Preparing for school shootings.
- Thread starter jon_in_wv
- Start date
- Status
mlw332
Member
well it would definatly be an improvement from the mentioned text books. just really dont know if i could take time to throw a knife while was being shot at ya know.
Corporal K
member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 356
Depends on what age groups we're talking about. For little kids, running and scattering is a much better choice than fighting. Fighting is a better choice than dying, of course.
As for armed teachers, forget it, it's not going to happen (except in very isolated incidents). It's the best option but it's not going to happen. We could have a hundred Columbines/Beslans and the sheep in the school systems would still be aghast at arming teachers.
As for armed teachers, forget it, it's not going to happen (except in very isolated incidents). It's the best option but it's not going to happen. We could have a hundred Columbines/Beslans and the sheep in the school systems would still be aghast at arming teachers.
The more aggressive has the higher chance of saving lives. Here in AL a bill is in the works of allowing students to be armed. However, it has many problems.
The student must take special training courses. That is good. They must actually qualify with their firearm. Also good. But the stupid thing is they must also be an active ROTC student.
Here the ROTC building is in the middle of campus. What happens if there is a shooter on the far end of campus over a mile away? I think anyone who is trained and qualifies should be allowed to carry on campus.
Yesterday while I was at the gun store, I helped a woman choose a compact 9mm to carry to class. When I go back to school, you better believe I will taking along my .45 acp.
The student must take special training courses. That is good. They must actually qualify with their firearm. Also good. But the stupid thing is they must also be an active ROTC student.
Here the ROTC building is in the middle of campus. What happens if there is a shooter on the far end of campus over a mile away? I think anyone who is trained and qualifies should be allowed to carry on campus.
Yesterday while I was at the gun store, I helped a woman choose a compact 9mm to carry to class. When I go back to school, you better believe I will taking along my .45 acp.
I believe my personal plan is just about perfected. If somebody is shooting up my school, and I come into contact with the dude, I will pull out my gun and I will shoot him. I guess I can't put that in one of those 10 point plans that schools seem to enjoy, but I could stretch it into two or three points.
Really, Utah should be a shining example to the other states when it comes to guns in school. At my University, I would estimate that over 400 people carry to class each day, not including faculty. There has yet to be an instance of an argument escalating into a fire fight as predicted by several law makers, or any other problems. There are faculty members taking a gun to school every day in virtually every school, from grade school to the University, and nothing bad has happened.
Really, Utah should be a shining example to the other states when it comes to guns in school. At my University, I would estimate that over 400 people carry to class each day, not including faculty. There has yet to be an instance of an argument escalating into a fire fight as predicted by several law makers, or any other problems. There are faculty members taking a gun to school every day in virtually every school, from grade school to the University, and nothing bad has happened.
mljdeckard
Member
I would plan on shooting him.
'armed teachers' would be a very big hassle, especially for k-12. its just not a good idea, especially when you take into account the financial end of it. Teachers have a greater responsibility than the average person. They're trusted with the care of other peoples' children. That means huge liability problems with teachers carrying. Schools would probably end up being required to buy some sort of extra insurance (similiar in theory to malpractice insurance), which would cut into budgets that are already spread too thin for public schools. So to pay for it, you'd probably have to raise taxes, and there are a lot of people who would throw a huge fit about paying more taxes to allow teachers to carry. And going back to the way some CCW courses are set up, I sure wouldn't want someone with a gun watching over my kid who's only shot 20 rounds in his/her whole life. I've heard of many CCW classes in VA where you can end up shooting as few as 10 rounds - basically just have to be accurate enough not to fail.
I think for K-12, the best tactic is the ones that are practiced right now - locking the door and having everyone stay out of sight. There could be things like tazers / mace etc in each room that only the teachers have access to.
I think for K-12, the best tactic is the ones that are practiced right now - locking the door and having everyone stay out of sight. There could be things like tazers / mace etc in each room that only the teachers have access to.
geronimotwo
Member
i have been discussing this with all the teachers i know. i agree with the arming of teachers ( at least one armed teacher per hallway, each with some training ), but 4 out of the 5 teachers i know were against the idea. funny how they all agreed that if they heard shots in their school they would want a gun. this is where we can use the "it's for the children" argument to our advantage. i can envision gun safes in every classroom (built-ins, like for the fire extinguishers), each with a mossy 500.
Amen, Gem. You may have struck the sad reality of this whole thing. I agree with most of you that teaching them anything is better than nothing, run, fight, do SOMETHING but don't just sit around waiting for the mercy of the shooter to save you. I live a few blocks from my house. My kids can run to my house and lock themselves in. The school would have plenty more to deal with than my kid being absent. I'll make sure they are accounted for later. I hope my older kids, if cornered, would fight. If not, I hope they will run their butt off.
brownie0486
Member
Armed teachers. Nothing else needs to be said.
