Readers rftzbzzezy
— Here’s a note to us about excessive school security:
Dear Free-Range Kids: A local retired police office has written a book on how he thinks schools should prevent mass shootings.
Of course the author includes a chapter on what he feels schools should be doing to prevent mass shootings. Some of his suggestions include: Making each school accessible by only one central exit and entry point, installing a locked door that could withstand gunfire and a “greeting window” made of bullet proof glass, training some of the school staff to carry guns, and he suggested that all surveillance cameras in all school campuses should feed into one monitoring station on campus, with someone watching it at all hours. [So far there are “only” 800 cameras in the school district.]
Can you give some saner suggestions as to how we can build a community that nurtures children, without turning our schools into top-security prisons, that can prevent mass shootings. Perhaps even give some statistics as to how incredibly rare these events are, and how safe children are in schools?
Amy Utzinger
I replied: Amy, this is so dismaying. To act as if all our children are in danger from a psychopath is delusional, wasteful, unnecessary and paralyzing. Not to mention expensive, and disheartening. Throw in a few more adjectives indicating futility and fear. But the reply to our common sense and ability to live with a scintilla of risk will always be: “What if that scintilla hits MY kid? ANY expense is worth protecting my child, no matter how remote the odds.”
Here’s an NPR piece on the real odds, which are extremely encouraging.
It’s just so hard to get anyone to care or keep perspective.
Adding to that excess fear are folks like this “expert” is spreading hysteria and anvil-like solutions. And his NEXT book sickens me even more: the idea that the internet is crawling with predators, so we must be on constant guard against this onslaught, when actually, the internet is like the real world, and the real world is like the schools: MOSTLY safe…but sometimes dangerous.
In a world where people are demanding 100% security the only answer may eventually be to respond with 100% security — i.e., prison-like conditions for schools and kids. That’s not the kind of place I want to send my kids to. You neither, I’d guess. If enough of us try to keep perspective, maybe we can turn the tide. I’d love to hear other folks’ ideas for quelling this new and virulent fear. – L.
94 Comments
The fire code is a good place to start in kiboshing this nonsense — what this idiot is suggesting would make every school into a fire trap.
While I think most reasonable people would look at this “expert’s” rhetorical hot air and dismiss it as excessive, the, “Yes, but what if it happened to MY CHILD” mentality does exist out there. In our litigious society, those are the squeaky wheels that get the grease because they feed right into the schools’ fear of being sued. If everyone takes every precaution, then the school had performed the necessary CYA and maybe if they’re sued over an accident they won’t be held responsible for it.
I’m sad to report, the only way I’ve found so far to counter this level of crazy is to home school. As long as our children are attending schools that exhibit worst-first thinking as clearly as some of the recent letters have indicated, then we’re consenting by implication. If enough people remove their children from public schools (for either home schooling or private schools) and make it clear that the reason for removal is because of this nonsense, eventually the public schools will either listen to the people they’re supposed to be serving, only serve the worst-first thinking parents, or fail entirely.
This is the description of a prison. Bulletproof glass, single point of entrance and exit, guns, etc. One can argue that a prison keeps the bad people in, but it also keeps mass murderers out.
One can argue that a prison keeps the bad people in, but it also keeps mass murderers out.
Actually, doesn’t it technically keep both the bad people and the mass murderers IN? That’s the point of a prison, after all, yes?
Only place our schools have cameras that I am aware of is the playground? maybe. They were raising money to buy some. Only reason for that was because teens were coming out there after school hours and vandalizing the playgrounds. Apparently someone pooped on the slide. I am not sure if they ever got them put up or not. They just bought fancy new equipment and did not want it damaged.
I really have not seen cameras anywhere. I think our buses might have them. So they are not all over the place yet.
Thanks for publishing the note I sent you, and double thanks for the link to the NPR article giving the real statistics about how crime in schools has decreased. I sent the link to the same local news organization that had the original article, so maybe they’ll be balanced enough to write about it from a local perspective.
One way to prevent mass school shootings is to stop giving them so much media attention. Almost every school shooter has been motivated by a desire for fame and attention.
There are many studies showing that suicide is often contagious when not handled by the media well. I think that school shootings are contagious in a similar way.
Also, I read an interview with a teacher once who had a really good idea for how she handled her classroom differently after the school shootings. At the end of every week she asked the kids to submit requests for who they wanted to sit next to them the next week in school. She looked over the requests for patterns of social isolation and friendships broken so she could make sure the kids at the bottom of the social pecking order had opportunities to connect to their peers and build positive relationships.
“Making each school accessible by only one central exit and entry point” makes it easy for a duo of school shooters to corral the sheeple into a massacre.
In “training some of the school staff to carry guns” you could be training the next potential school shooter.
“All surveillance cameras in all school campuses should feed into one monitoring station on campus.” Makes it easier to disable all district cameras for a coordinated mass school shooting.
Whoever came up with these ideas isn’t even that great of a “worst-case scenario” planner.
@jet
“Actually, doesn’t it technically keep both the bad people and the mass murderers IN?”
It also keeps all the good people out.
Sounds like a great way to run a school.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/hope-for-norway.html
This was snowballs, but extrapolate.
Christ, I’ve been comparing schools to prisions, for years. It wasn’t supposed to be advice. Also, I realise I’m a massive hippocrite for ths but: 1984 is a warning, not an instruction manual.
Cin, that was my first thought too — a fire (rare as that is in schools) is vastly more likely than an assault, and far more likely to result in mass deaths if people can’t get out.
I’d guess this guy owns stock in a security camera company. And maybe in a temp agency that hires folks to watch the video feeds. Where do you get enough warm bodies cheap enough to make that practical? Prison. (No, I’m not kidding. A lot of credit card processing is already done in prisons; why would they balk at watching security cams?)
Oh, waitaminnut. Since you’ve transformed the school into a prison, the kids can watch their own damn video feeds!
JKP says, “Almost every school shooter has been motivated by a desire for fame and attention.”
Not precisely. These incidents are actually loud, messy suicides, featuring “I’ll show you! I’m gonna hurt you as much as you hurt me! You’ll be sorry when I’m gone!” same as unhappy kids have shouted at their tormenters since time immemorial. Fortunately, very few act on it. But fame and attention are not truly the motivator here (as should be evident when you realise there have been such incidents throughout recorded history).
This article is from my town and I can say this isn’t abnormal around here. Helicopter parenting is rampant here. I have friends who won’t leave their 13yo children home alone.
tz regales us with this tale from Norway,
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/hope-for-norway.html
Perhaps the writer exaggerates a bit, but if kids are self-confident, that is precisely how they’ll react to a perceived threat. They won’t scream and cower and run away; they’ll handle it. They’ll defend one another. They’ll prevail.
But what are we teaching our kids today? to scream and cower and run away. No wonder they’re afraid of anything and completely incapable of self-defense. Know what creates bullying? a perception that someone is a helpless wuss and won’t fight back.
“But the reply to our common sense and ability to live with a scintilla of risk will always be: ‘What if that scintilla hits MY kid? ANY expense is worth protecting my child, no matter how remote the odds.'”
This kind of thinking is rampant.
I teach at the religious school at my synagogue. This year, they instituted background checks for all of the teachers, despite how tiny the community of Jews is in our small town. I spoke before the board about how absurd, paranoid, and wasteful it was to require background checks. I talked about just how statistically unlikely it was for anything bad to happen to any of our children. One of the board members told me “That’s easy to say until it happens to your child.”
I wish I had responded, “It WON’T happen to my child. That’s what statistically rare means.”
@Reziac…..LOL, very cute story Reziac! So much so that I actually bookmarked it! But you are right. We Americans treat children as if they’re made out of balsa wood. With the exception of maybe England, no other country coddles and softens their children like Americans do. Everything nowadays in America is considered “child abuse”. If a parent makes his 10-, 12-year-old kid bundle up and walk a mile to school in subfreezing weather, you just know that somebody somewhere will call Child Protective Services and before you know, the parents will find themselves up in front of a Judge with all kinds of legal fees and parental classes to go with it all. Even though we walked to school each and every winter when we were kids and were in good physical shape because of it! We just assume that any child who has some negative and difficult experience will be traumatized for life just because they’re children. Americans grossly underestimate the tenacity of kids, in MY opinion.
@Emily…not only that Emily but you might want to inform the board that if Jerry Sandusky was given a background check prior to starting his “Second Mile” charity, he would have been found as innocent as a morning dove. Background checks are appropriate in some cases but given that your Jewish community is small, if somebody there were a convicted child molester or criminal believe you me, you all would know it!
