Armed guards

[praveen]

This idea is gaining a lot of popularity among NRA members and gun owners in general along with some of the liberal population as well.

I am going to be the bad guy here to say that we are setting ourselves up on a slippery slope that is worse than any kind of 'gun control'.

The flaw in the idea of having armed guards in schools is that it will surely work. i.e it will curb the shootings that happen in schools. (Although *without* airport TSA like security, many things will slip through)

However, schools are not the only soft targets. Movie theaters, shopping malls, public parks, airports and busy streets are all places where people come and go as they please without any checks/scans.

Once the school idea works, its only a matter of (not much) time before all these other public places will adopt the same idea. Why not have armed guards in Movie theaters? and how come people just walk into an Airport without any checking?

I am not imagining this. I have seen the exact same thing happen. When faced with danger/terror, people generally choose to give up rights in favor of increased security.
I was born and brought up in India and before 1993, things were fairly relaxed. A parent could enter a school uninvited to meet teachers, you could go to the airports to see your family off, walk into shopping malls without getting frisked etc.

Then a lot of bombings happened in 1993 (there is a lot of cross-border terrorism in India). And there were calls for increase security. It didn't take long before there were armed guards virtually everywhere. Schools, banks, airports (yes, nobody can enter an airport without showing a valid ticket and an ID), malls and after 26/11 even some restaurants have metal detectors and frisking.

In US, we saw a lot of that happen after 9/11 as well.

So, what is wrong with armed guards everywhere you go? Walk into your favorite restaurant, just go through the metal detector, a light frisking and off you go. What is so terrible about this?

Having armed guards everywhere cannot and does not coexist with public gun ownership. Not only people who hate gun owners get another argument that since we have guards everywhere, why do you need a gun for self-protection, there is also an argument that regular people having guns is harmful for the guards themselves.
Having a lot of armed guards is akin to calling the national guard.

I don't have a short-term solution for school (and other) shootings because there isn't one. The problem can only be solved slowly by bringing up a responsible generation. And if the society fails to do that, it suffers either by shootings or by giving up freedoms.

 

[ED3]

This idea is gaining a lot of popularity among NRA members and gun owners in general along with some of the liberal population as well.

I am going to be the bad guy here to say that we are setting ourselves up on a slippery slope that is worse than any kind of 'gun control'.

The flaw in the idea of having armed guards in schools is that it will surely work. i.e it will curb the shootings that happen in schools. (Although *without* airport TSA like security, many things will slip through)

However, schools are not the only soft targets. Movie theaters, shopping malls, public parks, airports and busy streets are all places where people come and go as they please without any checks/scans.

Once the school idea works, its only a matter of (not much) time before all these other public places will adopt the same idea. Why not have armed guards in Movie theaters? and how come people just walk into an Airport without any checking?

I am not imagining this. I have seen the exact same thing happen. When faced with danger/terror, people generally choose to give up rights in favor of increased security.
I was born and brought up in India and before 1993, things were fairly relaxed. A parent could enter a school uninvited to meet teachers, you could go to the airports to see your family off, walk into shopping malls without getting frisked etc.

Then a lot of bombings happened in 1993 (there is a lot of cross-border terrorism in India). And there were calls for increase security. It didn't take long before there were armed guards virtually everywhere. Schools, banks, airports (yes, nobody can enter an airport without showing a valid ticket and an ID), malls and after 26/11 even some restaurants have metal detectors and frisking.

In US, we saw a lot of that happen after 9/11 as well.

So, what is wrong with armed guards everywhere you go? Walk into your favorite restaurant, just go through the metal detector, a light frisking and off you go. What is so terrible about this?

Having armed guards everywhere cannot and does not coexist with public gun ownership. Not only people who hate gun owners get another argument that since we have guards everywhere, why do you need a gun for self-protection, there is also an argument that regular people having guns is harmful for the guards themselves.
Having a lot of armed guards is akin to calling the national guard.

I don't have a short-term solution for school (and other) shootings because there isn't one. The problem can only be solved slowly by bringing up a responsible generation. And if the society fails to do that, it suffers either by shootings or by giving up freedoms.