Just because some teacher or teachers have a firarm, doesn't mean they are trained/proficient enough to use it effectively in a SD situation, let alone their charges [ the children ].
There's also the added liability to the teacher, the school district, the school board, and a host of others which would need to be specifcally addressed, let alone the training the teachers would have to go through, passing a minimum standards course prescribed by whomever, having them stay proficient and demonstrate that twice/three times a year, the business of who supplies the guns to the teachers, what caliber/bullet type would be standardized within that district [ if any ], blah blah blah, so on and so on.
Nothing else needs to be said?
There's a lot more needs to be said, thought about, then implemented, and who is going to pay for this?
There's no easy solution here. Throwing books/other items, hiding under desks, anything one might do as a child would be pretty silly thinking against an aggressive/determined nutjob whose already entered the building and is ready to shoot people.
Short of armed professionals in each and every classroom, the answers are just so much "feel good" thoughts on the subject.
Brownie
Just because some teacher or teachers have a firarm, doesn't mean they are trained/proficient enough to use it effectively in a SD situation, let alone their charges [ the children ].
There's also the added liability to the teacher, the school district, the school board, and a host of others which would need to be specifcally addressed, let alone the training the teachers would have to go through, passing a minimum standards course prescribed by whomever, having them stay proficient and demonstrate that twice/three times a year, the business of who supplies the guns to the teachers, what caliber/bullet type would be standardized within that district [ if any ], blah blah blah, so on and so on.
Nothing else needs to be said?
There's a lot more needs to be said, thought about, then implemented, and who is going to pay for this?
There's no easy solution here. Throwing books/other items, hiding under desks, anything one might do as a child would be pretty silly thinking against an aggressive/determined nutjob whose already entered the building and is ready to shoot people.
Short of armed professionals in each and every classroom, the answers are just so much "feel good" thoughts on the subject.
Brownie
another okie
Member
I am a college teacher. CCW for us died in the legislature this year, probably the best chance we ever had for it.
That leaves me with other choices. None of my classrooms are all that far from an exit, and there are at least two exits in every building, so that's my first choice.
As far as bunkering in, none of my classrooms can be locked from the inside, though we were promised that about ten years ago. To lock the door I have to stand in the hallway.
Fleeing is a better choice.
I can lock the door before class and then pull it shut when class starts, but this means that every time a student comes in late I have to walk over to the door and let them in, which is a little disruptive. The students also interpret locking the door as a sign that I am afraid of an intruder, and increases their fear, which doesn't really help the learning atmosphere. I know that because several of them told me this semester.
That leaves me with other choices. None of my classrooms are all that far from an exit, and there are at least two exits in every building, so that's my first choice.
As far as bunkering in, none of my classrooms can be locked from the inside, though we were promised that about ten years ago. To lock the door I have to stand in the hallway.
Fleeing is a better choice.
I can lock the door before class and then pull it shut when class starts, but this means that every time a student comes in late I have to walk over to the door and let them in, which is a little disruptive. The students also interpret locking the door as a sign that I am afraid of an intruder, and increases their fear, which doesn't really help the learning atmosphere. I know that because several of them told me this semester.
GEM, I agree its a messed up system, but that doesn't change the reality of it.
I think we need to adopt a system for lawsuits where if you lose, you need to pay legal fees for the other side as well. Think that'd go a long way to cut down on the amount of frivolous (sp?) lawsuits
I think we need to adopt a system for lawsuits where if you lose, you need to pay legal fees for the other side as well. Think that'd go a long way to cut down on the amount of frivolous (sp?) lawsuits
I think judges should be able to assess monetary damages and take money from the scumbag attorneys who file the frivolous lawsuits. If it wasn't for their greed we would be in a different world. Of course if it wasn't for the activist judges who try to make law rather than interpret it things might also be different. Then we could really do what needs to be done without fear of some lawyer ruining my life for it.
brownie0486
Member
I think judges should be able to access monetary damages and take money from the scumbag attorneys who file the frivolous lawsuits.
Unfortunately, they are all collegues [ brothers in arms sorta speak ]. Judges were all attys first, I don't think they'll be assessing damages against their own anytime soon.
The average citizen with a ccw has little to no formal training in firearms, doesn't have near the skills to go seek an active shooter independently in a buliding, and would therefor be a detriment, not an asset to those in jeopardy.
Street cops responding to the same situation are just as untrained in dealing with safe/adequate building search skills as we've seen in their poor responses [ for the most part ] in prior events of this kind.