I live in Bethel, Connecticut, right next to Newtown. The majority of his suggestions were already a state law here when the shooting took place. All doors were locked electronically, and all visitors have to go to a single door where there’s a camera and a speaker to talk to the office to be let in. Wired safety glass is required already in all doors and windows, so that even if they get shot you can’t enter through them. There are cameras all over the place, in hallways and in offices, that are watched by either the main office or security office. These were already in place, and it still happened, because the security features of the building are not the problem. It strikes me as very similar to the proposed gun control legislation, which would have made Connecticut’s standards national, but not any actual change here. It’s a combination of fear mongering and pacification- “Look how scary this is! Now surrender everything ELSE over to us! You won’t actually be any safer, but you’ll FEEL safer, and isn’t that what counts?”
They forgot metal detectors, strip searches, bars on the windows, flak jackets for everyone!
You’d think we were in the middle of a war zone or something.
I wonder what that guy would think of open campuses like my kids’ middle school where the classrooms are in small pods or portables, all opening to the outside instead of into hallways?
“Making each school accessible by only one central exit and entry point”
-isn’t that a safety hazard in itself? I’m not sure, but I thought it was a LAW that any public building must have more than one exit, in case of an emergency.
One of the creepiest videos I’ve seen is the one of The Station nightclub fire. There WERE other exits, but very few people knew about them so everyone was bottlenecked at the main entrance, getting trampled and ultimately losing their lives to the fire.
In this case, ignoring one safety rule to keep people “safer” would be…[insert any synonym of ‘crazy’].
Doesn’t the fire code trump this guy’s suggestions anyway?
I think kids who bring in real weapons (as opposed to a plastic knife or something similar) should be expelled completely and not just put in a special education school. In some cases criminal charges are reasonable. It should be the kid themselves though that is accountable. One of the ever present problems with our society is that the parents are responsible, maybe sometimes a teacher is responsible, but the poor little thug, gang member is not responsible. I also think that despite a ton of rhetoric and character classes the schools fail miserably at controlling bullying. The worst bullies should also be expelled and expelled should mean no more school at the taxpayer’s expense. Too often the school’s don’t even take into account what started the incident and a kid with a big, big mouth goes free while another innocent kid gets in lots of trouble. Maybe I read it here? Kindergarten kid who was threatened into pulling his pants down on the playground and was made to sign a paper about sexual misconduct that will follow him for his entire academic career. Nothing happened to the kid who threatened him. The government only sees the incident. The pants came down. They don’t ask why or use any discretion in dealing with the situation. Typical I think for most institutions and branches that deal with children. There is no judgment and no due process.
I am really tired of this idea that it is the sole responsibility of schools to prevent school shootings, especially the elementary variety. It is classic victim blaming and I am soooooo tired of it.
“It also keeps all the good people out.”
At our back to school night, our principal gave a speech about the importance of community and getting more people in the schools (parents, grandparents, siblings)to make school a positive experience for kids. The doors were wide open (no air conditioning) and I don’t even know if we have cameras.
This guy is a zealot focused on a random, unpredictable event and not the every day, warm-fuzzy school that develops healthy (physically and mentally) young minds. Developing a school security theater is a monumental waste of precious taxpayer resources and not desired by any healthy school community.
I used to live in a neighborhood that wasn’t the greatest. The bank tellers were all behind really thick glass and I had to put my slips in a tiny little slot and talk to the teller through a junky sound piece in the glass.
Out of the City the bank branches were open and welcoming, sometimes it wasn’t busy and the person who assisted me had a desk and she came right over to ask if I needed anything and we had a nice chat while I filled out my slip.
What a world of difference there was between the two. Now sometimes banks get robbed and I am sure the bank weighed the risk of robbery to the customer service experience that can be had when there is no glass.
Are we really using the same risk assessment with our children? Are we going to teach them a society where everyone is behind heavy glass?
If a teacher gives his life to save children from a gunman in schools, he goes to paradise where he is given 72 beautiful virgins for wives plus a number of never aging boys for slaves
I’m already disappointed with the fact that most Dutch schools are now fully fenced. Kids can’t even play on the schoolgrounds after school because there is no way in (even though those places tend to have the best playground equipment in the area). Let’s not add to the madness with more pointless security measures.
Besides, how is arming teachers going to make kids any safer? It only increases the chances of them being shot by accident. It is time Americans stop seeing carrying weapons as a right and start looking at it as a responsibility.
@Reziac:
“But fame and attention are not truly the motivator here (as should be evident when you realise there have been such incidents throughout recorded history).”
Maybe not, but if media give it attention as they usually in the warped mind of someone considering suicide in this manner, it becomes a viable option.
On second thought: I might be disappointed about the fact schools are generally fenced now, but it sounds like a much cheaper way to keep undesirable visitors out than the things mentioned in this post…
@Reziac,
You contradicted yourself. Without the media hype, the annual memorials, the “fame and attention”, those loud messy incidents make absolutely no statement what so ever.
If it was not sensationalized and covered up the ying yang, then the loud messy suicide does not make a statement at all.
One central exit and entrance? This police officer has either forgotten all his training or is working for the bad guys.
“Actually, doesn’t it technically keep both the bad people and the mass murderers IN? That’s the point of a prison, after all, yes?”
I thought the point of a prison was to protect criminals from lynch mobs?
But you have a point. Build schools way outside town, surrounded by multiple layers of razor wire fences, tank traps, earthen berms, plates of lexan and kevlar shielding, and then create a single entry point with multiple interlocking doors as an airlock, gun turrets every 50 yards around the entire perimeter, single access road with barbed wire fencing and walls on either side and several checkpoints at quarter mile intervals.
Bring all the children there at the beginning of the school year, and release them back to their parents at the end.
Now all you have to take care of is ensuring the children don’t make things to hurt each other.
And just keeping them naked and secured in each individually bare rooms with no furniture or indeed anything at all except a touch screen to get information for their homework might do that.
I grew up in California, where schools were designed as “open air campuses”, and each block of classes was free standing, with a covered walkway to get from class to class. Anyone could have wandered in from any number of points, and no one would ever know. Guess what? Nothing happened.
My daughter is in middle school now, and she says that every corridor has huge signs that say:
NO DRUGS
NO KNIVES
NO GUNS
Do you think she feels very safe because of those signs? Heck no! They’re a constant reminder to her that the world is a hostile place, and especially at school.
Let’s suppose the 800 cameras are installed. Someone brought up the question of “Who’s going to watch [the video feeds]?” It’s human nature to relax and be less alert the longer nothing happens. Then there’s the definition of police work: “97% boredom and 3% sheer terror”–and that’s for officers who get SENT to where the trouble is. And according to Murphy’s law, if something bad is going to happen it will be when the security person is in the rest room or went to get a cup of coffee to avoid dozing off.
Honestly, once again, arming school staff? To start with, by the time the armed staff found their ammo and loaded their guns, the shooter’s already halfway across the body-littered quad.
I was having a chat with one of the kids at school a few weeks ago, and he mentioned he goes pig hunting. His uncle has pig dogs for the purpose. Now a pack of those at the door of a school should be enough to deter shooters. They’d deter any sane student as well, but then at least the kids would be at home, ‘safe’.
Because please don’t tell me, if you were trained, that you’d be stupid enough to be wandering through the school day with your gun loaded… that would be all kinds of ridiculous, particularly at an elementary school.
@hineata
“if you were trained, that you’d be stupid enough to be wandering through the school day with your gun loaded”
Exactly what is done by “Resource Officers” (i.e., in-school cops) at the schools that have them.
@BL – seriously?!
Gosh, I know I make some fun of the US gun laws, but that genuinely shocks me. How do you safely wander around a school with a loaded weapon? How do kids NOT get shot, accidentally on occasion? Or is there some way of keeping a bullet out of the barrel until needed….I don’t know how a pistol or small gun works, actually.
Please don’t tell me all those women who supposedly carry small weapons in their handbags have those loaded, too? The mind absolutely caves in on itself…..
This is the kind of thinking you will get from a “security expert” who used to be in law enforcement. They have to analyze and guard against continual threats, statistics don’t matter in the overall, so long as they prevent the incident.
I believe in China they have gated schools, with guards, and only a single point of entry yet every couple of months there is still a attack on a school. Usually knife wielding crazy guys who slash kids, so the death rate is low, but it still happens within a “guarded school” that we are told will prevent incidents here. Problem is, if someone REALLY wants to get in, they will find a way no system is 100% impenetrable.
Hineata, I think you watched too many cartoons. A gun is never going to go off just because you bump it or something. I wouldn’t carry one in my purse around children (if i wanted to be able to set the purse down), but on your person is not a safety hazard.
I’m not sure if anyone has noticed, but the terrorists are winning.
Okay, let’s look at it this way.
The book he wrote is fiction, as stated in the article.
He is a retired city cop.
Neither of these qualify him as a security expert. Not even close.
@Ben: That could be a local thing. The local primary school here has a fence, but it’s very low and the entrances are always open AFAIK.
Guns don’t go off because they’re bumped. Open carry in a school (the kind of carry used by SROs) is idiotic. Yes, the cop can probably fight off a kid or intruder, and can probably get to the gun before someone else – but probably is not good enough when you’re the one introducing the threat. (It’s perfectly good enough, in my opinion, for dealing with natural threats, or the risks of roller coasters or whatever.) Probably won’t do any harm is certainly not good enough when it comes to something that is introduced, supposedly, to make something safer!
