New programs for school defense

[mrortega]

If this isn't the appropriate forum for this please move it.

Since the Sandy Hook nightmare I've taken a step to do something about the lack of an adequate response once a shooter gets into the building. I visited the superintendent of my local public school district, whom I got to know a couple years ago when I did piping work in several of the buildings, last week and broached the subject of armed volunteers in each school. He is open to a discussion and invited me to attend a meeting "sometime" in February of staff and law enforcement to present my ideas. He said it isn't really open to the public but I would be his guest. (BTW they are already doing a lot; reviewing and writing SOP for an active shooter, making sure all classroom doors are lockable from the inside without a key and even having a "live fire" with blank ammo event for the teachers and staff after school so they can experience the sound and terror of a shooting.)

I plan to just present a straightforward message that no amount of alarms, locked doors, special glass or doors and frames will keep a determined terrorist out. I realize they already know this. They have to plan for WHEN he gets in and what they can do. I said I would be suggesting retired or off duty LEOs as well as military veterans and anyone else who is familiar with firearms, trains regularly, can pass a background check and is willing to lay their life down for the kids and staff. (The background check is with the State Police to make sure no one has a record of child related no-nos. That has been required for a while by all the local schools for construction workers who will work in their building.)

I feel that this particular school system is more open to this idea because it is rural. They know that there MAY be a state trooper or deputy sheriff SOMEWHERE in the area at any particular time. There definitely isn't any type of rapid response or SWAT team anywhere around. The school would be on its own for a long time before there would be any kind of reaction in force from any LE agency.

I will post updates here and ask that if anyone else is doing anything similar that they inform us so we can get a good program going in all Indiana schools.

 

[cosermann]

Interested to see how it works out. Make sure you do your homework!

A bit of history for discussion if needed:

“After the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, Israel instituted a policy in which volunteer school personnel, parents, and grandparents received special training from the civil guard, and were seeded throughout the schools armed with discreetly concealed 9mm semiautomatic pistols. Since that time, there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school, and every attempt at such has been quickly shortstopped by the good guys’ gunfire, with minimal casualties among the innocent.”

Massad Ayoob » Blog Archive » AGAINST MONSTERS

 

[mrortega]

Interested to see how it works out. Make sure you do your homework!

A bit of history for discussion if needed:

“After the Ma’alot massacre in 1974, Israel instituted a policy in which volunteer school personnel, parents, and grandparents received special training from the civil guard, and were seeded throughout the schools armed with discreetly concealed 9mm semiautomatic pistols. Since that time, there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school, and every attempt at such has been quickly shortstopped by the good guys’ gunfire, with minimal casualties among the innocent.”

Massad Ayoob » Blog Archive » AGAINST MONSTERS

Thanks for the reference. I'll do plenty of homework. I'll point out how the guy drove his pickup truck through a window at Luby's Cafeteria in Kileen, TX before he started his rampage. I'll also point out the lone lady security guard at the church in Colorado Springs who single handedly put the guy down who planned a massacre.

 

[lucky4034]

Unfortunately I think there would be public outrage at allowing "volunteers" in schools with guns. Regardless of background..... I hope it works out for you, but I personally am not interested in seeing volunteers walking around armed in schools.

I think the most obvious and logical action is to simply train existing staff (coupled with active shooter lockdown procedures).

2-3 volunteer teachers/janitors with access (not on their hip necessarily) to weapons could be first responders to an active shooter. If well trained, they would likely have the upper hand.

I keep seeing "military veterans" thrown around... but having served in the military, I don't understand what qualifies them for this position? Very few people in the military are trained with firearms and unfortunately those who are versed with firearms and have seen combat sometimes return unstable.

The bottom line is that arming teachers/staff is probably the safest, most cost effective and reliable measure we can take.

 

[daddymikey1975]

The bottom line is that arming teachers/staff is probably the safest, most cost effective and reliable measure we can take.

I believe we should allow as many to be armed as are comfortable (and able within the limitations agreed upon).. not necessarily having volunteers.

Volunteers would not necessarily be willing to step in front of gun fire as quickly as someone that's already there, being fired at such as a teacher. The 'self preservation' instinct would be much stronger than 'i gotta get IN the gunfight to preserve other's lives' instinct/training.

just thoughts to consider.

 

[CitiusFortius]

...that no amount of alarms, locked doors, special glass or doors and frames will keep a determined terrorist out. I realize they already know this. They have to plan for WHEN he gets in and what they can do.

Please also remember that even if school security was 100% effective at keeping somebody out, a scum bag could just show up at recess, before school or after school and kill a bunch of people outside.

School security for when kids are inside is only a small part of the solution.

 

[lucky4034]

I believe we should allow as many to be armed as are comfortable (and able within the limitations agreed upon).. not necessarily having volunteers.