Brownie
Unfortunately, they are all collegues [ brothers in arms sorta speak ]. Judges were all attys first, I don't think they'll be assessing damages against their own anytime soon.
The average citizen with a ccw has little to no formal training in firearms, doesn't have near the skills to go seek an active shooter independently in a buliding, and would therefor be a detriment, not an asset to those in jeopardy.
Street cops responding to the same situation are just as untrained in dealing with safe/adequate building search skills as we've seen in their poor responses [ for the most part ] in prior events of this kind.
Brownie
Yes, but I do think the matter of training is secondary to the right of good citizens to arm themselves for the defense of good people. Very few people have adequate training to be considered competent for the task of using deadly force around children. If there are armed people present where the shooter intends to go, it likely he won't go there at all.
OldCowHand
Member
I've told my only remaining high-school daughter that, regardless of what the school authorities are telling her, if heading for the far horizon at a good clip seems like the better option, she should go with that thought and I'll deal with the school authorities later.
Just stick a trash can or doorstop in between the door and the frame so people can get in and out, but you can close it in a hurry if need be. You mentioned your room was off a hall, so maybe that wouldn't work great with sound carrying to other rooms...but it's worth a try.
Or you can turn into Evil Punctuality Teacher and snarl at the whippersnappers who dare to come in late.
How about a Louisville Slugger in every classroom? Teacher stands behind door, wallops shooter.
The idea of a jumbo can of pepper spray sounds promising, only so many kids have asthma.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
As already noted, nothing is going to stop a shooter from emptying a mag or two into a class. Things will happen too fast for most to have an effective response. However, armed teachers can mitigate the damage, keeping it to a lower amount. Sure, a teacher in a given class may be shot first, but then you have the other armed teachers on location and in close proximity.
I don't know that guns have been particularly effective deterring crime. They have been helpful in fighting crime, but bad people continue to act, undeterred.
Your assessment that folks shoot in "gun free zones" isn't because they are gun free necessarily. They shoot there because they have high concentrations of targets.
You have also confused cause and effect. "Gun free zones" don't promote shootings. They may fail to prevent shootings, but that is NOT the same thing as promoting shootings. It is a semantic issue, but semantics are critical when it comes to properly understanding problems.
I always like it when we resort to calling bad guys "cowards" because the bad guys show up more prepared than the good guys. The notion of starting off with more power and buy surprise isn't cowardly per se, but an effective strategy. It is used as a military tactic to overwhelm the opposition.
Whether or not the bad guy is brave or a coward isn't really an issue. In the cases of recent school shootings, most are planning on being dead at the culmination anyway, so it isn't a matter of being brave or cowardly, but how much havoc and damage they can reak. Getting sidetracked by name calling and trying to feel superior by putting down the opposition is an excellent example of how we underestimate the opposition.
Tribal
Member
I went to Virginia Tech and I know that there are two main types of classrooms there: the regular kind with one door and maybe some windows (but then, sometimes not and sometimes you're on an upper floor), and "pit auditorium" style. Both types are packed pretty solidly, and students are easy targets in either one; also, the teacher is the person farthest away from the doors where the attacker will be entering. At the grad school I now attend, two of the classrooms in particular are "pit auditoriums" and even ducking would be nearly impossible as the rows are a series of huge U-shaped desks with chairs swinging out from them.
That's already somewhat the case. The danger if you restrict things any more is that you may swing things too far in the wrong direction and unintentionally prevent people from filing proper lawsuits simply because it's a new or seemingly-borderline case.
Just because some teacher or teachers have a firarm, doesn't mean they are trained/proficient enough to use it effectively in a SD situation, let alone their charges [ the children ].
We know that most of the concealed carry licensed population have little training. Thus, should we allow permits and licenses to continue? Or should we have more and stricter training.
So let's think:
Rampage killer - attacks classroom. Many dead.
Rampage killer - attacks classroom, untrained teacher gets killed. Many dead
Rampage killer - attackes classroom, untrained teacher manages to shoot or deter BG, lives saved.
The armed teacher does have a probability of decreasing the damage.
Once again, let those who have permits carry. They can't make it much worse than 30 dead - now can they?
We know that most of the concealed carry licensed population have little training. Thus, should we allow permits and licenses to continue? Or should we have more and stricter training.
So let's think:
Rampage killer - attacks classroom. Many dead.
Rampage killer - attacks classroom, untrained teacher gets killed. Many dead
Rampage killer - attackes classroom, untrained teacher manages to shoot or deter BG, lives saved.
The armed teacher does have a probability of decreasing the damage.
Once again, let those who have permits carry. They can't make it much worse than 30 dead - now can they?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