Plus, take it one step further. What happens when someone does try to get the gun that the SRO is carrying openly? If the ‘probably’ above is correct, that person, probably a student, gets shot. This is not a good outcome, albeit better than them taking it and going on a shooting rampage. But neither would happen if the SRO weren’t carrying openly in the first place.
Concealed carry in a school can, I suppose, work, but it’s different from concealed carry in the real world. Certainly, it should never be forced on any teacher. More to the point, though, it’s more dangerous than concealed carry in the street, at an equal level of training and knowledge. Why? You’re under more constant surveillance, so to speak – the students watch you all the time. They will notice which way you lean far more than someone you pass by in a street and never see again. Then the same issues as above come up.
All in all – I’m not against teachers being allowed to carry guns as a general matter, but I see no reason to permit guns in schools, period. All the talk on the right about “shootings happen in gun-free zones” might be technically correct, but it’s based on a fallacy that arises from Bayes’ theorem – even if 85% of shootings happen in gun-free zones, the relevant question in determining whether it is safe to have gun-free zones is: what percentage of gun-free zones get shot up? The answer – very few. Arming teachers or whatever is proposed as a reaction to school shootings, in lieu of responding with more gun control. The correct response is – nothing at all. They don’t happen often enough to be worth responding to.
Also, if we do want to respond to them, respond to the root causes. Hint – psychoactive drugs don’t cause shootings (although they may help someone who wants to carry one out find the courage to do so.) Instead, ask this question – why is half of this country on psychoactive drugs? My answer – from smallest contributor to largest:
1. B12 deficiency
2. Vitamin D deficiency
3. Magnesium deficiency
4. Alienation from civil society (a la Bowling Alone)
5. For kids, the education system and resultant meaninglessness of life and anger
6. Generalization of 5 – an intolerable existence for a creature that evolved in nature; one that involves waking up in a concrete box, driving in a metal box, spending the day in a concrete box either doing something you don’t care about or trying to keep the boss from seeing you on facebook – since you are paid for being there, not for results, and completing your work doesn’t let you leave – driving back in a metal box, then breaking open a cardboard box for dinner and a cardboard box full of metal cans and sitting and staring at a box.
@Cynthia – okay. Pistols must be different, seriously. I was always taught to carry rifles broken open and unloaded, because it is certainly possible to bump or drop a loaded rifle, and have it go off. In spite of reiteration year after year after year, every couple of years it seems down here some poor sod gets either injured or killed because the twit behind him failed to follow this basic aspect of gun safety, tripped and shot him. (Or fails to identify his target before blowing it away, though that’s a separate issue).
Very few people here are licensed for pistols/small guns, so I really have no idea how they work. Is the trigger less sensitive or something? Would be genuinely interested to hear from someone who has both….
Actually an unloaded rifle might not be a bad idea as a deterrent in schools – it looks dangerous, and doubles as a club if needed.
” okay. Pistols must be different, seriously. I was always taught to carry rifles broken open and unloaded, because it is certainly possible to bump or drop a loaded rifle, and have it go off. ”
only possible if the rifle has a rotten (or worse, no) safety.
Which is true for some single shot rifles like you describe, as there cocking it (by closing the breach) IS the safety release.
If security needs to be able to react quickly to an armed threat, they need to carry loaded weapons themselves, period.
A guard (or any other person responsible for responding to an armed intruder) who first needs to get to a possibly locked room, get into a locked gun cabinet, retrieve a gun, retrieve ammo (probably from another locked cabinet in another locked room), load the weapon, and then get to the scene, is going to be far too late to do anything.
So either you make things so that armed intruders can’t get in, or you ensure that there’s always an armed response at the ready seconds away.
And THAT means effectively allowing staff (if qualified of course, gun safety and shooting courses should be required, just as they are for LEOs and military) to be armed at their discretion.
And of course realising that the threat is miniscule, so that even the possibility to a potential shooter of meeting armed resistance is going to deter the vast majority of them.
guns guns guns guns
So put guns in the schools, so that would be spree shooters will be detered from killing. Another one of those “Looks good on paper.” ideas. The one big thing missing from this security measure is the human factor.
These mass murders/spree killers, don’t just wake up, grab a gun and go kill. They have been stewing in their own depression, paranoia, or whatever issue that starts the whole thing. They plan and plot their revenge, statement and or suicide by cop, leading up to actually killing.
The only thing that making it harder to use a gun to go on a mass killing will do, is change their weapon of choice.
An armed staff will fail against arson, explosive, chemical or biological weapons.
Now let’s look at arming teachers. Mentally deranged spree killer decides to go on a rampage at his school……….the headlines will read that the teacher was the first victim of the shooter. Thus taking the defensive guns out of the equation.
The fire code trumps anything these safety experts may advise. I was looking at this some time back and found there have been injuries and some schools have gotten in trouble for locking fire exits. If your kids’ school is worrying about locking down the school, you might want to check that they aren’t violating fire codes, and get the fire marshal involved if they are.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20100225-8-DISD-high-schools-cited-for-7889.ece
@ hineata,
I’m not familiar with rifles, but hand guns have a switch just forward of the hammer called a safety. That switch turns the firing pin so that it is not pointed at the cartridge in the chamber. Thus the round in the chamber can’t be fired until you take the safety off.
A revolver may not have a safety so those are generally carried with a single empty chamber so that there is no round present in case of mishap.
Of course any good instructor will tell students to always handle the guns as thought they were loaded and ready. Basically because people do make mistakes. I doubt any decent instructor or gun store owner would want a gun running around loose in my purse. But I have seen a ‘tactical’ backpack and heard of various bags with special compartments for hand guns. These like a holster help to keep the weapon easy to access and properly presented to the owner while preventing the trigger and or safety tangling with other items a person may be carrying.
These suggestions aren’t a far stretch from just adding watch towers, gun turrets, and barbed wired fence around the perimeter. Along with a security gate that has armed guards checking for ID. And armed K-9 units patrolling the grounds.
And I can pretty much guarantee, there are some people wouldn’t appose to this. lol Paranoia = irrational thinking. That’s is how the human brain is wired. But we do have control in how we think, and deal with these fears. It’s not like these people CAN’T stop. They just refuse to.
My kids’ schools are already prisons. In the last year they’ve installed mag-lock doors and intercoms. Bullet proof glass in front, the whole nine yards. I know the asst. superintendent and she said the parental outcry is unbelievable and that she and most other administrators roll their eyes over this junk. It enrages me every time I go to one of my kid’s schools and about yank my arm off as I forget every time. Note that moms get buzzed in immediately, but dads usually have to wait and state name, kid’s name, etc. Must be a bit of fear of shooter blended in with the whole pedophile thing.
But here’s the crazy thing. Every day about 200 kids at a time go outside for PE activities – and next to a wooded area, perfect for hiding. The school doesn’t even realize its own hypocrisy.
“The only thing that making it harder to use a gun to go on a mass killing will do, is change their weapon of choice.
An armed staff will fail against arson, explosive, chemical or biological weapons.”
They’re not that sophisticated in my country…
Would-have-been-schoolshooters usually just bring a (kitchen) knife, stab one (1) person to death (sometimes not even that), and then get arrested, end of story. So incidents here are very much led by the weapon that is easily available.
“And of course realising that the threat is miniscule, so that even the possibility to a potential shooter of meeting armed resistance is going to deter the vast majority of them.”
Considering that the vast majority of school shootings are just grand suicide plans, I don’t see any deterrent factor in arming anyone at all.
I always find the convoluted rational in pro-gun arguments intriguing. On one hand, gun control is meaningless because someone hellbent on killing will kill whether guns are available or not. But yet someone hellbent on killing will somehow be completely deterred by the potential presence of a gun.
Pap,
I see what you are saying. But I guarantee the kid that wants to take out as many as he/she can, before taking their own life, will turn to other forms.
Those incidents you are talking about, I would bet the killer kid had a specific person they targeted.
Compared to say some of the ones in the states. An active shooter/ suicide by cop is not a big leap to just suicide bomber, now is it?
@Warren: I suppose not.
“I see what you are saying. But I guarantee the kid that wants to take out as many as he/she can, before taking their own life, will turn to other forms.”
Of course, but that does mean more elaborate planning in advance, more determination, etc. You can’t just grab a weapon and go. (Assuming spontaneity does play a role in US school shootings!)
“Those incidents you are talking about, I would bet the killer kid had a specific person they targeted.”
Yes, they must have – but that could be true for those mass shooters as well, and we don’t know if all those stabbers would still only have made one victim if they’d had a more… efficient weapon.
(All speculation, I know.)
>So either you make things so that armed intruders can’t get in, or you >ensure that there’s always an armed response at the ready seconds away.
Or you can know math.
“(Assuming spontaneity does play a role in US school shootings!)”
