« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Guns in schools? Yes, but how……

Get rid of the politics and protect the kids.

By: WmCraig (Diary)  |  December 24th, 2012 at 05:03 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This week there has been a lot of discussion about guns in schools. The no gun zone liberals seem to be winning the argument and another opportunity to make America a gun free zone is too good for the Democrats to pass up. But the real question needs to be why the government has failed in it’s most basic concept of making our communities safe for children.  Yes we need guns in schools, but armed teachers? That is a stupid idea intended to distract from the real solution

Real security does not cost much, given the absurd benefits that the teachers get in public schools they probably wouldn’t even notice the little bit it would cost to protect them. And now is the time to talk about protecting teachers and making the teachers part of the solution (they can pay for it).  But not by arming them, but rather by making them part of the plan.

1. Guns belong in schools. They belong in arms cabinet, in a dedicated security office. Not that place were the put the old guy who can’t teach anymore. A real security office. A secure room complete with site cameras, staffed by trained security monitoring specialists, trained and capable threat control specialists.  Equipped to handle a serous threat with the weapons and armor needed to engage the threat. Locked up unless needed of course. The size of the security staff might vary depending on the size of the school but should never be less than two. So there is always someone monitoring the cameras. And parents need to insist that the cameras work, cover the school and the staff maintains their capabilities to engage high risk situations. The cameras and controls should link to a central security office for backup and resources augmentation.

2. Classroom designs need to include survivability. A small room, a partition, or a way to create a safety zone should be retrofitted to every school. This could be a “blackboard, cork board wall that is backed by bullet proofing and can be pulled out from the wall in an emergency forming a closet with appropriate observation areas built in. Classroom doors could be locked remotely.  There are many other design capabilities, desks could be stacked to form redoubts, classrooms could have adjoining room doors controlled by security to allow escape.

3. Most schools have drop down gates to cordon off areas within the school. Expand the number and make them remotely controllable. When the security monitors observe a non-student entering the school with a rifle it should be damn hard to get to the classrooms.

4. Training. Security officers need to be trained, and they need constant skill updating. They need to be able to physically engage an assailant in the worst situations. Teachers need training too. Starting with a code alert. What to do, where to take the children,  how to communicate with the security office.  Each teacher should have a means of communication, either a personal phone they are required to keep ready or another device. Other communications capabilities should be made available including speaker alerts, codes, actions and commands. Etc. Practice makes perfect. What the teachers do should be part of a bigger plan to thwart an assailant. And planned in coordination with security.

This is an effort to start a serious discussion about making our streets and schools safe for children, Government has failed at everything it has tried to control, illicit drugs, the prohibition alcohol , illegal immigration, gangs, crime, even their own spending. Controlling guns is not an option, protecting schools is something that can be done.

There is a side benefit. A few years ago I dropped my son off at his high school. I was making a right hand turn, and a car making a left hand turn into the lot in front of me looked out of place. It had two young men in it. No high school age or younger children. Just not the type of car that would be dropping someone off, and more importantly had it been turning into the student parking lot I wouldn’t have through twice about it. But this was parking for teachers only and for student drop off. As I approached the drop point I noticed that a young man, again, not likely school age was standing by the curb waiting for someone. He had a cell phone in his hand and was talking on it. As the car in front approached the young man signaled to girls standing by the entrance forward, they went to the car, exchanged something then scurried back in the building. The car exited the parking lot and went down the street to a parking lot in a shopping center not far from the school where it parked near the exit not the stores

Use your imagination about what went on.  There is more danger to our children than an occasional mentally ill person. Our schools should be safe for our children, our streets parks and public places should be safe for our children. There might just be a broader benefit of providing real security at our schools, beyond the rare instance of mass murder.

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • norris

    The remote controlled fire doors are a good idea that would only have to cost $20 plus the wire. Guns need to be carried by the security people not locked up 800 feet away. When schools are hard pressed for money ,administration and maintenance people are moving around the building all day concealed guns with radio contact would cover the largest area.