Volunteers would not necessarily be willing to step in front of gun fire as quickly as someone that's already there, being fired at such as a teacher. The 'self preservation' instinct would be much stronger than 'i gotta get IN the gunfight to preserve other's lives' instinct/training.

just thoughts to consider.

Definitely something to consider... I will caution that the last thing you want is for a student to somehow gain possession of a teachers firearm. If that were to happen, everything goes back to square one and we end up fighting for 2nd Amendment rights all over again.

And I agree completely with volunteers potentially being a liability for more reasons than one. Volunteerism will last only so long... Sure... in an emotional response to Sandy Hook, I'm sure it is easy to get "off-duty" volunteers to show up in droves to stand guard... but how long will that last?

How long before someone decides they would rather go to lunch with a friend or stay in bed sick? How long until the memory of Sandy Hook is no longer present and volunteers stop caring?

Paid staff IMHO is simply the most logical way to go... and there is nothing wrong with paying current staff a little incentive rather than trying to find room in already stressed school budgets to hire teams of security guards.

They do it in Israel and it works....

 

[lucky4034]

Please also remember that even if school security was 100% effective at keeping somebody out, a scum bag could just show up at recess, before school or after school and kill a bunch of people outside.

School security for when kids are inside is only a small part of the solution.

There is always going to be opportunities for the motivated.... but the idea is to take the target off of schools... Mass murderers will stop choosing schools if schools become difficult targets.

If you are trying to go down in history for killing lots of people... you might stop choosing schools if there is a high probability that you are going to get shot before you reach glory.

 

[mrortega]

Unfortunately I think there would be public outrage at allowing "volunteers" in schools with guns. Regardless of background..... I hope it works out for you, but I personally am not interested in seeing volunteers walking around armed in schools.

I think the most obvious and logical action is to simply train existing staff (coupled with active shooter lockdown procedures).

2-3 volunteer teachers/janitors with access (not on their hip necessarily) to weapons could be first responders to an active shooter. If well trained, they would likely have the upper hand.

I keep seeing "military veterans" thrown around... but having served in the military, I don't understand what qualifies them for this position? Very few people in the military are trained with firearms and unfortunately those who are versed with firearms and have seen combat sometimes return unstable.

The bottom line is that arming teachers/staff is probably the safest, most cost effective and reliable measure we can take.

The superintendent stated that he is NOT in favor of armed teachers and staff. I don't know his reasoning but I don't think a teacher should leave his class if he hears gun fire. He is responsible for his class.

"Very few people in the military are trained with firearms?" What branch were you in? Coast Guard? Navy? If a soldier or marine didn't learn that the mission, in this case the safety of students and staff, is more important than their own life they weren't paying attention. I wasn't a combat vet but I know the priority.

 

[mrortega]

I believe we should allow as many to be armed as are comfortable (and able within the limitations agreed upon).. not necessarily having volunteers.

Volunteers would not necessarily be willing to step in front of gun fire as quickly as someone that's already there, being fired at such as a teacher. The 'self preservation' instinct would be much stronger than 'i gotta get IN the gunfight to preserve other's lives' instinct/training.

just thoughts to consider.

You're kidding, right? You don't think a father or grandfather, who volunteered, would jump into the fight? A volunteer security person is there because they specifically want to respond. A teacher is there to teach. A cafeteria worker or janitor is there to work.

 

[Firefighter56]

My wife and I have had this conversation several times in the recent weeks. If you haven't seen some of my previous posts then I'll say it again, she is an elementary school principal. She is fortunate in the fact that there would be qualified staff in the building that could fill that role however, in some schools there will not be.

I have had this conversation with military friends of mine who have told me multiple stories of soldiers who are deployed that were unable to fulfill their role in a gunfight in combat. Those are military soldiers who have extensive combat and firearms training that failed when it was time to act. Why would we think a bunch of teachers or administrators would be any better?

I'm not disagreeing with letting the qualified do this but we can not rely on this for every school, there simply won't be a person in every school that can do the job.

 

[showmeapair]

I think schools need a security force of some type. I think this person or persons should be more like Andy Griffith than Barney Fife. I think they could be plain clothes and armed and mingle with the students. They should also have a role in discipline, anti bullying, and general peacekeeping. Teachers should teach period. If there is a problem child this security person could be involved with that. I say it should be a trained LEO. We've got to start looking at these kids as they grow up to head them off from becoming a shooter.

 

[lucky4034]

The superintendent stated that he is NOT in favor of armed teachers and staff. I don't know his reasoning but I don't think a teacher should leave his class if he hears gun fire. He is responsible for his class.

"Very few people in the military are trained with firearms?" What branch were you in? Coast Guard? Navy? If a soldier or marine didn't learn that the mission, in this case the safety of students and staff, is more important than their own life they weren't paying attention. I wasn't a combat vet but I know the priority.