Actually the vast majority of the mass school shootings do not appear to be spontaneous. Columbine was in planning for months. Aurora (not school, but same vein) and VA Tech shooters started buying weapons several months before the shootings. Newtown found a very large spreadsheet of mass murders that it is believed took years to complete in Lanza’s home.
I think the American gun culture is completely asinine, but I don’t think gun control is going to stop mass murders. Someone hellbent on killing is going to find a way to kill. They are not attached to the mode, just the result. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons make it easy, but other ways would be found. American gun culture is asinine because the vast majority of murders are not committed by people hellbent on killing and many (probably most) would not happen without the ready availability of guns, but mass school shootings don’t fall in that category.
“I always find the convoluted rational in pro-gun arguments intriguing. On one hand, gun control is meaningless because someone hellbent on killing will kill whether guns are available or not. But yet someone hellbent on killing will somehow be completely deterred by the potential presence of a gun.”
I agree that there is no research to support the armed response would stop a mass killing theory. There is research that supports the notion that making it easier for people to get concealed carry permits lowers violent crime and there have been studies that show criminals prefer unarmed or weaker victims. It is possible that some have just taken these theories and expanded them to other venues.
Regardless, some type of armed response seems to be needed once the spree starts. The shooter isn’t going to stop until they run out of ammo, voluntarily stop, or someone stops them. Allowing teachers to carry would seem to be a potential solution with a minimal amount of risk. People frequently say, “what if some kid gets a hold of the gun and ….”? There are hundreds of thousands of people carrying guns in this country. Show me where a kid has gotten a hold of a gun that someone was carrying. The only incidents I can find are of people getting a hold of police guns.
Another thing that comes up is people pointing out how some poorly trained teacher is going to get shot first or end up shooting some kid. Again, show me some stats that suggest non-police are killing innocent bystanders. The reality is that most of these shooters aren’t SEAL Team 6. Hell, most of them are barely proficient and learned from playing video games.
The vast majority of crimes are committed against people similarly situated and known to the criminal. Outside of the occasional property crime (the vast majority of which are done on unoccupied property), you are extremely unlikely to ever be a victim of a stranger-on-stranger crime whether you are armed or unarmed. Unless you happen to hang out with many criminals, saying that you need a gun to protect yourself against being a victim of a crime or that you, white middle class suburbanite, lower the crime rate by owning a gun is equal to saying that you must keep your children under constant supervision to avoid them being kidnapped. In both cases, you are taking extreme measures to protect against something that is highly unlikely to happen. And both contribute to this wrong mentality that the world is so unsafe and we are in constant danger of being a victim.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people carrying guns in this country. Show me where a kid has gotten a hold of a gun that someone was carrying.”
Show me where kids are ever around someone carrying a gun for 8 solid hours of the day outside of the home. There have been thousands of incidents of kids stealing mom and dad’s guns. And teachers are not going to wearing guns on holsters as they walk around the classroom teaching (and if they are, my child will be homeschooled and I am 2,000,000% against homeschooling). The guns are going to be stored in purses and desks, which is no different than the hundreds of my clients who have grabbed them out of the gun cabinet while mom was watching TV.
My concern isn’t teachers shooting innocent bystanders (although that seems much more likely in chaotic situations like school shootings); it is the amount of people we have who want to kill flies with sledge hammers. We live in a culture of fear and, as is evident on this blog almost daily, that leads to a certain level a paranoia that you and yours are in constant danger. It leads to people shooting someone for simply knocking on their door at 4am. Not because they are evil people, but because they have this irrational belief that they are at constant risk and must protect themselves.
And schools are not unsafe!!!!! Millions of people go to work every single day in the US unarmed. People far more likely to encounter a criminal and be killed. Teachers are not being treated differently. They are being treated the exact same way as the vast majority of employees who are not allowed to bring firearms to work.
And why exactly do we want to promote this notion that schools are such dangerous places that they need armed protection? That is absolutely not what I want for my kid’s school. I want it to be less of a prison, not closer to a prison.
The book “Lockdown High” by Annette Fuentes (Verso Books, 2013, pg. 37-38) mentioned a 1999 task force, The Safe School Initiative, with the US Secret Service and the Department of Education attempting to identify school violence risk factors. After a task force report which talked about attackers not fitting any one profile (despite substantial incidents of school violence having certain commonalities), the initiative released a guide with information that might not have been intuitive.
According to Fuentes, the guide’s coverage of threat assessment included a detail that it was only “one component” among multiple methods (supposedly, this came as a surprise) and mentioned the creating of “cultures and climates of safety, respect, and emotional support within educational institutions…environments [that] emphasize ’emotional intelligence,’ as well as educational or intellectual pursuits” as the best strategies for preventing violence. (As one might guess, the recommendations did not go over well with a populace that was “panicked about crazed student terrorists” and public opinion (or perhaps perception) saw strict control and heavy security measures as being more favorable.) Although “emotional intelligence” and emotional health (which is likely not the same thing as mental health) may not come up every day, particularly in the context of school safety, they may well be more effective at keeping school environments safe than more invasive security measures (in addition to being less worrying or stressful for students.)
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Benjamin Franklin.
Truer words have never been spoken.
@Steve,
Unless you are trained, and not in shooting at targets and firearms safety, but actually trained to respond to an actual threat, putting guns in the hands of teachers is useless.
An armed person, bent on killing enters the classroom, there is no way in hell a teacher is going to be able to get the first shot off. None at all. Unless you want teachers to carry their sidearm in hand, safety off, at all times. Then maybe, just maybe they will have a fair chance.
It takes extreme training for the military, and law enforcement to recognize, assess and react fast enough to be effective.
Arming teachers is just a dangerous form of security theatre, and should not be allowed. Lockdowns should not be allowed. Cops in the schools should not be allowed.
Schools should be schools, not prisons.
To add to Warren’s comment, it is hard to another life. Even the police officers I know who have done it are bothered by it despite being totally justified and despite being people who chose a job KNOWING that taking a life may be necessary one day, unlike teachers.
It is extremely hard to take the life of someone you know. A kid you taught last year or last semester or yesterday. And that is what you are asking teachers to do. The majority of school shootings are committed by students enrolled in the school, not by outsiders. We actually WANT (or should) our teachers to be the type of people who would have pause at harming a child, even one acting atrociously at the moment. And all it takes is one second hesitation on the part of that teacher because the kid who entered that building intending to kill as many people as he can will not hesitate.
Guns introduce lots of negatives into the classroom with no proven positives. Even if school shootings were more common place than they are, hoping that a teacher will shoot a kid on a murderous rampage before that kid shoots her/him should not be considered a line of defense. Some will be able to do it and some won’t and we can’t know who is who until that one in 10 lifetimes situation arises. And our society tends to be a bit myopic. Planning real strategies, like getting out of the school, will fall by the wayside as more people start to think “teachers are now armed with the almighty gun so no need to do anything else.”
@Donna: Okay – thanks. That does suggest an actual cultural difference.
@Havva – thanks for that. I like the idea of a pocket for a small gun – though I will never in my life own one (am too old to emigrate to the U.S. :-)), my handbag is of the type that has random bits that in it that wrap around other bits to create new life forms, and the safety is unlikely to remain immune from becoming entangled in something else.
@Donna – that is so true. Jokes about my husband and teen aside, I cannot imagine shooting someone I knew, particularly a student or young person. And I don’t know any teacher that wouldn’t hesitate. If there was one that could actually blow a young person away, I would suggest that the time for them to retire is long past. I don’t care what training they’re given, it should be totally counter-intuitive for someone who normally works closely with young people to shoot at one, regardless of the danger that young person is posing.
That whole idea is sick. And yes, this is an emotional rather than a rational response, coming from someone extremely unlikely to ever face such a thing. Roughly, statistically speaking, like the vast majority of teachers in the U.S. Where my colleagues and I are lucky is that no idiots around here are suggesting such a thing….
I was swamped yesterday, so I apologize for the lateness of my response.
I was not suggesting that teachers carry openly. I concede that this can be problematic and will not likely gain much support at this time. I would propose that teachers that are licensed be allowed to carry. This wouldn’t cost the public anything. It is already allowed in several states, with another 5 or so having passed legislation to start allowing it.
Show me where kids are ever around someone carrying a gun for 8 solid hours of the day outside of the home.
There are hundreds of thousands of permit holders in my state that are outside of the home throughout the day. Chances are, there are many kids that are around these people.
In both cases, you are taking extreme measures to protect against something that is highly unlikely to happen. And both contribute to this wrong mentality that the world is so unsafe and we are in constant danger of being a victim.
This is silly. How is carrying a “tool” an extreme measure? That is like saying that doing things like owning a fire extinguisher or wearing a seatbelt contributes to an irrational fear of accidents or fires. Outside of cops, do you know any gun owners? I get the impression that you are projecting on them some kind of mistaken beliefs. While I certainly cannot speak for all of them, I don’t believe that most believe they are in “constant danger.”
