I think the "who is the bad guy" question is easily overcome with training for the armed school personnel to be educated to know when to surrender and yield to proper authorities. I suppose the question I might have for this issue is how active would an armed individual employed by the school be in "looking" for the source of trouble? I could surely see the difficulty in identifying a shooter then. However, in my mind's assumption, I picture those that carry more as a passive protector of kids than a seek and destroy person. Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps there would be both.

 

Therein lies one of the problems. If the argument to have armed teachers is that first responders will take too long to get there, then it would seem by association the armed teachers DO have the authority to seek out and destroy. Otherwise the small amount of armed teachers just stay and defend only their classroom- unless, that is, we intend to arm a teacher in each classroom which obviously won't work.

 

Thus, the teachers on their hunt for the target become targets for the first responders. I don't care what kind of training is given, or ID code the armed teachers have to identify themselves, when every police department in a 10 mile area decends on that school, pandemonium ensues and mistakes happen.

 

Listen- I am a gun rights guy. I fully believe in our right to bear arms and defend ourselves- but there is a better way. Let the teachers teach and let the law enforcement, enforce the law. Take all the money you were planning on spending on a yearly basis to arm and train teachers and get a bonafide law enforcement officer who has had a lifetime of invaluable training for these situations. Every officer worth his salt is equal to 10 teachers in that situation.

11 Washington school administrators to carry guns

 

 

While I am not opposed to the concept, I see two glaring problems. First, it appears those armed will be known to the public. The problem with that is, who do you think and active shooter will target first? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If the active shooter has no idea how many armed people he will face, he is much less likely to attack. Think of the cinema shooter in Colorado. Reports said he drove past two cinemas which allowed concealed carry and went to one that does not.

 

The second problem is see is 16 hours of training. 16 hours???? To get your concealed carry license in KY you need 8 hours, they think 16 more will be enough to adequately train someone to take on such a responsibility. I am thinking 40 hours up front with continued training on going training as a bare minimum. I also think is should be set up in a way that minimum requirements need to be met so it is possible that some may not make it and be approved to carry in the school. I know Jefferson and other counties have volunteer deputy sheriffs I believe called reserve deputy sheriffs. I would think the training program possibly be as exhaustive as a reserve deputy sheriff would receive and continue to receive on an on going basis.

Therein lies one of the problems. If the argument to have armed teachers is that first responders will take too long to get there, then it would seem by association the armed teachers DO have the authority to seek out and destroy. Otherwise the small amount of armed teachers just stay and defend only their classroom- unless, that is, we intend to arm a teacher in each classroom which obviously won't work.

 

Thus, the teachers on their hunt for the target become targets for the first responders. I don't care what kind of training is given, or ID code the armed teachers have to identify themselves, when every police department in a 10 mile area decends on that school, pandemonium ensues and mistakes happen.

 

Listen- I am a gun rights guy. I fully believe in our right to bear arms and defend ourselves- but there is a better way. Let the teachers teach and let the law enforcement, enforce the law. Take all the money you were planning on spending on a yearly basis to arm and train teachers and get a bonafide law enforcement officer who has had a lifetime of invaluable training for these situations. Every officer worth his salt is equal to 10 teachers in that situation.

 

I couldn't have said it better.

11 Washington school administrators to carry guns

 

 

While I am not opposed to the concept, I see two glaring problems. First, it appears those armed will be known to the public. The problem with that is, who do you think and active shooter will target first? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If the active shooter has no idea how many armed people he will face, he is much less likely to attack. Think of the cinema shooter in Colorado. Reports said he drove past two cinemas which allowed concealed carry and went to one that does not.

 

The second problem is see is 16 hours of training. 16 hours???? To get your concealed carry license in KY you need 8 hours, they think 16 more will be enough to adequately train someone to take on such a responsibility. I am thinking 40 hours up front with continued training on going training as a bare minimum. I also think is should be set up in a way that minimum requirements need to be met so it is possible that some may not make it and be approved to carry in the school. I know Jefferson and other counties have volunteer deputy sheriffs I believe called reserve deputy sheriffs. I would think the training program possibly be as exhaustive as a reserve deputy sheriff would receive and continue to receive on an on going basis.

 

The problem then lies when that one officer is taken out, then what, now you have no one to stop the threat.

The problem then lies when that one officer is taken out, then what, now you have no one to stop the threat.

 

Correct, who the officer is and how many there are in each school HAS to be anonymous to the public.

Why can't each school afford a school resource officer, seems that would be a good start.

 

I also have no issue training and arming members of the school staff.

 

11 Washington school administrators to carry guns

 

 

While I am not opposed to the concept, I see two glaring problems. First, it appears those armed will be known to the public. The problem with that is, who do you think and active shooter will target first? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If the active shooter has no idea how many armed people he will face, he is much less likely to attack. Think of the cinema shooter in Colorado. Reports said he drove past two cinemas which allowed concealed carry and went to one that does not.