I was a field medic attached to 5th marines regimental aid station and I'm here to tell you that likely 95%+ of military veterans only touch a firearm a couple of times during their career unless in combat.

Most vets are support... thats a fact. The only branch still teaching rifleman skills across the board are the Marines... And while many go on to specialize in CQC... their basic rifleman course is pretty much an Appleseed event and thats just fine, because again... support positions don't need combat training... and the military isn't interested in paying for them to get trained in things they won't use.

Its not like "Vets" are all trained Rambo's... 99% of them would need the same training any other teacher would need, and 99% of them would not volunteer for very long to be school watchmen.

Teachers are a permanent fixtures in schools... "Veterans" are not.

I'm not hear to argue honestly... I hope whatever a school decides is effective. I'm simply giving input and considering you posted this on a public forum, I'm assuming you are either looking for input or a pat on the back.

If the principal is 100% against arming staff... then maybe paying for trained guards is a better route..... If your community can sustain volunteers, then more power to you... however that doesn't change the fact that there seems to be some big misconception that "Military Vet" = Pre-qualified guard... because MOST Vets didn't touch a firearm more than a few times over a 4-5 year enlistment.

 

[lucky4034]

My wife and I have had this conversation several times in the recent weeks. If you haven't seen some of my previous posts then I'll say it again, she is an elementary school principal. She is fortunate in the fact that there would be qualified staff in the building that could fill that role however, in some schools there will not be.

I have had this conversation with military friends of mine who have told me multiple stories of soldiers who are deployed that were unable to fulfill their role in a gunfight in combat. Those are military soldiers who have extensive combat and firearms training that failed when it was time to act. Why would we think a bunch of teachers or administrators would be any better?

I'm not disagreeing with letting the qualified do this but we can not rely on this for every school, there simply won't be a person in every school that can do the job.

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

 

[lucky4034]

I think schools need a security force of some type. I think this person or persons should be more like Andy Griffith than Barney Fife. I think they could be plain clothes and armed and mingle with the students. They should also have a role in discipline, anti bullying, and general peacekeeping. Teachers should teach period. If there is a problem child this security person could be involved with that. I say it should be a trained LEO. We've got to start looking at these kids as they grow up to head them off from becoming a shooter.

Obviously there needs to be more monitoring in place of our youth... but that doesn't mean that we can only chose 1 solution.

You are right... not all teachers are going to be capable. But many will and with proper training, I have no doubt it will be effective in not only stopping threats, but deterring them.

Again... the goal isn't to kill bad guys... ultimately it is to DETER them.

Theives don't target houses with guard dogs... they seek out 70yo ladies.

 

[Sailor]

Me and some of my crew played active shooters a few weeks ago inside a middle school with local PD and county SWAT responding.

Teachers, superintendent, and principal were present and played active roles.

We used, AR-15's with blank adapters, revolvers and shotguns with blanks.

Many lessons learned.

PM me for details.

 

[mrortega]

I was a field medic attached to 5th marines regimental aid station and I'm here to tell you that likely 95%+ of military veterans only touch a firearm a couple of times during their career unless in combat.

Most vets are support... thats a fact. The only branch still teaching rifleman skills across the board are the Marines... And while many go on to specialize in CQC... their basic rifleman course is pretty much an Appleseed event and thats just fine, because again... support positions don't need combat training... and the military isn't interested in paying for them to get trained in things they won't use.

Its not like "Vets" are all trained Rambo's... 99% of them would need the same training any other teacher would need, and 99% of them would not volunteer for very long to be school watchmen.

Teachers are a permanent fixtures in schools... "Veterans" are not.

I'm not hear to argue honestly... I hope whatever a school decides is effective. I'm simply giving input and considering you posted this on a public forum, I'm assuming you are either looking for input or a pat on the back.

If the principal is 100% against arming staff... then maybe paying for trained guards is a better route..... If your community can sustain volunteers, then more power to you... however that doesn't change the fact that there seems to be some big misconception that "Military Vet" = Pre-qualified guard... because MOST Vets didn't touch a firearm more than a few times over a 4-5 year enlistment.

Nobody will know what they will do in the first time they are called on to face a life or death threat. But that doesn't need to stop the idea of an armed person in a building to be the last resort.

 

[WETSU]

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.

 

[looney2ns]

First step is to stop making schools "Gun Free Zones" AKA: Open season on victim zones.
Then deploy armed individuals in schools, whatever type person that may be. Then use the phrase "Always carry, but never tell". Plant that seed of doubt in a possible shooter whether or not he may meet resistance. No one needs to know which schools have armed folks and which don't.

It can be argued until the end of time, but something needs done now.

 

[wva3470]

Westu or Sailor,
Can either one of you email an AAR of your training with the school?
send it to wva3470@yahoo.com
Thanks,
Bill