New programs for school defense

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[LarryC]

I was there with Sailor. The learning curve was steep for the staff and the school brass who were present.

I think that the solution is multifaceted. That no one way is the correct way. It should be a combination of SRO's or armed private security where communities and districts can pay for them, some armed staff, and some volunteers, combined with solid SOPs for active shooter incidents, access control, and physical security assets. Each community will find its own fit and a way that works one town, will not work in other towns. State and local laws should back up whatever choice is made and lawmakers should work to provide whatever framework is needed to support these initiatives.

There are a lot of moving parts to this issue. I am glad people are waking up and considering looking at everything on the table.

Our local paper (Frankfort times) published an article stating that ALL school districts already are legally able to allow ANY armed guards into their schools by state law. This can be staff (teachers, janitors, other staff) or hired police officers or hired security staff. Up to the School administration, not sure what person(s) are authorized to do this - school board?, Superintendent?.

 

[Firefighter56]

That is a problem... there might be schools where teachers don't want to volunteer.

But wouldn't it advantageous for a teacher who is willing? Might be a nice thing to put on an application...

"I am a LTCH holder" "I would voluntarily sign up for school security team" (and receive hazardous duty pay)

The fact is... there is an obvious market for those willing. And with any market, if there is a demand, there will be a supply.

Just a thought

I'm not arguing the fact that there should be, I agree with you there. I am simply stating that there are schools out there that don't have people that are capable of doing the job that are currently working there. One example is an older smaller elementary school where the teachers are mostly female and are all nearing retirement, and the ones who aren't are all newly hired just out of college women. I realize that I am stereo-typing here and this isn't always the case, but which one of those would you rather have the gun to defend the kids, the 60 YOF ready for retirement that isn't as agile or quick as she used to be or the 24 YOF who has just graduated from college, has never lived on her own and still depends on mommy and daddy for everything? Either of those could be an excellent shot and be better than I could ever be and have missed their calling as a big city SWAT team member, but those would be few and far between.

Yes I do think that if they are willing to do the job that they should be allowed but I also think they should have training. In Indiana a person can get a LTCH and have never even touched a gun. Just because they have a LTCH doesn't mean they can protect my kids. I'm not in LE and I am not trained in active shooter situations so I can't even start to give examples of what they should be looking for to engage a shooter but I can say it would not be as simple as pointing and shooting. Imagine the implications if they missed and hit a student behind their target.

There is a certian mindset and certian things that people need to do to be able to fill this role, no just "have gun will shoot". I'm not just talking about an NRA Basic Pistol course either. While those are excellen courses, I'm not depending on them to protect my kids.

I also think that schools should not be gun free zones. If you have a LTCH you should be allowed to carry here as well. They should be no different than if I am walking into the local Wal-Mart. I am aware of what contradictions I just made, special training vs. anyone can carry. The difference is Johnny's dad who CC's isn't there as a school security guard to protect my kids he's just there to eat lunch with Johnny.

There are several other measures that should be taken for school security also. There should be NO unlocked doors during school hours unless they open directly into the office. There should ALWAYS be someone at the front desk in the office to greet people when they come in. This maintains control of who is in the building. I know if someone wants in bad enough they will get in but this will at least deter their activity and make it more difficult.

The active shooter protocals vary from school to school and they aren't all doing things the way they should be done. I am privy to a little more info than some with the position my wife is in.

 

[Firefighter56]

Our local paper (Frankfort times) published an article stating that ALL school districts already are legally able to allow ANY armed guards into their schools by state law. This can be staff (teachers, janitors, other staff) or hired police officers or hired security staff. Up to the School administration, not sure what person(s) are authorized to do this - school board?, Superintendent?.

This is a School Policy change. It is usually the School Board but some school districts could give this responsibility to the Superintendent. That is a true statement. Texas for one is the same way and they actually have school systems that do this already. I know that there are some schools in Indiana that have School Officers but the officers are on the local PD and are sworn Police Officers so they can carry in the school regardless of the school policy.

 

[the1kidd03]

He's probably under the impression that "armed personnel" somehow inherently means OC. Point out that they SHOULD be required to have appropriate training to include retention training.

My recommendations:
1.Advocate CC for teachers who are willing to do so
2.Require certain training for ALL who will be designated or volunteering
3.If you can get members of the community willing to volunteer a day per month or something, go for it (provided they get the training as well)

I agree that there is a LARGE percentage of vets which are only required to qual with rifles once a year, maybe twice. There are still plenty of combat vets and infantrymen which had much more experience and/or training both MIL sanctioned and otherwise. Those who took their job seriously sought out as much training "off the record" as they could. I would recommend staying away from non MP or infantry vets. Of course, that is unless they've taken the necessary training you set forth as a requirement to begin with.

