or, to bring it more to a pragmatic level: I’m a teacher. What practical and pragmatic steps am I allowed to take in order to protect both myself and students?
The armed guards aren’t doing the teaching would seem to be the main difference. Even if the kids don’t know which teacher is armed, the point still remains. Although it would soon be pretty obvious which ones kept sloping off for firearms training…
Why would you take any steps? Why would you have that responsibility? Don’t teachers already have enough on their plate trying to actually teach rather than having to figure out how their line of fire is looking? If your schools really are as dangerous as you are making out, then something more fundamental needs to be done than arming semi-trained, non-professionals and expecting them to form somekind of vigalante fighting force. And, if they’re not as dangerous as you make out, just quit the over-reactions.
No. Who the hell are the going to use the mace/tasers on? If someone’s got a gun (the original point), they will be of no use. If someone hasn’t got a gun, it is quite unlikely that there would be a situation where they could be legally tasered. Some help against a knife maybe…
Teachers aren’t allowed to go to the bathroom most of the time, I doubt they’d be let out of school to train. Further, past a certain point student reactions really do need to be ignored. If there was a proper vetting and training process, there’s no real reason why teachers shouldn’t have access to firearms. Yes, students might feel a bit odd, but as it became the new paradigm they’d get over it. If we went based on what students liked, I’d never be allowed to give homework.
We’re already responsible for childrens’ welfare.
Of course. Which is why you’d allow those who wanted to sign up for training to sign up for it.
I’ve never made any claims as to the danger level of any school I’ve ever been in, so I’m not quite sure what you’re refering to.
Teachers are professionals, and I’ve already said that we can have two or three hundred hours of training. How much is enough? If they still had the same ammount of training as the NYPD, would it be okay then?
It’s not a vigilante fighting force. There’s a difference between self defense and vigilantism.
Again, I have no idea where you’re getting the idea that I’ve made any statements as to the level of violence. Is having a security guard in a school an extreme reaction? If it isn’t, why’s having an armed teacher?
So am I to understand that your position is that you can’t have non-lethal protection because you might need lethal protection, and you can’t have lethal protection because it’s lethal?