 

The second problem is see is 16 hours of training. 16 hours???? To get your concealed carry license in KY you need 8 hours, they think 16 more will be enough to adequately train someone to take on such a responsibility. I am thinking 40 hours up front with continued training on going training as a bare minimum. I also think is should be set up in a way that minimum requirements need to be met so it is possible that some may not make it and be approved to carry in the school. I know Jefferson and other counties have volunteer deputy sheriffs I believe called reserve deputy sheriffs. I would think the training program possibly be as exhaustive as a reserve deputy sheriff would receive and continue to receive on an on going basis.

 

Wouldn't it make it much more likely that the shooter would drive past any school with an armed staff like the Colorado movie shooter?

11 Washington school administrators to carry guns

 

 

While I am not opposed to the concept, I see two glaring problems. First, it appears those armed will be known to the public. The problem with that is, who do you think and active shooter will target first? Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose? If the active shooter has no idea how many armed people he will face, he is much less likely to attack. Think of the cinema shooter in Colorado. Reports said he drove past two cinemas which allowed concealed carry and went to one that does not.

 

The second problem is see is 16 hours of training. 16 hours???? To get your concealed carry license in KY you need 8 hours, they think 16 more will be enough to adequately train someone to take on such a responsibility. I am thinking 40 hours up front with continued training on going training as a bare minimum. I also think is should be set up in a way that minimum requirements need to be met so it is possible that some may not make it and be approved to carry in the school. I know Jefferson and other counties have volunteer deputy sheriffs I believe called reserve deputy sheriffs. I would think the training program possibly be as exhaustive as a reserve deputy sheriff would receive and continue to receive on an on going basis.

 

I would be in favor of NOT listing who is and isn't carrying in the schools.

 

40 hours of in service over the summer would be easy to do, give the teachers 5 more paid days and then re-certify them each summer.

Wouldn't it make it much more likely that the shooter would drive past any school with an armed staff like the Colorado movie shooter?

 

In the past, haven't almost all school shootings been a student of that school or have the been cases of some outside person going into a school? In the case of an outsider, yes it would make sense to have the fact that armed security is present. I was going on the assumption that the shooter would be a kid attending the school, who knows the layout of the school and who the Resource Officer is to take him/her out first.

Why can't each school afford a school resource officer, seems that would be a good start.

 

I also have no issue training and arming members of the school staff.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45281[/ATTACH]

 

I am fine with either, the problem with a uniformed officer is that he/she will be the first target to eliminate the security.

Therein lies one of the problems. If the argument to have armed teachers is that first responders will take too long to get there, then it would seem by association the armed teachers DO have the authority to seek out and destroy. Otherwise the small amount of armed teachers just stay and defend only their classroom- unless, that is, we intend to arm a teacher in each classroom which obviously won't work.

 

Thus, the teachers on their hunt for the target become targets for the first responders. I don't care what kind of training is given, or ID code the armed teachers have to identify themselves, when every police department in a 10 mile area decends on that school, pandemonium ensues and mistakes happen.

 

Listen- I am a gun rights guy. I fully believe in our right to bear arms and defend ourselves- but there is a better way. Let the teachers teach and let the law enforcement, enforce the law. Take all the money you were planning on spending on a yearly basis to arm and train teachers and get a bonafide law enforcement officer who has had a lifetime of invaluable training for these situations. Every officer worth his salt is equal to 10 teachers in that situation.

Well, I can say that I recently spoke at length to a superintendent of schools in KY about this very situation and without going into great detail, he verbalized some of your points and obviously had given the topic some serious thought and he is 100% opposed to teachers carrying, and for many of those same issues. So, I don't know what the answer would be. I suppose that I'd be for increasing the school tax if that's what it took to have another officer in each school. And the funny thing about it all, my conversation was while we were both at the gun range, just for perspective.

Maybe I'm wrong, you know, because I'm not a lunatic, but maybe knowing you may not have the ability to inflict as much damage at a school with armed teachers is enough to deter someone from attacking a particular school.

 

Obviously, they aren't afraid of death so it may not matter but most of these nut jobs want to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. Going against someone else with a gun may deter them a bit. Similar to deer hunters if you armed the deer. You'd have a lot less hunters.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

I think I read this correctly. There was another school shooting today. It's the 74th SINCE Sandy Hook.

 

No matter what side of this issue you are on that stat will support you.

In the past, haven't almost all school shootings been a student of that school or have the been cases of some outside person going into a school? In the case of an outsider, yes it would make sense to have the fact that armed security is present. I was going on the assumption that the shooter would be a kid attending the school, who knows the layout of the school and who the Resource Officer is to take him/her out first.

 

Depends.

 

Newtown, Conn. was a kid with some serious issues going into his Mom's kindergarden classroom. Jonesboro, Arkansas was some kids who didn't go to school that day waiting outside, pulling a fire alarm, then shooting as people came out.

 

Heath High and Columbine was a student or group of students opening fire on classmates (I know Columbine had some specific targets).