There have been thousands of incidents of kids stealing mom and dad’s guns.
Since when? What does this have to do with permit holding teachers being allowed to carry concealed ?
My concern isn’t teachers shooting innocent bystanders (although that seems much more likely in chaotic situations like school shootings); it is the amount of people we have who want to kill flies with sledge hammers. We live in a culture of fear and, as is evident on this blog almost daily, that leads to a certain level a paranoia that you and yours are in constant danger. It leads to people shooting someone for simply knocking on their door at 4am. Not because they are evil people, but because they have this irrational belief that they are at constant risk and must protect themselves.
Again, I fail to see the connection. we have a group of people that we entrust to care for our kids 7 to 8 hours a day. On the other hand, we have a handful of people that shoot someone knocking our their door at 4am. As an aside, there was a recent case here where that happened. That guy was convicted of second degree murder. Are you really suggesting that most permit holders are bloodthirsty killers or somehow incapable of practicing restraint? Plenty of teachers have permits. I know a few instructors that offer free classes to educators and have trained over a 1000 teachers. It is quite possible that some of your children’s teachers carry outside of work.
Warren, I disagree. Criminologist Gary Kleck has estimated that there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses in 1994, with most not involving any shots fired (brandishing). I would argue that most people that defend themselves have not had any kind of “extreme training”. While I agree that a teacher that is completely surprised by someone crashing into their room, shooting at them, may not fare well.
This doesn’t seem to be the reality, though. Outside of the Beslan School takeover by terrorists, most of these incidents don’t involve well trained people that have good plans. In addition, unless they are using suppressed guns, once the shooting starts, the element of surprise is gone.
It is extremely hard to take the life of someone you know. A kid you taught last year or last semester or yesterday. And that is what you are asking teachers to do.
If they truly had no choice, then yes. My wife is a teacher. If it came down to her or someone bent on killing her and her students, then I would choose her. I have two kids in school. If I had to choose between their lives and a psychotic murdered, I would choose them.
Are you really suggesting that it is somehow morally superior to be the victim of a crime than it is to act in self-defense?
“There are hundreds of thousands of permit holders in my state that are outside of the home throughout the day. Chances are, there are many kids that are around these people.”
Yes, there are many kids around them MOMENTARILY. I can’t think of a single person in the world that my child spends 8 hours a day with except me, her teacher and her classmates. In other words, the fact that children are not stealing guns from fellow customers in Kroger that they encounter for 5 seconds on aisle 11 has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether they will steal one from the purse of a teacher in a classroom that they occupy for most of their waking hours each day.
The world is not full of Beaver Cleaver. I deal with kids every day who regularly steal things in school – from the school, classmates, teachers. Encountering a gun while rummaging through their teacher’s desk or purse would be amazingly sweet. Guns sell for good money on the street.
“There have been thousands of incidents of kids stealing mom and dad’s guns.
Since when? What does this have to do with permit holding teachers being allowed to carry concealed ?”
This year alone? We see at least 25 cases a year involving a child who “borrowed” his/her parents/grandparents, etc. gun. Actual theft charges are not particularly common, but underage possession, reckless conduct, and aggravated assault are. I suppose that it is possible that the only place that this is occurring in the US is in the county I work in, but I tend not to believe that I live in some weird anomaly that is not experienced anywhere else in this vast country.
Again, the relation is people carrying at Kroger is not the same as teachers carrying at school. The closest approximation to that is weapons in the home. Since kids take their parents weapons without permission fairly regularly, I think it is a good bet that some will get their hands on their teachers guns as well.
“That is like saying that doing things like owning a fire extinguisher or wearing a seatbelt contributes to an irrational fear of accidents or fires.”
A fire extinguisher in your house, I agree. I’ve personally set my stove on fire more than once (not a bad cook, just a bad oven cleaner) so can certainly see the use. If you felt that you needed to carry a fire extinguisher with you grocery shopping and to the movie theater or to work or to school, I would say that you are harboring an extremely irrational fear of fire. Guns are pretty much the same. If you need to have one with you all the time, you have a very elevated sense of your risk in the world.
“Outside of cops, do you know any gun owners?”
Many. A sizable portion of the people that I know in fact. I even lived in a house with about 10 guns for several years (ex was a hunter and gun collector). Have even shot a gun a time or two myself. Very few of the people that I know who own guns have any desire whatsoever to carry them around regularly. They do view guns as a tool – a tool for hunting and sport – not a necessary crime fighting tool as they are not crime fighters. Those that are into carrying watch exclusively Fox News and believe that the world is a scary place.
“Again, I fail to see the connection. we have a group of people that we entrust to care for our kids 7 to 8 hours a day. On the other hand, we have a handful of people that shoot someone knocking our their door at 4am.”
Are you really saying that teachers are somehow incapable of being those handful of people who shoot people knocking on their door at 4 am? Are you really saying that teachers are somehow a unique group of people with no members who are prone to panicking under stress, or acting irrationally, or having elevated sense of fear?
“Are you really suggesting that most permit holders are bloodthirsty killers or somehow incapable of practicing restraint?”
To the contrary. I don’t believe that THAT person (the guy who shot the girl on his porch) was a bloodthirsty killer. I believe that he probably felt threatened at the moment that he fired the gun. It was a completely irrational fear, which is why he is in prison, but that is the point. Our fears in this country are not particularly rational.
Are you really suggesting that no permit holders ever overreact to situations?
See, it is all about risk/benefit analysis. Since I see absolutely ZERO benefit to my child to having an armed teacher, even the slightest risk that the teacher will overreact to a situation or some kid will steal a gun or a teacher will lose his/her mind and become a bloodthirsty killer (it could happen) is worth the absolute ZERO benefit gained.
“Are you really suggesting that it is somehow morally superior to be the victim of a crime than it is to act in self-defense?”
No, I said that some people are capable of it and some people are not. In fact, I said that pretty clearly. I made no moral judgment towards either groups of people.
But, even if you can kill another person, it would be a reluctant choice because taking another human life is something that is reprehensible to moral people. The other person with the gun in this scenario is not making a reluctant choice to kill; he is relishing in it. It is his sole purpose for being at the time. He has no moral qualms about killing, and that split second it takes to overcome your natural moral reaction to killing someone, he has likely already shot.
Steve,
You would choose your wife and kids, is fine. You are not the teacher, she is. What would she do? And would she be able to do it without hesitation.
So no open carry for teachers, huh? Therefore where do they keep their weapons, locked in the desk? On top of the desk? In their backpack, purse? And since school’s are now being taught to take fire alarms as an active shooter distraction, are the teachers allowed to draw and carry during fire drills?
And just how do you tell kids the cannot bring toy guns to school, to play with at recess, when Miss. Smith is walking thru the halls with a loaded 9mm?
Steve, simply supporting the arming of teachers in classrooms puts you right up there with SOA, for the running of Moron of the Year.
@Steve – apt that I should come across this today. I had a couple of hours ago to control an extremely unruly class (not my usual group). Had this group had a gun somewhere in their immediate vicinity, some little bugger would have gotten their hands on it – they’re that sort of kids. I can’t imagine you don’t have any wild classes in the States…
@Warren, enough with the insults, but thanks for the Miss Smith vision! Made my day, imagining all the chaos THAT would cause in your average primary school… 🙂
First off, I would never recommend that anyone use off-body carry. In other words, if you are going to carry a gun, it needs to be under your control 100% of the time. Leaving your gun in an unlocked desk or a purse is just a stupid idea. I can’t think of a reputable instructor anywhere that advocates doing this.
If you felt that you needed to carry a fire extinguisher with you grocery shopping and to the movie theater or to work or to school, I would say that you are harboring an extremely irrational fear of fire.
Don’t be a smart ass. If you don’t want to have a grown up discussion, just say so. I did not advocate of even vaguely infer that carrying around a fire extinguisher was a good idea. Let me try this again. A fire extinguisher is a tool. The odds of ever needing one are exceedingly rare. In 40+ years on this Earth, I have never used one outside of some kind of training, nor have I ever been anywhere where I have seen someone using one. By your logic, I shouldn’t even have one in my home and should just leave any possible fire to the fire department.
Most people don’t carry gun because of an overwhelming sense of paranoia. That is why I asked if you knew people that carried guns. Do they seem to suffer? The odds I will be in a car accident are very slim, but I wear a seat best because it isn’t all that difficult and partly because it is the rule. The odds I would be a victim of a violent crime are very dependent on what I do and where I go, but they are also slim. Carrying a gun is similarly not all that difficult or burdensome and doesn’t make me act in a certain way, nor has it affected my outlook on life. I look at it as a tool and think it is better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.
I certainly don’t look at it as some type of crime fighting tool and don’t see myself as some kind of vigilante. I well understand the very limited circumstances where it can lawfully be used and certainly do not advocate that others act irresponsibly or stupidly.
