Armed Janitors Approved By Montpelier, Ohio, School Board To Stop School Shootings

The biggest danger

Here is the Most dangerous FEAR I face everyday driving My School Bus, LET ME PRTOECT THE KIDS I'M RESPONDSIBLE FOR...

Folks forget the VP at Pearl Miss stopped that School shooting and could have stopped it sooner except he had to run OFF CAMPUS because of that Idiot Gun Free Law.

It coming to pass in TX and at my HS we have plenty of ex military and lifelong gun owners and hunters to man the campus. I am also for getting retired LEO' s to work as security.

Just the knoledge of armed guards ,Teachers or janitors will be packing in schools will stop alot of this killing because those krazy gunmen only pick schools ,Theaters and gun free zones for one simple reason,they will not have resistance in going on their killing spree because there is nobody there to shoot back everyone is a easy target,put that dought in their twisted mind they will be shot and killed the second they produce a weapon then they have a obsticle that is not in their favor ! Camera's are not that expensive and can also help to spot or profile a person that may be there to kill kids ,their actions and the way they are dressed is a good give away !

Absolutely right. if the nuts know that someone is armed, they just won't try it. There's no such thing as a ''gun free'' zone. That's just a sign.

Jim NE said:

Since when are "suing" and "sabotaging" the same thing?

I'm talking about folks who'd try to push armed protection out of schools were a mistake ever made by school staff.

Click to expand...

Ah....sabotage how? I think the people you imagine fit your stereotype would just prevent it in the first place. From what I've read, there are usually state and county laws, public opinion, and unions to overcome already.

Dakoma said:

Just the knoledge of armed guards ,Teachers or janitors will be packing in schools will stop alot of this killing because those krazy gunmen only pick schools ,Theaters and gun free zones for one simple reason,they will not have resistance in going on their killing spree because there is nobody there to shoot back everyone is a easy target,put that dought in their twisted mind they will be shot and killed the second they produce a weapon then they have a obsticle that is not in their favor ! Camera's are not that expensive and can also help to spot or profile a person that may be there to kill kids ,their actions and the way they are dressed is a good give away !

Click to expand...

I would love to see some confirmation of this. Very very few school shootings are random people. They are plotted out for weeks and months. They KNOW if there are guards. Guards unfortunately can be easily overcome, even by a single shooter. Randomly worrying about the 'possibility' that a teacher will be carrying? Not such a big risk.

It's not the fact that schools are gun-free zones....it's about motivation. These people are angry, full of hate, seeking thrills, revenge, delusional, whatever. THey put alot of time and energy....their last hurrah generally because they plan to die usually....into it. THey dont care if the places are gun-free....they know they'll probably die one way or another....that is the glorious end to their f'ed up plans.

It's about motivation....and that is why armed guards dont stop bank robberies. Banks in many states arent even gun-free zones. Those robbers are highly motivated...just like school shooters.

Roadking Rider said:

Do you really believe he going to be able to go from cleaning out a stopped up toilet to this super clear headed protector of children in a matter of seconds?

Click to expand...

You bet I do, as much as a waitress or grocery store clerk can.

Do you want your kids gunned down without a chance, or do you want someone - anyone - to be able to offer a glimmer of hope? I'm a parent, and I don't care if the guy who waters the potted plants is armed. That's infinitely better than nobody.

I'd much rather see all schools allow (not force) teachers/janitors/administrators to carry concealed firearms, than have all schools hire an armed guard or two.

I agree. Too many holes in allowing teachers and staff. to CCW. I think the best course of action is to just ban guns. That's a perfect solution, right?

Sarcasm mode off.

You people who are so dead set against allowing teachers and staff to CCW are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. And most likely didn't read the article that explained the situation, either, just went off half cocked. The school isn't going to *require* anyone to be armed.

So someone is fully capable of defending them selves and possibly innocents in a crowded shopping mall but becomes a knuckle dragging moron when you put the same man in coveralls working in a school? Shame on you for being so myopic, elitist and wrong.

