Many have proposed just what I wrote. The guns could not be in an unlocked drawer or cabinet. Even with the guns locked away those in the building would stand a better chance of survival than no guns at all. There would be training provided, maybe it could be more than what they are currently talking about and these individuals will have passed background checks. Far better than someone knowing they are entering a gun free zone.

 

Definitely a step in the right direction but generally speaking I would call this an educators solution to crime. On the other hand Bert, Doc, and myself are taking a tactical approach to crime.

Why not have retired police officers, as substitutes in the schools. Obviously the retired officers will need some basic training in education and classroom management, but it would make the most sense.

 

Turds in a punch bowl.

My guess is it would be deeper and may involve some psychological review?????

At face value the background check appears to be a "feel good statement". But, I could definitely be proven wrong on this one.

At face value the background check appears to be a "feel good statement". But, I could definitely be proven wrong on this one.

 

I believe your are correct as it relates to firearms purchases and may extend to this situation. HIPPA/privacy laws often keep the needed information from being subject to a background check therefore rendering the checks suspect at best.

I think there are a lot of "feel good" aspects of this idea that don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

Boone County already has resource officers in their schools. Why are they inadequate?

 

How would this idea have impacted other schools where gun violence occurred? Anecdotally, it seems that school shooters have attacked schools that had police officers in the schools or took hostages or their own lives when met with resistance. So, it doesn't seem the presence of weapons in the school is much of a deterrent to the deranged. These aren't people looking to commit a crime and escape.

 

The proposal introduces weapons into an environment where there previously were none. To be effective, the guns have to be easily accessible, which makes them vulnerable to unwarranted access. How will the proposal manage the tradeoff between access and effectiveness?

 

Relatedly, how are they going to justify keeping the identities of the armed educators secret? Surely parents sending their children to a public school ought to have a right to know whether their child is in the classroom with an armed person. Does this change the teacher/student dynamic?

 

As for the educators with a weapon, what will their responsibility be? If a shooter breaks in are they going to be asked to leave their classroom and hunt for them? How are they going to be trained to do this? How will police distinguish them from the shooter? And can a public school actually authorize or require a non-law enforcement professional to do such a thing?

 

With rare exceptions, these people are mostly going to be amateurs. Yes, marksmanship and safe-handling can be taught, but how are they going to handle the stress of a real situation, or more importantly, distinguish a real threat from other situations? Where will the threshold of evidence be before an educator can wield their weapon? We have at least two threads in this forum where someone was wrongfully killed because their shooter believed the victim had a weapon, and one of those shooters was a police officer. Mistakes are going to happen. What happens if the educator mistakenly shoots an innocent person?

 

It just doesn't seem like this is a well-thought out proposal or a serious attempt to make schools safer, but more probably a "feel good" political ploy.

I believe your are correct as it relates to firearms purchases and may extend to this situation. HIPPA/privacy laws often keep the needed information from being subject to a background check therefore rendering the checks suspect at best.

 

I, and you may also, fully acknowledge that the amount of time and expense to get a teacher screened, trained and qualified may simply be too much for a school to absorb. I am fine with the idea but putting it into place may not work.

I, and you may also, fully acknowledge that the amount of time and expense to get a teacher screened, trained and qualified may simply be too much for a school to absorb. I am fine with the idea but putting it into place may not work.

 

I believe that one of the news reports on TV last night said that the Sheriff's department had offered to do the training, and allow the usage of their range for practicing. Plus, I guess they already do the screening. So, the only "cost" to the schools might be the ammunition used in practice.

I think there are a lot of "feel good" aspects of this idea that don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

Boone County already has resource officers in their schools. Why are they inadequate?

 

How would this idea have impacted other schools where gun violence occurred? Anecdotally, it seems that school shooters have attacked schools that had police officers in the schools or took hostages or their own lives when met with resistance. So, it doesn't seem the presence of weapons in the school is much of a deterrent to the deranged. These aren't people looking to commit a crime and escape.

 

The proposal introduces weapons into an environment where there previously were none. To be effective, the guns have to be easily accessible, which makes them vulnerable to unwarranted access. How will the proposal manage the tradeoff between access and effectiveness?

 

Relatedly, how are they going to justify keeping the identities of the armed educators secret? Surely parents sending their children to a public school ought to have a right to know whether their child is in the classroom with an armed person. Does this change the teacher/student dynamic?

 

As for the educators with a weapon, what will their responsibility be? If a shooter breaks in are they going to be asked to leave their classroom and hunt for them? How are they going to be trained to do this? How will police distinguish them from the shooter? And can a public school actually authorize or require a non-law enforcement professional to do such a thing?

 

With rare exceptions, these people are mostly going to be amateurs. Yes, marksmanship and safe-handling can be taught, but how are they going to handle the stress of a real situation, or more importantly, distinguish a real threat from other situations? Where will the threshold of evidence be before an educator can wield their weapon? We have at least two threads in this forum where someone was wrongfully killed because their shooter believed the victim had a weapon, and one of those shooters was a police officer. Mistakes are going to happen. What happens if the educator mistakenly shoots an innocent person?