I had the opportunity two days ago to attend a presentation by Dr John Lott, JR.

He has studied mass shootings-as defined as an shooting specific incident (as opposed to robbery, gang/ drug related etc) with 4 or more victims. Based on statistics he compiled, he felt that an obvious armed presence was not the solution. He pointed out that the perpetrators of these shootings spend weeks, and months planning, based on observing their potential victims.

Two elements that became clear were that their threat assessment/ probability for success valued first and foremost, a 'gun free' zone.
The second most important factor was being able to discern what security existed.
Lott said that the uniformed security, and even school resource officers were targeted to be shot first.
Apparently a big deterrent to the perpetrator was unknown security, as would be presented with randomly armed (school) staff, and employees.

As to the argument that armed 'regular people' are either an additional threat, because they'll end up shooting a good guy, or are more likely to be victims of law enforcement responders simply hasn't held up, according to Lott's research.

What the solution is I don't have a comprehensive answer, but as Lott pointed out with his data - when adjusted for population, Europe, with far greater firearms restrictions than the USA, has the same incidence of mass shootings, and victims, as well as having experienced the highest number of casualties for individual events.

 

[Jefferson]

lott is a pretty bright boy

many do not know that before lott became educated he was against guns and firearms ownership and

he started to study gun violence as one who tests a theory that the opponents of gun control had been shouting

he found out through research that we were right and has done studies ever since and become the foremost authority on gun violence in north America and possibly the world

it is a good story and one that should be told he is not just a yes man looking to support the cause in which he believed
Jeff

 

[Milo 2.0]

I had the opportunity two days ago to attend a presentation by Dr John Lott, JR.

He has studied mass shootings-as defined as an shooting specific incident (as opposed to robbery, gang/ drug related etc) with 4 or more victims. Based on statistics he compiled, he felt that an obvious armed presence was not the solution. He pointed out that the perpetrators of these shootings spend weeks, and months planning, based on observing their potential victims.

Two elements that became clear were that their threat assessment/ probability for success valued first and foremost, a 'gun free' zone.
The second most important factor was being able to discern what security existed.
Lott said that the uniformed security, and even school resource officers were targeted to be shot first.
Apparently a big deterrent to the perpetrator was unknown security, as would be presented with randomly armed (school) staff, and employees.

First, we need to do something to lessen the frequency of these school shootings. Now.
2nd, I'm sure the guy did some studying on this, but most school shootings have been done by students themselves, and I'd bet their first magazine fired is the deadliest. See where this is going, a trained person would take security out, a pissy pants coward just wants soft targets.

 

[T-shooter]

Something needs to be done and at this point I can only think of is metal detectors on all the doors, keeping the doors locked, monitoring who comes in and armed people in the schools with the proper training and mindset. I can see the potential of a first responder shooting a teacher holding a gun.

But what will not work is passing any more anti-gun laws. It's illegal to go into the school with a gun and illegal to shoot anyone. Has those laws prevented anything? ... NO! A good portion of the shooters were on mind or mood altering drugs, anti-depressants. If you passed a law that no one could posses a gun in the country and everyone had to turn them all in or else, there would still be shootings and if some people couldn't get a gun, they would use a knife, a vehicle, a bomb, fire, acid, or who knows what else?

There will be no easy solution but every life and injury save is a plus.

 

[Richard Coody]

well metal detectors and.armed guards work at the courthouses. Sure is an expensive solution when we are cutting funding for public schools.

With all these mass shooters the danger signs were there. Family and friends knew something was up. Medicating the mentally ill and turning them loose on the streets might not be such a great idea.

 

[JRS]

And with the hundreds/thousands of backpacks carried into the schools by students, they would have to add X-Ray machines along with trained personnel. They would have to leave home 2 hours early to get through security before class begins. Do we really want to subject the students and teachers to that kind of security? It would end up like entering a nuke plant. A half dozen X-Ray machines with an officer at each one, half dozen metal detectors with an officer at each one, half dozen puffer machines. Look at the amount of security at sports venues now, and they too are gun free zones.