    • WmCraig

      Maybe, it depends on the facility. We need to work together against Democrat not against ourselves. I am an believer in federalism. I think I can stand with you on your right to have armed patrolling guards. Working where I do I see lots of security and almost always it is security in depth. An inaccessible security office, with several staff members, always including one trained in confrontational tactics (using guns and armor to thwart intruders) and one or more monitoring video surveillance and communications. Other security presence includes guards at entrances, security desks, and often a remote monitoring supplement.

      My schools are big, 4000 plus in the secondary school complex spread over about seven buildings, with 3-4 feeder at the middle grades and 2-3 elementary schools feeding the middle schools. It would take a lot more than a few people with radios.

      There is another thought. The idea is to make the schools safe.That means seeing the guy carrying the rifle form the parking lot before he enters the building. Not waiting to bump into him in the halls. The most important thing is monitoring the outside, the parking lots, the access ways the perimeter of the building to the perimeter of the property. This is where the drug dealing, gang assaults, shake downs; and drug use happen. It is where you see the guy carrying a rifle. So video surveillance combined with access control systems, escape exits, all combine to make the school safer. You mentioned that schools are hard pressed for dollars, I think they just don’t use money well. If money is the problem then lets build charter schools that can design their security from the ground up to be cost effective. That would be another wedge issue we could use against the progressive establishment. Give us charter schools so we can protect our children they way Dick Gregory’s kids are protected.

  • Dave_A

    I would suggest a variant of the ‘Federal Flight Deck Officer’ program (eg, the armed-pilots program) that would certify/deputize teachers who volunteer, the same way the FFDO one did airline pilots.

    • WmCraig

      I see two problems with this idea. The first is there is only one cockpit usually only one aisle, one entrance to the plane and everyone is in one room except the pilots, who are together. Arming one of them is certain to put a gun where you need it. Where as schools are very different and there is no guarantee that an armed teacher will be where you need him or her. Arming everyone is unrealistic, teachers enter the career from a variety of paths, some anti-gun. More importantly in the ideas listed above the teacher is the leader for their class. They are responsible for organized protection, whether that is guiding the students to escape routes or shelter in place locations. Without the teacher, the risk of a student opening a remotely locked door goes up. Plus, the purpose is to make it hard on the shooter. Teachers, armed might kill the intruder, but they are not going to be able to coordinate with police, watch their students, respond to opportunities of escape, and confront the intruder. With one person manning communications and the video monitoring, locking and unlocking doors and gates and coordinating with the police, the other security officer can be directed to move effectively and quickly towards the intruder and take action. So it is better in my opinion to invest in security (including guns), not just guns or gun training.

  • Don T.

    “Yes we need guns in schools, but armed teachers? That is a stupid idea intended to distract from the real solution.”

    Way to be open minded about it. If a teacher wants to be armed and licensed to carry a firearm, that is a viable option that schools in MN and Utah and Texas allow right now. You just wrote off the one simple, cheap option that allows a “good guy with a gun” to actually accomplish something to protect children. Another option that would be easy to implement would be a small gun safe in the volunteer teacher’s desk, that only he/she can gain access to.

    I think other ideas you have suggested may have merit. Arming school employees is by no means the only thing to do, it is one of many options that states should consider. I would however be very careful about trying to make a school into such a secure facility, that this might prevent students and staff from escaping the school or that might prevent first responders from quickly gaining access.

    This article has lots of food for thought, too.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/a-parents-guide-to-school-shootings/

    • WmCraig

      Ok, that was poorly phrased if that is what you thought I was saying. I certainly am not advocating taking guns away from teachers in MN, Utah and Texas. But when a liberal talks to blue state media about the “crazy idea of arming teachers” it is nothing more than a red herring. The establishment has an obligation to make our streets safe for children, our parks, libraries and other places safe for children, and that goes with out saying our schools should be safe for children, The establishment has failed at this very basic task and they know it.

      One of the first things we fellow conservatives have to do if we are going to gain political power is to work together on common goals, and not get bogged down in arguments over the “perfect universal answer”. So please accept my apology, I would support arming teachers, though it will never happen in my blue state. That doesn’t mean where you live it should not be an option and I would not advocate against it.