Are you really saying that teachers are somehow incapable of being those handful of people who shoot people knocking on their door at 4 am? Are you really saying that teachers are somehow a unique group of people with no members who are prone to panicking under stress, or acting irrationally, or having elevated sense of fear?
One thing that thankfully gets so much praise on this site is statistics and logically considering options. Yes, there may be teachers that would shoot someone knocking on the door at 4:00 a.m., but the odds are against. Some states, including mine, are required to report crimes committed by permit holders. If you look at violent crimes, it is less than .0001% of permit holders. In the last year, do you know how many of the 300,000 permit holders in my state were convicted of some kind of murder? One, for second degree murder. The odds that some teacher is going to snap and murder someone are extremely slim.
It is his sole purpose for being at the time. He has no moral qualms about killing, and that split second it takes to overcome your natural moral reaction to killing someone, he has likely already shot.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. Thousands of people every year successfully use a firearm to defend themselves. In some cases, they are injured in the process, but study after study has shown that if you are attacked, the odds of survival go up if you fight back. Are you suggesting that a victim of a violent crime is somehow going to fare better if they don’t do anything?
Warren, I am personally fine with people openly carrying firearms, but most people aren’t. I am just being pragmatic. I already commented on off-body carry. I don’t advocate all teachers carrying. I just advocate that the laws that only allow criminals to have guns in schools be changed to allow teachers and school districts the option of lawful carry.
You already know my opinion of the rules against toy guns and similar zero tolerance policies. They are stupid. As are you. You have proven time and time again, that you are an unbalanced lunatic. I know that guns make you wet your pants and get a weak in the knees. I hate to burst your bubble, but most gun owners are trustworthy people. If you are comfortable ceding that control to the state for your own protection, that is your choice.
hineata, I would not support making it mandatory, nor would I support teachers being told that they should carry. I would like teachers and districts to have the option and only if they were comfortable. Safety would be a priority. Kids don’t get access to a gun unless negligence is involved.
Dear Steve,
You sometimes come of as a somewhat intelligent human. Then on topics like this you come off closer to being that white stuff that collects at the corner of your mouth on a hot dry day.
I am perfectly fine with law enforcement being the only people to carry firearms, other than sport and hunting. Oh wait I do, since I am in Ontario, Jackass.
Yes most of you over compensating paranoid gun lovers could possibly take down an intruder into your home, or a car jacker, or rapist, or whatever other person scares the crap out of you. But most gun owners would not have a hope in hell of taking down a spree shooter with an assault rifle, on the move, at distance. Hell most police cannot.
There is an old rule of thumb. 21 feet. You with a gun, me without one. Outside 21 feet, you have the advantage. Inside 21 feet, you can kiss you ass goodbye. Outside of aprox. 40 feet, advantage me to get away, as chances are you’ll miss high and to the left or right, depending on which hand you shoot with.
Only a fool, yes you, would want a teacher to try and take down a shooter. Personally, on the slim to none chance an active shooter is in my kids school, I would rather the teacher concentrate on getting the kids the hell out of harms way.
Where we come from Steve, a man does not need a gun to protect himself or family.
Warren, I am confident that your sheer badassery would just deflect any bullets and defeat any kind of threat. Considering that violent crimes still exist in Canada, I get the impression that Canadian men are not as skilled at crime fightin’ as you would think.
I am well aware of the 21 foot rule. The armed person will, for the most part, still have an advantage within 21 feet even if the unarmed person can get to them. Just ask Trayvon Martin.
I really don’t understand why you feel the need to project your own irrational beliefs on me or other gun owners. I am not paranoid and can make it through the day with being scared of rapists, murderers, robber, car jackers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all sorts of other things.
FWIW, I agree with you that I would prefer that a teacher, my kid, or anyone else for that matter, get away from a shooter. I never suggested otherwise. The gun should only be used as a last resort.
Late to the party but was wondering…..
Would the teacher that has nothing but a peace of chalk & an eraser have as better chance of protecting your child then one with a gun?
How many children are going to die once a shooter gains access to the classroom where the teacher has nothing to defend with?
How long does it take for someone in another part of the school tom realize what is happening and call 911, that operator figure out what the excited person on the phone is trying to say, dispatch someone WITH a GUN to go to the school, that person with the gun to get to the school, wait for backup, enter, find the shooter, and confront them?
How long would it take for a teacher in the room to draw & fire?
How long for a teacher in another room to respond to shots fired in their school?
With all the people that carry guns on a daily basis, why don’t we hear of kids stealing them?
If YOU had a gun in a classroom would YOU leave it where the kids could get it? What makes you think a teacher that chooses to carry in school would?
Is it better to have 30 kids killed waiting for the police or two because a teacher was armed?
Steve,
If you do not fear violent crimes against you on a daily basis, then why the need to arm yourself? Can’t have it both ways.
You with a holstered weapon, me unarmed. Distance 20 ft. Guarantee you one thing. You are the one going to the hospital not me. It is that simple, and being simple is something you have a great deal of experience in.
Badass? Nope. One nasty SOB when I need to be? Oh hell ya!!!!
@LD,
How many teachers do you think have the skill, the mentality, and the cold separation to be able to kill?
Armed teachers will not save lives, they will cost lives, and probably their own. Like any other attack, you take out the high threats first. Therefore the teacher or guard with the gun, is the first to die, then the killing goes on.
You are underestimating these shooters. They just don’t wake up one morning and go on a rampage. They plan heavily before taking action.
@Warren
Where is all this planning and taking out those that oppose the mass shooters we have seen so far?
Most I recall have killed themselves as soon as they THOUGHT armed resistance was near.
How would a shooter know which teachers are armed?
What about the teacher from down the hall that shoots from cover?
None of what you suggest has any facts behind it but common untrained people have been defending themselves for many many years from armed thugs & killers.
And it will still be quicker then waiting for armed police to come from God knows where.
@LD
Are you trying to be stupid, or were you born that way?
Do you honestly thing that these shooters just wake up, think today I am going to shoot up the school, walk to their closet, get their assault rifle and go at it?
Teacher shooting from cover down the hall? Really? This is real life, not Walker Texas Ranger. You need to stop watching so many movies Dude. Because we all know we want teachers to abandon their students, so they can take up tactical positions to lay down cover fire, for the trained librarian sniper to get his or her shot off.
You are supporting the idea of having teachers engage in close quarters combat. Close quarters combat, tactics that take exhaustive training for the professionals to get right. But you want the french teacher to do it. Wow!
@Warren
So…..
You are telling us that these school shooters have undergone “extensive training” in tactics and hand to hand close quarters combat before they attack schools?
No reasonably sane person will have the guts to try to stop an active shooter & even if they did try, they couldn’t because they would be too stupid to do it right?
How do you explain all the interventions that take place almost daily by relatively untrained citizens around the country? It is estimated that over 2 million cases of armed self defense happen every year and MOST don’t even include a shot being fired.
I certainly give more credit to the courage & abilities of our teachers then you do. And I support giving them a chance to prove what they can do as opposed to assuming they are all as incompetent and cowardly as you seem to be.
@LD
I never said that the active shooter was well trained or trained at all. I will send you Hooked On Phonics, to help with your reading skills.
What I said was you were expecting teachers/normal citizens to engage an active shooter in a confined space, under stress, with dozens of innocents in that space. That is a recipe for disaster.
Reasonably sane? You do not count yourself in that right? No I would expect a reasonably sane teacher to evacuate their students from the threat, not go on the offensive, for which they are probaby sadly out gunned. There are much better actions for the teacher/staff to take.
Going to the range, does not even come close to making someone qualified to engage in a tactical situation. If your IQ was larger than your shoe size, you would know this.
The millions of armed defenses you talk about? How many of those are against an active shooter, hellbent on killing, and then resigned to commiting suicide or suicide by cop? Come on Mr. Stats, give us the numbers.
Never did I question the courage of teachers, your words not mine.
Next, you want to question my courage……….go for it. I do not need to prove squat to someone with the intelligence of a tick.
Is there really no position other than opposing gun rights, or wanting guns in schools? Clearly not, because I am the strongest proponent of gun rights you are likely to encounter, and very strongly oppose carry of any sort (but especially open) in schools. There is a vast ocean of difference between asking if people have the right to keep and bear arms (yes) and if they have the right to bring them everywhere (no.) (This was the NRA’s excuse for not endorsing Ron Paul, if I remember correctly – that he opposed a bill banning private employers from disallowing guns on their property.)
Some places are good for carrying, some aren’t.
But the worst part of carrying in schools is the impetus for it. It’s put forward to solve a non-existent problem – and one it is very harmful to pretend exists.
You ask about fire extinguishers. Fires are far more common than school shootings. Many more people die from fires than from school shootings. When I teach fire safety, one of the key things I teach is knowing when NOT to use a fire extinguisher, particularly since I teach it to high school students – if you don’t know the impact of spraying water on a burning chemical in your lab, for example, don’t do it. Don’t use an extinguisher if doing so puts the fire between you and the door, if the other option is for that not to happen. Don’t use a fire extinguisher if you didn’t see the fire start. Don’t use a fire extinguisher unless you know the classes of extinguishers (unless you have an ABC and it’s not a metal on fire.)