Unlike the vast majority of you, I've got skin in this game. I have kids in Ohio public schools. The more this gains traction here in Ohio, the more likely MY kids are to be protected. If you want the ideal response for your own kids to be sitting in the corner of a room relying on the mercy or stupidity of as killer, that's your business. It sure isn't my idea of a good idea.

It's not the fact that schools are gun-free zones....it's about motivation. These people are angry, full of hate, seeking thrills, revenge, delusional, whatever. THey put alot of time and energy....their last hurrah generally because they plan to die usually....into it. THey dont care if the places are gun-free....they know they'll probably die one way or another....that is the glorious end to their f'ed up plans.

It's about motivation....and that is why armed guards dont stop bank robberies. Banks in many states arent even gun-free zones. Those robbers are highly motivated...just like school shooters.

Click to expand...

So why don't we see active shooters hit Police stations, military bases from the exterior, etc.? Why don't we see robbers try the Federal Bullion Depository (Ft. Knox) or one of the Federal Reserve banks? An active shooter is motivated by the desire to make as big a statement as possible, using the biggest body count possible. Not in dying in a hail of gunfire that barely gets 5 minutes of the 10PM news. This does not mean that they only go for gun free zones. However a large number of soft targets ARE gun free zones. Double bonus.

I'm a full time LEO, I can tell you that if a civilian goes out and shoots more then 50-100 rounds more then twice a year they shoot and train more then 90%+ of LEO's. Of course your local agencies might be the exception, but by an large most cops are not shooters. It's a very small part of our job, and most cops don't really shoot out side of their mandated requirements. If you've got a janitor, lunch lady, teacher, coach, crossing guard, etc. that takes their CCW seriously and has made an effort to become proficient and skilled, they probably have better technical ability to make the shot then your average LEO. Do LEO's have an advantage in tactical training to find and close with the shooter, yep. But the idea there is we're having to hunt for the bad guy, running to the sound of the gunfire and ending the threat isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

-Jenrick

4TH Horseman said ''Thank you sir for the sanity...''

You sir, are quite welcome.

Jenrick said;''I'm a full time LEO, I can tell you that if a civilian goes out and shoots more then 50-100 rounds more then twice a year they shoot and train more then 90%+ of LEO's. Of course your local agencies might be the exception, but by an large most cops are not shooters. It's a very small part of our job, and most cops don't really shoot out side of their mandated requirements. If you've got a janitor, lunch lady, teacher, coach, crossing guard, etc. that takes their CCW seriously and has made an effort to become proficient and skilled, they probably have better technical ability to make the shot then your average LEO. Do LEO's have an advantage in tactical training to find and close with the shooter, yep. But the idea there is we're having to hunt for the bad guy, running to the sound of the gunfire and ending the threat isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

-Jenrick ''

BEST comment of the YEAR!

Jenrick said:

So why don't we see active shooters hit Police stations, military bases from the exterior, etc.? Why don't we see robbers try the Federal Bullion Depository (Ft. Knox) or one of the Federal Reserve banks? An active shooter is motivated by the desire to make as big a statement as possible, using the biggest body count possible. Not in dying in a hail of gunfire that barely gets 5 minutes of the 10PM news. This does not mean that they only go for gun free zones. However a large number of soft targets ARE gun free zones. Double bonus.

I'm a full time LEO, I can tell you that if a civilian goes out and shoots more then 50-100 rounds more then twice a year they shoot and train more then 90%+ of LEO's. Of course your local agencies might be the exception, but by an large most cops are not shooters. It's a very small part of our job, and most cops don't really shoot out side of their mandated requirements. If you've got a janitor, lunch lady, teacher, coach, crossing guard, etc. that takes their CCW seriously and has made an effort to become proficient and skilled, they probably have better technical ability to make the shot then your average LEO. Do LEO's have an advantage in tactical training to find and close with the shooter, yep. But the idea there is we're having to hunt for the bad guy, running to the sound of the gunfire and ending the threat isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

-Jenrick

Click to expand...

We do see it all the time....the disgruntled employee going back and shooting up his workplace. THe rejected moron shooting up the women's gym or theatre. The STUDENT shooting up the school. The ex husband or boyfriend shooting up the salon or pancake house where the woman works.