      I want to focus on security. Democrats want gun prohibition, but “Prohibition” did not work and we all know that. Prohibiting guns won’t work. If the government can’t control illegal drug smuggling, illegal immigration (human smuggling), gangs, crime, or even there own spending they will never control gun smuggling so they will never control guns. This failure of the progressives patronage is what we need to focus on, Democrats failure to control crime, illegal immigration, spending, drug use, drug smuggling, etc. And most important their inability to control repeat criminals (responsible for the vast majority of murders), the criminally insane (the people that mass murder) and terrorists (the other group that advocates mass murder) . They can’t or won’t control anything that puts our children and fellow citizens at risk, and so they talk about guns. They try and paint us as crazy but it isn’t just guns that threaten us. I observed a drug deal go down in front of my township high school while dropping off my children. The proper emphasis on security could prevent this, making schools safer for children.The proper emphasis on security could have stopped Jerry Sandusky Not armed teachers, in my opinion at least not for my area (southern New Jersey). In my area you need a professional security presence, maybe a contract company to implement security in depth efforts including video monitoring, intervention and threat response.

      So lets start talking, tell me how arming teachers will help you, and I will tell you about how we can do more for my township’s kids then just protect them from an assailant through implementing an independent security office, with video surveillance, network security, communications security, coordination with law enforcement, and if needed providing one or more armed and armored assailant rapid response team members.

      Lets talk about electronically controlled doors, operated in an emergency from central security. Lets talk about desks, movable chalk boards or other devices capable of being fitted with bullet resistance. Lets talk about communications, coordination and cooperation. And if I can help you protect your kids lets talk about that.

      • Don T.

        Okay, thanks for the clarification. Now we are talking! I live in a red state, so allowing teachers and staff to get their concealed carry license and arm themselves voluntarily is an option here, and in many other states where this is politically practical. Every state and locality should consider this, because even the most elaborate security measures may not prevent a determined madman from gaining entry into a school. Some states and localities will lean to paid armed security, private or law enforcement, if they can shift funds for that. But this is pretty costly. Electronically closed doors are also very expensive. You have to be concerned about making it harder for students and staff to escape a locked school, or for first responders to gain entry to stop the killer. I do agree with a security plan in depth, with limited and observed access, approved lists of parents and volunteers, use of picture IDs for access, procedures for both lockdown and for evacuation, if fire alarms are activated by a criminal, and yes, voluntarily arming some staff as they are the immediate responders to violence, to meet it with a violent solution. Even if introducing firearms is a nonstarter, schools could at least consider nonlethal means like tasers and pepper spray, giving the staff at least something besides bare hands to fight with. Let’s all have a real conversation about a range of options to consider.

        • WmCraig

          Here are a couple thoughts, not specifics but why this discussion is important.
          1, People want their children protected. The Democrats want to use this to undermine the 2nd Amendment. Why not use this to advance the case for charter schools. Promise citizens full access to the block grants for education to spend on any school they like, public or private, where ever they feel their children will be safest. (This will hit hardest on blue states, and drive a wedge between Asian and Hispanic voters and the democrats who will fight it for the benefit of the school unions.

          2. Let’s talk federalism. School funding, school choices, school protection is a local phenomenon. Lets end the Federal Education Department and either cut the taxes by an amount equal to that or let the states collect and keep the money in place of paying the federal government so that local communities through their states can protect our children. After all Obama didn’t care enough to put it in the budge the last two years, and wouldn’t have any other time either if the Republicans hadn’t made ear marks for it before 2011.

          The Democrats are quick to jump out with their old worn out gun prohibitionist laws when opportunity strikes. We need to be ready with our own proposals, Proposals that undermine confidence in centralized planning, strike a wedge between Democrats and constituencies that should vote Republican because of their conservative values (Families Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, and education reform advocates.)

          Then we can fix our problems locally where your solution might not look like my solution, but your threats may not look like my threats and we both get the benefit of more powerful voice in Washington.