Steve, though, has given a great example of why not to have teachers carry. He mentioned self-defense via brandishing – the first thing taught in a concealed carry class to NEVER do. If it works, fine, but a weapon should never be drawn from concealment with any intent other than shooting. How many teachers would draw with the intent of brandishing, get shot, and lose their weapon? My guess – many (of the vanishingly small number who will ever face a threat.)
By the way, who would have anticipated how SROs would be used when they first came into existence? How long before a long-suffering teacher brandishes to quiet down an unruly class?
“Don’t be a smart ass. If you don’t want to have a grown up discussion, just say so. I did not advocate of even vaguely infer that carrying around a fire extinguisher was a good idea. Let me try this again. A fire extinguisher is a tool. The odds of ever needing one are exceedingly rare. In 40+ years on this Earth, I have never used one outside of some kind of training, nor have I ever been anywhere where I have seen someone using one.”
Apparently, you can’t engage in an intelligent discussion when someone puts up an argument that completely defeats yours.
We are not talking about general gun ownership or gun ownership in the home, which would be the equivalent of having a fire extinguisher in the home. There are a hundred tools that I think are handy to have around the house that I don’t feel the need to bring to Kroger with me. Guns and fire extinguishers both fall into that category (actually I don’t feel a gun is a tool that I need in my home as I have absolutely no hand-eye coordination, but it might be a good tool for others).
We are talking about the need to carry a gun around with you. That is 100% equal to believing that a fire extinguisher is needed with you at all times. If you truly did so, you would have an incredibly elevated view of risk from fire. Likewise, the need to carry a gun indicates a elevated view of the risk from whatever it is that you fear that makes a gun a necessary tool to have in Kroger. Even if fire extinguishers came pocket-sized, I would think that. You simply are so incredibly unlikely to be called on to use either one in Kroger that carrying them is unnecessary.
As for fire extinguisher use being exceedingly rare, I’ve used one twice in my own house. I likely could have put the fire out another way, but someone bought me a fire extinguisher and it was right there and kinda fun to play with. I’ve been places where they were used more times than that. Kitchen fires are not all that unusual.
“The odds I will be in a car accident are very slim,”
For each trip they are, however I have a near 100% certainty that you will be in a car accident at some point during your life. In fact, according to the defensive driving class I had to take for work a few years ago, the average American is in 10 car accidents in their lifetime. I don’t know a single person over age 30 who has not been in a fairly substantial car accident. I’ve had two cars totaled myself (both someone else’s fault). So, while I am not in constant fear of a car accident, I do realize that it is more likely than not that I will have a few more in my next 40 or so years of driving.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no fear that I will ever be the victim of a violent crime. I understand that each person has a very minuscule chance of ever being the victim of even one violent crime committed by a stranger in his/her entire lifetime. (I’ll let you be your own judge on your need to defend yourself against your own family and friends).
“That is why I asked if you knew people that carried guns. Do they seem to suffer?”
As I already said, yes they do. All the people that I know who carry, which is very few, have an elevated sense of fear about the world. They believe that hype that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. They seem to have the view that it is more likely than not that they will some day be the victim of a violent crime rather than understanding that there is almost no chance of that ever happening.
“Are you suggesting that a victim of a violent crime is somehow going to fare better if they don’t do anything?”
No, I’m suggesting that the chance that you are going to be a victim of a stranger violent crime is so extremely minuscule that you don’t need to carry around a tool to defend against it.
The odds are likely against a teacher shooting a student. The odds are also against a teacher shooting herself while taking a leak, but it just happened. Since the benefit to my child of her teacher being armed is absolutely ZERO, why should she face even a .001% chance of something idiotic happening with a gun in her school?
You with a holstered weapon, me unarmed. Distance 20 ft. Guarantee you one thing. You are the one going to the hospital not me. It is that simple, and being simple is something you have a great deal of experience in.
Badass? Nope. One nasty SOB when I need to be? Oh hell ya!!!!
LOL, badass maybe, but more like a delusional badass. If I am armed and you are unarmed and attack me in the scenario you describe, I may go the hospital, but you are going to the morgue. I have trained in that scenario dozens of times. Typically, the unarmed person can only win if they come up from behind or the armed person is stupid enough to just stand there.
Steve, though, has given a great example of why not to have teachers carry. He mentioned self-defense via brandishing — the first thing taught in a concealed carry class to NEVER do. If it works, fine, but a weapon should never be drawn from concealment with any intent other than shooting.
Who taught you this? If you were taught this in a class, then you need to ask for your money back. As I mentioned before, the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve any shots fired. One person draws a gun or already has it ready and the BG flees or surrenders.
On the other hand, I have absolutely no fear that I will ever be the victim of a violent crime. I understand that each person has a very minuscule chance of ever being the victim of even one violent crime committed by a stranger in his/her entire lifetime. (I’ll let you be your own judge on your need to defend yourself against your own family and friends).
How about some actual stats. The odds that a female over the age of 12 will be the victim of a violent crime at some point in their life in the US is 73%. This was from the 1990’s, so it is likely less. I found several studies from insurance companies on car accidents. None were over 50%.
If you don’t want your kids around guns, that is your choice, but at least have the intellectual honesty to say so, instead of coming up with ridiculous scenarios involving trigger happy teachers and goofball accidents. I have always been impressed on how people on this site demand logic, reason, and facts when assessing risks, but it is clear that only applies in certain situations.
You brought up the example of a single accident involving a teacher in Utah. They have allowed carry in schools and universities for at least a decade and this is the ONLY incident. Seriously?!? I can come up with dozens of instances of police leaving guns where kids can get a hold of them. If I asked for your support in saying should police be disarmed, you would rightly say that was unreasonable.
The odds are likely against a teacher shooting a student. The odds are also against a teacher shooting herself while taking a leak, but it just happened. Since the benefit to my child of her teacher being armed is absolutely ZERO, why should she face even a .001% chance of something idiotic happening with a gun in her school?
You have already demonstrated that you really don’t know odds. Are you really saying that there is no such thing as self-defense? That no one ever defends themselves or others? I can think of two school shootings off the top of my head that were stopped by an armed person that was not the police, so the odds must be more than zero. How many kids or bystanders in school have been shot by permit holders? Anywhere? Bueller?
Steve,
Wanna put it to the test? I’m game. Guns do not scare me, and neither do you. I have dealt with guys like you. And about the worst thing I have had to put up with, is the smell of urine, after they wet themselves. Cowards feel the need for guns. Inferiors feel the need for guns. Morons feel the need for guns.
And you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you carry for protection and self defense, and in the same breath say you do not live in fear. If you did not have the fear, you wouldn’t feel the need for your gun.
20 feet or less, Steve, you lose. Period. Just like an over compensating yankee, brings a gun to a knife fight. LOL.
“The odds that a female over the age of 12 will be the victim of a violent crime at some point in their life in the US is 73%.”
And that stat is from where? A neutral source? And is it for actual reported crimes, not the presumed crimes that creep into stats all the time (i.e. those pesky “nobody ever reported them but we know they must exist” crimes)? And what percentage of that is for crimes involving strangers? (If you need to have a gun at work to protect yourself from your friends and family, your life choices are far beyond this discussion). And how many of them are occurring outside the ‘hood such to be of concern to the general population? And how many of these violent crimes are serious threats such that bringing out a firearm is a legitimate response? A single shove by a boyfriend is technically a violent crime (and I’ve dealt with hundreds of these cases so, yes, people are arrested); you will go to prison if your response is to then shoot your boyfriend.
“I found several studies from insurance companies on car accidents. None were over 50%.”
Again, provide links to such studies.
According to Forbes Magazine “Over the course of a typical long, driving lifetime, you should have a total of three to four accidents.”
According to NHTSA “On average two in three people will be involved in a DRUNK DRIVING crash in their lifetime.” Not just a regular crash, but a DRUNK DRIVING crash.
I could go on.
“If you don’t want your kids around guns, that is your choice, but at least have the intellectual honesty to say so”
Now we get down to it. Of course anyone who doesn’t want guns in school is anti-gun. Except that I couldn’t care less about guns. I lived and worked in rural Georgia for much of my life for god’s sake. My child is frequently in homes with guns, has seen guns and has touched guns. She is the ultimate girly girl and has never expressed even the slightest interest in guns, but should she do so, she is more than welcome to go shooting with her friend’s parents.
“They have allowed carry in schools and universities for at least a decade and this is the ONLY incident. Seriously?!?”
There are only an estimated 240 teachers (1%) in Utah who have carry permits. One out of that small number has now proven herself a complete idiot. Not fabulous odds.
Further, the vast majority of schools and colleges in the US actually prohibit the carrying of weapons on campus so I dispute your assertion that this has been going on in mass.