 

[geraldgee]

Perhaps the issuing of security badges could be considered. Any number of algorithms could be developed to prevent unauthorized people from gaining access yet still allowing students freedom to come and go despite long weekends and school holidays. It would require a school district's IT department to maintain a robust security protocol but it certainly could be done.

 

[ourway77]

There were plenty warning signs that if acted on the shooting could have been prevented The FBI have been to busy trying to trap Trump and the collusion with the Russians

 

[Olde Man]

The truth of the matter is that your child is in greater danger of being hit by lightning than shot at school. Our present society prevents people from stating simple facts for fear of persecution so the simple truths are not told. Anyone rallying to this very regrettable incident has a political or personal feel good agenda at hand and is using your compassion to their benefit . Sad but true the best action to take would be none. Spend our tax dollars and efforts on something that does some good not bullet proof glass in our schools.

 

[rijndael]

add X-Ray machines along with trained personnel.

It will be implemented as effectively as the TSA, which has a missed weapon rate of about 95%. http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/07/03/tsa-fails-tests-95-percent/

 

[JRS]

It will be implemented as effectively as the TSA, which has a missed weapon rate of about 95%. http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/07/03/tsa-fails-tests-95-percent/

TSA employees have very little to zero experience when hired. Experienced personnel know what to look for.

 

[rijndael]

What's the carrot to attract the trained people? I doubt it'll be the pay.

 

[JRS]

What's the carrot to attract the trained people? I doubt it'll be the pay.

The pay scale is one of the biggest factors. Another is the rate of failure during the background investigation, along with the drug test procedure. TSA employees are among the lowest paid Federal employees.

 

[rijndael]

I don't see that happening as long as teacher unions are involved. They're not going to let a screener's pay get close to the hourly rate of a teacher's (or administrator's) pay, and it's not like most teachers are getting decent pay.

IMO, you'll end up with the same situation you have with SROs. You'll get those who are Retired On Duty, looking for an easy last few years, or ones who can't cut it elsewhere.

 

[JRS]

I don't see that happening as long as teacher unions are involved. They're not going to let a screener's pay get close to the hourly rate of a teacher's (or administrator's) pay, and it's not like most teachers are getting decent pay.

IMO, you'll end up with the same situation you have with SROs. You'll get those who are Retired On Duty, looking for an easy last few years, or ones who can't cut it elsewhere.

One of my neighbors is a teacher in our Twin Valley school district. To equal her yearly salary, you would have to make $30.00+ per hour for a 40 hour work week all year.

 

[rijndael]

In my area, the TSA worker's pay (with locality adjustment) is equal to a teacher's pay.

 

[Milo 2.0]

Tough situation for sure, no easy fix. Go to a concert or a gun free theater as an adult and get shot, it's a choice.
We mandate the children of this country be in school, in gun free zones.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Praveen is right that we need to make significant societal adjustments to increase the value of human life in the eyes of all members of society. So, the discussion is what to do until we make that happen?

Security is a comprehensive thing. Access controls, obvious security perimeters, concealed response capability, intelligence collection and analysis, etc., etc. are all required to decrease the probability that a criminal will attempt an attack. Additionally, the security level has to be high enough that if an attack is made, it is stopped quickly with a minimal number of injuries to innocents while not increasing the danger to those same innocents when there is not an attack.

One thing I will note about some of the suggestions above: Magnetometers are not the answer. Searching kids when they get to school is not the answer. Both are feel-good measures that are very much in the "do something" vein that we see the latest push for gun control come from.

Ok, enough ranting...

 

[ireload2]

This is a very emotional topic that is not being prioritized based on facts and statistics.
One of the facts is kids kill themselves and others at a higher rate than do mass murderers. They just do it one at a time by driving and texting or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Another is police shoot more people without justification than do mass murderers. Look at the level of cowardice and incompetence at Parkland, Fla.
Do you really want that kind of personnel in any capacity on any police force? Those bubbas might shoot their own mothers under a little stress.

A lot of people that cannot compete in the job market go into teaching and law enforcement...

I don't want to give up my rights to just make it easier to hire incompetent, lazy and CHEAP personnel who are just faking it to retirement.