It's PERSONAL. The motivation is strong. If your motivation is strong...the risk only makes it sweeter... If your motivation is $, where are you going.a bank or Ft. Knox? Really, was that even a serious question? For them, survival is important, unlike many of these other situations.

As an ex-LEO AND ex Human Resources where we had to study this, there is strong motivation AND gratification behind this stuff.


And I dont know why you went into all that stuff about cc'ers....I have no objections to that. Except that just like armed guards, I dont see them as a deterrant to a motivated shooter.

Roadking Rider said:

Your kidding right? I own a gun,been in the military,have a spotless record, level headed,and great credit score, and shoot pretty well. That does not mean I'm qualified to protect children in life and death situations.

Click to expand...

When death comes knocking will you cower and hide, maybe try to shield their little bodies with yours? Or will you do YOUR BEST to defend them with the tools you have at hand? No one is asking for Rambo in the schools. We are asking for mama bears and sheepdogs. Fiercely protective guardians who will give their lives if they have to, but would much rather shoot and stop the threat.

I have no doubt that my wife, a teacher and HCP (CCW/CWP) holder, would draw and shoot if confronted. She is not Rambo, but you better not back her into a corner or threaten her children! All we have to do is make it legal for her to carry on campus.

That uncertainty about who is or is not armed is a heck of a good start at keeping out an active shooter.

Jim

I agree with you, Fryerpower. This isn't about putting Navy SEALs in schools, its about realizing that its absolutely insane to believe a "No Guns Allowed" sign makes a difference to a murderer; and upon accepting that fact, giving people the right to defend themselves accordingly.

If anyone has ever tried to really secure a large building with multiple doors and windows they will realize that it is almost impossible. Without writing a playbook for how to defeat a school security plan, I think we can all agree that it takes more than one person to do this. As a comparison, imagine the local courthouse.
Controlled access, xrays of all parcels, etc. They have a lot more than just one armed security/deputies/marshals etc. This plan makes good sense. I think the term "custodian" sounds better and has more shades of meaning than "janitor"
These guys are already controlling the access to the building and mechanical systems. In my state this would just require a sign-off by the superintendent.Of course these people are pretty risk-averse, if they were not they would still be teachers. Once they run it by the members of the school committee.....

Ok Bobson I can see you have a need to be right. So OK your right. Give every janitor who has a permit to carry a gun who wants to carry a gun in school the right to do so. Lets just agree to disagree. Personally I think there are other options that need to be explored long before we start asking school janitors to protect our children. Why we're at it maybe we can ask landscapers and trash men protect our neighborhoods. It 's not like there not hard workers.

Simply removing the legal prohibition would make 90% of the difference required.

I'm all for allowing anyone who is lawful to possess a gun to carry it ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. That is how our country should be, period.

I do not believe for an instant that even the certain knowledge that someone in the school is armed (let alone a school district policy that make it possible that someone maybe could be, perhaps) would stop a "process" killer intent on this kind of violence for the same reasons that 9MMare said. (Unfortunately, it is also not terribly well considered to believe that an armed guard is much of a hindrance to these guys. As we all well know, if a potential killer has the motivation to do this and spends the weeks obsessing out a plan as most of these guys seem to do, the guard will be dead before the game even begins.)

I don't really believe there IS a solution to this rarefied problem. But I certainly do applaud any step that would make it possible for someone to react with force on the 100-million-to-one chance that such a situation develops in front of him or her.

That's an important distinction to remember: 1) This will NOT deter mass shootings. It can't. And that should not be the point of such a proposed change. 2) This would allow someone who chooses to prepare the chance of perhaps saving their own life and maybe the lives of a few others.

And it will probably remain an eternally moot point. These shootings are very statistically rare. VERY rare. The number of people who ever choose to carry a concealed weapon is very small. (What? About 7% in the most-armed states?) And very few of those who do carry carry every day, every where. So the chances of a mass shooter and an armed citizen arriving at the same place in the moment when the murderer chooses to act -- and having the armed citizen be in some position to act with force -- are cosmically low indeed.