“I can come up with dozens of instances of police leaving guns where kids can get a hold of them.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of whatever you are asserting this as an endorsement of.
“If I asked for your support in saying should police be disarmed, you would rightly say that was unreasonable.”
Au contraire, my friend. I have lived in countries (well one country and one US territory) where police are unarmed. I don’t find it as absurd as you seem to want me to. I am not advocating for it, but I’m not opposed either. I’d probably remain silent on the issue.
But it is clear that you have a very elevated sense of danger so there is no point in continuing this conversation.
>Who taught you this? If you were taught this in a class, then >you need to ask for your money back. As I mentioned before, >the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not involve any >shots fired. One person draws a gun or already has it ready >and the BG flees or surrenders.
What is it about gun advocacy beyond normal bounds (again, I’m a staunch defender of the 2nd) and a black/white view, usually expressed by calling people “bad guy?” Anyway, yes, I was taught the stupidity of pulling a gun with the intent of scaring away a criminal – one who was serious enough to cause you to draw your gun – by my concealed carry instructor and my tactical medic instructor. If you pull your gun and they run away, fine. If you pull it with the expectation that they’ll run away, and you’re pulling it without being prepared to shoot (that is, both mentally ready and with belief that you have sufficient reason to do so) you are causing a danger when they call your bluff and take your gun which you aren’t prepared to fire.
On cops – I won’t speak for Donna, but I’m all in favor of disarming cops.
@Donna – just don’t let her loose with the Uzi….
@Steve S – yes, why give ordinary police guns? I have no idea whether police are regularly armed in other countries except the States, but here they aren’t generally armed, and mostly they do fine. A special trained squad is enough.
It’s miles up, too, but your piece about your wife being a teacher was interesting. You say you would defend her, which is cool, I would hope most men would defend their significant others, but what does she have to say? Does she think she could shoot a student?
Now we get down to it. Of course anyone who doesn’t want guns in school is anti-gun. Except that I couldn’t care less about guns.
I didn’t say you were anti-gun. That really has no bearing on the discussion. I have a number of anti-gun friends that are more than willing to admit they don’t want guns around them. The difference is that they are willing to admit that is just their preference and that their position isn’t supported by the numbers.
As for crime victim stats. Just google it. I found several studies from what I would consider reputable sources, such as CJ journals. The car accident stats were from insurance studies. I have no reason to believe they would make accidents look less common. If anything, they would support the opposite.
As for Utah, where did you find that number of teachers? I can’t find anything. Regardless, one accident that didn’t involve any injury to a student in a decade seems pretty good. As for colleges and Universities, I was just talking about Utah, though I think several other states have removed Universities from the list of prohibited zones. My state allows carry on campuses, except in dorms and classrooms.
Again, you harp on the elevated sense of danger. I guess this is probably one of the more ridiculous assertions you have made. Stop projecting your own insecurities on others. I fully expect never having to need to use a gun. Like many other kinds of “insurance” it is just good to know that it may help if I needed it.
What is it about gun advocacy beyond normal bounds (again, I’m a staunch defender of the 2nd)
With all due respect, you seem to be very conditional in your support. Previously, you said that that you were the strongest supporter of the 2nd, but most gun rights people I know support the elimination of off limits places. Why do you think that otherwise law abiding people turn into dangerous people in certain places? We all know that criminals aren’t going to be deterred by this.
Warren, yes, you can have it both ways. A gun is a tool. You seem to be making into some kind of magical device or you are imparting all sorts of weird attributes. Carrying one doesn’t make me any more scared of crime as wearing a seatbelt makes me scared of being in an accident.
As for your other claim, you have already made more than a few boasts on how you would beat up the cops, so I’ll put your most recent claim and praise you for your active imagination. Sure, inside 20 feet. You can have a knife, Scottish claymore, ninja sword, or any other hand to hand weapon (which are probably also illegal in Canada).
Steve,
No you cannot have it both ways. Yes a gun is a tool, but so is a hammer, so is a torch. I have both, and do not even pick them up, until it is time to use them. You would not carry a hammer or torch around all the time, so why do you need to carry a gun?
Unless of course, you are scared all the time for your safety. So either you are scared all the time, and therefore need the gun to keep you safe………or you are just a liar, and need the gun to compensate for extremely small genitals?
And yes I do carry a knife with me pretty much at all times. But that is a genuine tool, and would never even consider using it as a weapon.
Listen, you may think that you can get under my skin, which is actually fairly entertaining to watch. Steve, you have no idea of who I am or what I am capable of. So unless you actually want to put your body on the line, and test it, shut the hell up. I am tired of dealing with wimps that think they are tough, just because they carry a freaking gun. The gun does not make you tough. The gun makes you a weak little coward.
No you cannot have it both ways. Yes a gun is a tool, but so is a hammer, so is a torch. I have both, and do not even pick them up, until it is time to use them. You would not carry a hammer or torch around all the time, so why do you need to carry a gun?
I don’t carry all the time. For the sake of our discussion, let us look at a hypothetical person that carries a gun most of the time. It is likely a handgun, as they are small and light. I own one that weighs less than a pound. With a decent holster, a person can comfortably carry one for hours. A hammer or a torch are not as easy to carry and would look silly if I carried one wearing a suit.
Another consideration is how useful would the item be? even if I were ever in a situation that demanded the immediate use of a hammer, I am having a hard time seeing one where it would be necessary. On the other hand, a gun is kind of like a parachute, if you were ever in a situation that you needed one, it may be very bad if you don’t have it.
Ha, I am surprised I had to wait this long before you trotted out the guns = small penis meme. I suppose if my penis were capable of killing/stopping a person, I wouldn’t own a gun, but alas, that isn’t the case. If we are going to bring up Freud and guns, I think this quote from him applies:
“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
Listen, you may think that you can get under my skin, which is actually fairly entertaining to watch. Steve, you have no idea of who I am or what I am capable of. So unless you actually want to put your body on the line, and test it, shut the hell up.
I’ll address each of your “points”.
I don’t think I can get under your skin. This is the internet. This isn’t “real life”. I would assume that most people treat it as such and don’t get all worked up about things discussed in this type of environment.
You are correct. I have no idea. That being said, this ain’t my first rodeo. I have seen more than a few people called out and exposed as liars. I am not saying you are one, but I am certainly not going to take some complete stranger at their word just because they say so.
While I don’t live a dangerous life, by any means, I have been threatened in person, over the phone, and over the net. I’ll ask you take me at my word when I say that I treated some of those threats seriously, but I have never been willing to stop doing something or change because of them. I am not going to shut up. I am going to call you out on your bull shit, if needed.
I do not fear firearms in any way.
What I am saying, the only reason to carry is fear. If you are not afraid for your safety, then their is no reason to carry.
The other thing to consider is that with the gun culture in the states, and the sheer number of guns, how much easier it is for the criminal portion of the population to get their hands on them.
If guns were not bought and sold on such a regular basis, the supply would not be there. Therefore the availability would not be there.
I agree that it is possible to decrease the number of guns in circulation, but how do you explain the fact that countries that have instituted severe restrictions still have problems with gun violence? In many cases, most of them don’t see any decrease in gun crimes.
In the US, we have seen a substantial decrease in all violent crime, not just gun crime. During that same period, we have also seen a loosening of the gun laws, especially as it relates to concealed carry. Several states have even adopted the Vermont model, where you don’t even need a permit to carry.
I am not going to argue that the rest of the world should follow the US example. If people in Canada are happy with the way things are, then who am I to say otherwise. I don’t live there and the last time I was there, I was mostly in a place with zero crime.
I suppose there are people that carry based on fear. I don’t. I would say that it depends more on the situation and it more of a healthy concern. For the most part, I am going to avoid putting myself in avoidable dangerous situations.
Steve,
Out of those millions of successful self defense by gun, you quoted, how many of those did the aggressor not have a gun themself? I would bet that it is the majority. Which makes your stat mute, when comparing defending against an active shooter.
Warren, I don’t know. That stat is based on an estimate. I have seen studies that suggest it is between 750,000 to 2.5 million a year. I think it is reasonable to assume that some of those didn’t involved armed attackers.
Steve,
I was going to be a PR and ask qualifying question after qualifying question, but will keep it to this.
Out of the very tight range of 750K to 2.5 million, how many were successful defenses from a situation as follows
1. suicide minded shooter
2. armed with an assault weapon
3. surrounded by children
4. by someone charged with keeping those children safe
Oh and one more thing, how many criminals/aggressors of your 2.5 million actually went into the situation with the intent to kill, as opposed to those that used their gun as a threat/intimidation? I highly doubt that the average armed thug goes in to kill and nothing more.
Defending against an active shooter, is not the same as some punk that broke into your home looking to find enough to get his/her next fix. Active shooters are tactical situations that so called SWAT teams were created for. Law enforcement does not want the average cop handling these guys, and yet you want teachers to. SHEESH!!!!!!