Welcome to Beirut. I was going to say Afghanistan, but only the boys are allowed to go to school there.
Having one armed ‘first responder’ per campus is like the joke about NYC subway operators being required to stay at their jobs just before the nuke blows. In the three or five minutes it takes for a tragedy to unfold, too many names would be added to the list of casualties before, well, the responder responded.
And what if the responder is the first casualty, taken out because they’re the big challenge? What then? Everybody play Duck and Hide?
Because having an armed concealed carry person in the Clackamass Town Center shooting prevented mass casualties and most likely ultimately resulted in the shooter taking his own life.
Having a trained armed security personnel in a school would absolutely have a huge impact on potential threats.
1) A school is not a college campus–threat response would likely be under 60 seconds from first report. (My old HS had over 3000 students and you could get from one end to the other in a hurry in less than a minute.)
2) There are studies that show untrained “domestic terrorists” (because, lets really label these losers for what they are) do not want to engage a hard target. They want a soft, unprotected target to give them time to shoot/stab/kill, etc.
3) The responder would not be the first casualty, because they’re the RESPONDER. And again, not a hard target. The shooter wants victims, not opponents.
I wonder statistically how Clackamas would stack up against other sites of violence. At least in malls, they let Paul Blart carry a ‘something’.
1) I too went to a regional HS with as many students – but one end to the other would take at least 10 minutes at a brisk clip. Assuming of course that nobody else was jamming the halls, and the caller was clear on exactly what room / floor the problem was occurring.
2) I think Congresswoman Gabrielle Hayes and the other victims of the shooting probably had some degree of police protection at the site, but it didn’t stop this incident from unfolding.
3) If the designated responder is manning the checkpoint of entry, they certainly CAN be the first victim, with no one in a backup role. Unless the designated responder is isolated somewhere in the middle of the facility, capable of being anywhere ASAP.
My personal opinion is that the only schools which should have weapons are military academies. Make love, not war, man. Besides, guns don’t kill people. Deal with the problem before it becomes a bigger problem. Don’t build walls to protect the sunlight.
Allowing armed security personnel is much different from requiring armed personnel. The requirement in this case should focus on the training of armed personnel…not asking every school to provide someone — anyone — with armed weapons. As to those who are eager to volunteer their services, a pre-qualifying psych exam would be in order to help prevent if not eliminate the opportunity for a “protector” to become the “perpetrator”. Proceed with caution!
Welcome to Beirut. I was going to say Afghanistan, but only the boys are allowed to go to school there.
Having one armed ‘first responder’ per campus is like the joke about NYC subway operators being required to stay at their jobs just before the nuke blows. In the three or five minutes it takes for a tragedy to unfold, too many names would be added to the list of casualties before, well, the responder responded.
And what if the responder is the first casualty, taken out because they’re the big challenge? What then? Everybody play Duck and Hide?
Actually girls are required to go to school now in Afghanistan; however, getting there can be deadly.
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/03/160501527/for-afghan-girl-going-to-school-is-act-of-bravery
once it dawns on them that they willd be the first target the will chicken out.
Really?
Because having an armed concealed carry person in the Clackamass Town Center shooting prevented mass casualties and most likely ultimately resulted in the shooter taking his own life.
Having a trained armed security personnel in a school would absolutely have a huge impact on potential threats.
1) A school is not a college campus–threat response would likely be under 60 seconds from first report. (My old HS had over 3000 students and you could get from one end to the other in a hurry in less than a minute.)
2) There are studies that show untrained “domestic terrorists” (because, lets really label these losers for what they are) do not want to engage a hard target. They want a soft, unprotected target to give them time to shoot/stab/kill, etc.
3) The responder would not be the first casualty, because they’re the RESPONDER. And again, not a hard target. The shooter wants victims, not opponents.
Really?
I wonder statistically how Clackamas would stack up against other sites of violence. At least in malls, they let Paul Blart carry a ‘something’.
1) I too went to a regional HS with as many students – but one end to the other would take at least 10 minutes at a brisk clip. Assuming of course that nobody else was jamming the halls, and the caller was clear on exactly what room / floor the problem was occurring.
2) I think Congresswoman Gabrielle Hayes and the other victims of the shooting probably had some degree of police protection at the site, but it didn’t stop this incident from unfolding.
3) If the designated responder is manning the checkpoint of entry, they certainly CAN be the first victim, with no one in a backup role. Unless the designated responder is isolated somewhere in the middle of the facility, capable of being anywhere ASAP.
My personal opinion is that the only schools which should have weapons are military academies. Make love, not war, man. Besides, guns don’t kill people. Deal with the problem before it becomes a bigger problem. Don’t build walls to protect the sunlight.
Allowing armed security personnel is much different from requiring armed personnel. The requirement in this case should focus on the training of armed personnel…not asking every school to provide someone — anyone — with armed weapons. As to those who are eager to volunteer their services, a pre-qualifying psych exam would be in order to help prevent if not eliminate the opportunity for a “protector” to become the “perpetrator”. Proceed with caution!