 

[lucky4034]

I'm not arguing the fact that there should be, I agree with you there. I am simply stating that there are schools out there that don't have people that are capable of doing the job that are currently working there. One example is an older smaller elementary school where the teachers are mostly female and are all nearing retirement, and the ones who aren't are all newly hired just out of college women. I realize that I am stereo-typing here and this isn't always the case, but which one of those would you rather have the gun to defend the kids, the 60 YOF ready for retirement that isn't as agile or quick as she used to be or the 24 YOF who has just graduated from college, has never lived on her own and still depends on mommy and daddy for everything? Either of those could be an excellent shot and be better than I could ever be and have missed their calling as a big city SWAT team member, but those would be few and far between.

Yes I do think that if they are willing to do the job that they should be allowed but I also think they should have training. In Indiana a person can get a LTCH and have never even touched a gun. Just because they have a LTCH doesn't mean they can protect my kids. I'm not in LE and I am not trained in active shooter situations so I can't even start to give examples of what they should be looking for to engage a shooter but I can say it would not be as simple as pointing and shooting. Imagine the implications if they missed and hit a student behind their target.

There is a certian mindset and certian things that people need to do to be able to fill this role, no just "have gun will shoot". I'm not just talking about an NRA Basic Pistol course either. While those are excellen courses, I'm not depending on them to protect my kids.

I also think that schools should not be gun free zones. If you have a LTCH you should be allowed to carry here as well. They should be no different than if I am walking into the local Wal-Mart. I am aware of what contradictions I just made, special training vs. anyone can carry. The difference is Johnny's dad who CC's isn't there as a school security guard to protect my kids he's just there to eat lunch with Johnny.

There are several other measures that should be taken for school security also. There should be NO unlocked doors during school hours unless they open directly into the office. There should ALWAYS be someone at the front desk in the office to greet people when they come in. This maintains control of who is in the building. I know if someone wants in bad enough they will get in but this will at least deter their activity and make it more difficult.

The active shooter protocals vary from school to school and they aren't all doing things the way they should be done. I am privy to a little more info than some with the position my wife is in.

I think training for WHOEVER it is... is a forgone conclusion? I'm not of the mindset that schools necessarily need to be open carry fests for anyone who wants to bring one in....

To be honest, the only people who need access to a firearm are the people trained in response. I personally wouldn't care if they kept schools gun free zones with the exception of response team members to avoid confusion.... I can see scenarios where 5-10 unidentified staff come running around the school with guns drawn and shooting at each other in confusion. That would be the last thing you want.

Keep in mind that what we have is a societal mindset problem... Mass murders in public schools is the latest fad... the goal is to change that mindset by making schools across the board unattractive targets not make every school an inpenetrable fortress. There are not enough measures ANY school can take to make them completely water proof... Covering ALL ANGLES is not realistic and while planning should be comprehensive... I don't know why anyone would want to turn public schools into any more of a prison than they already are.

 

[lucky4034]

He's probably under the impression that "armed personnel" somehow inherently means OC. Point out that they SHOULD be required to have appropriate training to include retention training.

Actually, what I was saying is that if your school DOES NOT have people willing to fill your needs, then next time you hire a teacher/staff member...

...Look for the guy who says "I have my LTCH and I am willing to join a security team"

Just like any other job, if their is a high demand for certain skills, you can increase your chances of getting hired by obtaining those skills... if a school needs a high school football coach... then next time they hire a Physical Education teacher, ask him if he has coaching experience.

Young teachers, could pre-qualify themselves and get an edge up on the job market by becoming LTCH holders and being willing to join security teams.


This is no different than someone who wants to work at a gym, and decides to seek getting certified to be a personal trainer! It just makes sense.

 

[mrortega]

Update to the original post:

I met with the safety officer of my local public school corp today after the superintendent asked him to set something up to listen to what I had to say. To my surprise a deputy sheriff and the school's Resource Officer, a retired ISP trooper, were also there. We had a very good conversation. I asked a few questions about what they would do WHEN a shooter gets in. I also brought up questions about staff and teachers who might have a restraining order against someone and was assured they are up to the minute on that issue. They pointed out wire glass windows and other steps they've taken to slow down a person attempting to enter until response forces can get there.

There were other steps that they said have been taken and plans that are in place that they couldn't discuss but it was apparent that they've spent a lot of time on them. They were also open, somewhat, to armed, trained and screened volunteers. They are concerned with who might be involved, legal and liability issues, what the local school can do and what the legislature might have to do. I simply pointed out that no matter what their plans and programs are God help us all if a shooter gets in and there is no one there with a gun to confront them. I pointed out that if you constantly play defense the other guy is eventually going to score.

I brought up the point of perhaps the sheriff appointing special deputies specifically for the schools. That is one possibility they said. All in all it was a good start and I feel a little better about the fact that they are doing a lot of planning but the fact remains that even 6 weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre most school still don't have an armed presence in every building.

I failed to mention that I wore an empty holster and showed it to the 3 gentlemen and pointed out that I was up on IC and carry everywhere except where it is illegal. I mentioned that it is a shame there wasn't a visitor such as myself at Sandy Hook on December 14. They didn't have much to say. After the LEOs left the safety officer and I had a much more detailed conversation about our firearms and the LTCH.