However, as I said, we simply should be promoting and allowing the law-abiding citizenry to go armed wherever and whenever they choose, as a matter of general principle.

1911 guy said:

You people who are so dead set against allowing teachers and staff to CCW are letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. And most likely didn't read the article that explained the situation, either, just went off half cocked. The school isn't going to *require* anyone to be armed.

.

Click to expand...

I have seen very few, if any people against allowing teachers/staff to cc in this thread or on the forum since the CT shooting.

Sam1911 said:

I do not believe for an instant that even the certain knowledge that someone in the school is armed (let alone a school district policy that make it possible that someone maybe could be, perhaps) would stop a "process" killer intent on this kind of violence for the same reasons that 9MMare said. (Unfortunately, it is also not terribly well considered to believe that an armed guard is much of a hindrance to these guys. As we all well know, if a potential killer has the motivation to do this and spends the weeks obsessing out a plan as most of these guys seem to do, the guard will be dead before the game even begins.)

.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate this reiteration.

And agree with the entire post.

Texan Scott

Quote:
xXxplosive: They're janitors.........or teachers........once a gun is produced by a civillian the civil suits explode. Put a cop with a desk in school during school hours like they are for the DARE Program and be done with it......this is all BS to me.

Click to expand...

Yes, they're janitors or teachers. WHAT ARE YOU, that you feel you should be trusted to be safe and effective with a firearm, but not them?

This sounds suspiciously like the elitist anti-2A "only cops and special people" garbage.

Janitors can't carry guns! They're only *gasp* hard-working ordinary American citizens!

Click to expand...

Amen, Brother! Amen! This mentality of "Why, they're not LE...blah, blah, blah is ludicrous." Anyone with a valid CC permit, should be allowed in schools, period. Going back to the Janitor & Teachers thing... Hell yes, there's bad apples, but there's bad apples in every freakin' profession, including law enforcement.

ccsniper
I am a janitor, not only do we know the buildings better, but we also have keys to every room in the building and are often the ones that find things people are trying to hide such as drugs. (not that were snooping or anything)

Click to expand...

Just as an aside, there have been more than a few news stories of janitors doing exactly what you'd described - looking into rooms, acting as the building's custodian - and they discover drugs, dead bodies, or teachers having sex with students. Not kidding here. No one knows a building better than the building's custodian. Hence, if they are qualified, they should be allowed to carry as a safety precaution against intruders to the school.

My janitor worked part time with the Sheriffs dept. He was an "on call" or reserve deputy. He also was scary.. Or atleast to a kid he was a 6'4" 245lb muscle man who also trained people in unarmed self defense. I guess the difference though was when I was in school, we had our firearms in our cars. Until a year after I gratuated students often went hunting before school and immediately after and were allowed to have their hunting rifles on school grounds. We also took a mandatory gun safety/hunters education course in school at 13-14 years old. I guess this was because I grew up in a rural part of NC. We also had one of the lowest crime rates in the nation at the time. Ahh.... The good ole days.

I have no problem with a CCW holder carrying on school grounds. Nor would I have a problem with an armed custodian or teacher as long as they went through a safety course. I think the armed personnel should be approved by the CLEO or Sheriff, much the same way they approve a CCW permit (in my state). Just my $0.02

The only problem I have with this is that now we know it's the Janitors who are armed.

This could work for and against school protection.

If you know that a specific person in a school is armed, you can target that specific person when you begin your attack. If you don't know who is armed, things get more complicated. On the other hand, if you know that somebody is armed, you may choose a different target.

I actually like the idea of armed officers in schools, but not for protection as much as public relations. For most citizens, their first interaction with an LEO comes when they see flashing red and blue lights in their rear-view mirror. Why should the first interaction with a cop be a negative one?

A police officer in a school becomes a deterrent to crime and a trusted adult figure that children can go to for problems. He could help coach sports and provide a respectable adult role model. He becomes an initial positive example of police which could help reverse some negative opinions of LEO's.