 

It just doesn't seem like this is a well-thought out proposal or a serious attempt to make schools safer, but more probably a "feel good" political ploy.

 

Very well thought out response. I agree with many of your points and beg some of the same questions. At the end of the day, I see no way to consistently "train" educators in this manner. Let the teachers teach and the police officers police. The same problems happen in reverse when we send our highly trained military in areas to be "peace keepers". You want more people armed at your kids schools? OK- there are plenty of retired military and or law enforcement officers out in the community who could provide that service.

Very well thought out response. I agree with many of your points and beg some of the same questions. At the end of the day, I see no way to consistently "train" educators in this manner. Let the teachers teach and the police officers police. The same problems happen in reverse when we send our highly trained military in areas to be "peace keepers". You want more people armed at your kids schools? OK- there are plenty of retired military and or law enforcement officers out in the community who could provide that service.

At what cost financially for the district?

Boone County already has resource officers in their schools. Why are they inadequate? .

 

They may be, I am speaking in more general terms.

 

How would this idea have impacted other schools where gun violence occurred? Anecdotally, it seems that school shooters have attacked schools that had police officers in the schools or took hostages or their own lives when met with resistance. So, it doesn't seem the presence of weapons in the school is much of a deterrent to the deranged. These aren't people looking to commit a crime and escape..

 

I cannot think of a case where a shooting occurred where their were armed officials or the active shooter didn't make them his first target. If I am an active shooter, I want unarmed victims or to be able to take out the armed officials first.

 

The proposal introduces weapons into an environment where there previously were none. To be effective, the guns have to be easily accessible, which makes them vulnerable to unwarranted access. How will the proposal manage the tradeoff between access and effectiveness? .

 

When I am carrying concealed, the holster is inside my waistband and covered by at least a shirt, possibly more. I don't see how it is vulnerable to others, especially if they don't know I have it on me. I have been standing right next to a member on this board. Knowing he often carried concealed, I purposely looked around his waist and pockets to see if he was carrying. I assumed he wasn't. I later found out he was and was concealing it that well that even when looking for it, I didn't notice it.

 

Relatedly, how are they going to justify keeping the identities of the armed educators secret? Surely parents sending their children to a public school ought to have a right to know whether their child is in the classroom with an armed person. Does this change the teacher/student dynamic?.

 

This is the part that will not be popular with many parents. If the teacher is properly trained, I look at it as no different than standing in line next to a cop in plain clothes who is concealed carrying.

 

As for the educators with a weapon, what will their responsibility be? If a shooter breaks in are they going to be asked to leave their classroom and hunt for them? How are they going to be trained to do this? How will police distinguish them from the shooter? And can a public school actually authorize or require a non-law enforcement professional to do such a thing? .

 

Not sure here. The training could be limited to instructing the teacher to simply secure their area, ie the classroom and the hall way. I guess it could also be to seek out the gunfire and try to engage the shooter. Again, how much training do you want to pay for.

 

With rare exceptions, these people are mostly going to be amateurs. Yes, marksmanship and safe-handling can be taught, but how are they going to handle the stress of a real situation, or more importantly, distinguish a real threat from other situations?

 

I am told some counties actually have volunteer deputies in the sheriff's department. I am guessing these guys do not have the responsibility of the paid deputies but I am pretty sure are given the training that should the need to engage a shooter, they will be ready. I am guessing the teachers would have a similar role.

 

Where will the threshold of evidence be before an educator can wield their weapon? We have at least two threads in this forum where someone was wrongfully killed because their shooter believed the victim had a weapon, and one of those shooters was a police officer. Mistakes are going to happen. What happens if the educator mistakenly shoots an innocent person?.

 

I guess it would be handled the same way as if a police officer mistakenly shoots an innocent person. It is a risk that can happen. What you have to weigh is, which risk is higher, possibly shooting an innocent person or doing nothing till police arrive and a carnage going on during that wait.

Well thought out response Bert. And my question is this: Can we not address these concerns and formulate a plan that would work?

...and I'll add this..this is the exact type of dialogue that needs to take place to make this effective and safe. Instead of these concerns preventing it from happening, why can't these concerns be addressed and dealt with in an appropriate manner, satisfactorily?

Sure, I'll let these teachers have guns.....:ohbrother:

 

SIX TEACHERS lawyer up after heroin found in elementary school bathroom

Sure, I'll let these teachers have guns.....:ohbrother:

 

SIX TEACHERS lawyer up after heroin found in elementary school bathroom

Yeah, because those would likely be the one's carrying. If that's your best retort, then there isn't a profession out there without outliers.

Does that mean then that drug testing would be done? If not, how do you know these would not likely be the ones carrying if they pass a background check. Just another variable to throw into the equation.

There are just too many "what ifs" for me.