The statistical cost of providing new armed security for public schools

American Thinker ^ | 02/22/2018 | Andrew Solomon

[itsahoot]

If we now need armed security guards at our schools, then we’re done as a first-world nation.

Glad to see you woke up.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

“Willingness to remain proficient, test scores on practicles. Physical performance.”

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/who-are-the-greater-threats-to-public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/

But aren’t police officers “highly trained” experts in the use of firearms? The short answer is, NO. Contrary to the fantasy world of television, where law enforcement characters spend endless hours at the gun range honing their skills, in reality most police officers go to a shooting range only once or twice a year! And when they get there, they seldom shoot more than one box of ammo.

True, there are exceptions – some of my cop friends practice regularly, including participating in “combat” shooting competition. As a result, they will likely be more effective than most of their fellow officers in an actual shooting confrontation. But the problem is that they are exceptions.

Compare that to civilian handgun permit holders, many of whom practice monthly, if not weekly, and firing hundreds of rounds at each session. I am a professional firearm instructor, and I can attest to the fact that I often run into my students at the range, and they are not alone. As a result, civilians seldom hit innocent bystanders.

But even more disturbing is research by the FBI that has shown that violent criminals (those most likely to get into a shootout with police) practice as much at TEN TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN COPS:

Not surprisingly, the same study shows that the criminals are also better shots than the cops – their hit rates, in actual shoot-outs, average an astonishing 70% – they hit cops far more often than the cops are able to hit them.

There are many reasons for the lack of training, from misplaced priorities to tightening budgets. But the simple fact is that the average civilian who has a permit to carry a handgun is far less likely to be a threat to innocent bystanders than the average police officer.
You

[imardmd1]

That is not within the purview of the National Guard, apart from a declared serious emergency. They are not school crossing guards, and they do not belong in a public school, unless you want fully armed soldiers patrolling the corridors. Plus they are citizen soldiers, and have other things to do in an ordinary work day. What on earth are you thinking?

[blueplum]

"If you were to have at least two armed guards per school (some of these schools are quite large), and you account for population growth (these stats are five years old), you would get a new overnight federal employee..."

well back up there, Susie. Who said anything about 'federal' employees? Teachers aren't federal employees, they're city and county employees. And we're going to arm existing coaches and principals who already have all those nice benefits most of the rest of us don't get, not hire rent-a-cops.

And who's going to pay for it? well, local property owners, which will reflect back into rents, and businesses, as usual. And since it is going to hit adults in the pocket, maybe they might do a better job of riding herd on their local school boards and what rules they pass.

[silverleaf]

There are plenty of schools that allow and encourage CCW by trusted staff
Have nutters attacked any of them yet?

[GOPJ]

Thanks

:)

[imardmd1]

Now, this is interesting. An unobvious bit of informed observation. Keep on!

[so_real]

#1 : I re-read Post #38. Nothing dictatorial. You are wrong. I stand by it.
#2 : A portion of my post you copied is a word-for-word copy of your Post #63. Perhaps you are assuming you can read my mind? Are you attributing your dictatorial thoughts to me? Don't get yourself zotted now! LOL

[GOPJ]

And there would be no need to identify those who had access to guns on campus, just like airline security people are never identified when onboard.

You're right on every point... of course it would be nice if part of the NRA 'teacher training' class included that point - that who was carrying should NOT be public knowledge.

[silverleaf]

We already have them, Sparky
Almost 70% of schools have armed security.based on a quick search of available studies going back to post- Columbine shooting in 1999
Gonna bet every big urban school district has armed security on premises
Chicago had 2 cops in every high school back in 2008
Want to bet theres a Jewish school in this country without armed security?

Do you consider Israel as non First world nation
Their schools and student field trips are guarded by 18 yr old citizen soldiers and other adults with military style weapons

[imardmd1]

Which is what I had just said to you. But most people are taking the simplistic view that simply relying on teachers' view of their own defense will willy-nilly protect their charges. This is not a plan for those whose specified responsibility it is to guard against sociopaths, even from within the body of teachers and students and janitors, etc

Your (lack of a) plan simply leaves too much up to chance and does not account for the myriad of legitimate objections to it. I would not like my security and living as a professional educator or administrator left in your hands, to say frankly.

[so_real]

The private school I'm associated with here in Wisconsin, does reimburse professional development expenses. But if I've spoken out of turn with regard to the larger picture, mea culpa. I do recall that as part of the 2017 state budget in Wisconsin, we pretty much did away with professional development requirements. But as to how they interact with the budget, I do not have first hand knowledge.

[imardmd1]

No. If you have taught, you kno that voluntary participation in such a venture is very slippery, hard to nail down. Itis NOT a plan, and it is not the way schools are run. Nor teachers' unions, either. Nor the way real teachers conducted themselves when it was a true profession.

If you don't include the requirement to be armed as a part of the job description, and without making it an option, the concept is simply not realistic. Otherwise, it is rather snow-flakey in its utopian assumptions.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I would prefer that unconstitutional government schools be abolished, quite frankly.

You speak in bureaucratese. You can't hide it. I see you.

You bureaucrats created gun-free zones so that you could have tragedies like this to exploit and cash in on.

[imardmd1]

Flakeyism again. It is up to the parents/guardians to trainteach them as governable respondents that schools were founded. The idea is to economically transfer to many congregated students the things that their parents either did not know well, or which were too elementary to occupy the parents' more valuable time; things that a civilized society requires in order for the matured individual to support oneself and not be on the dole.

Do not confuse training with teaching. Schools were not originated to teach obedience. Like dogs, horses, and monkeys, it is their owners and guardians to train them well enough to be released on the public on their own recognizance and accountability.

If the school teacher finds the student who is not inclined to obey, that doubles the teacher's task; even makes it impossible if everything the teacher tries to instill obedience is undone when the child returns home.

No wonder that the children do not learn. The student is not prepared for it at home, and the "teacher" does not have the time to do so when his/her effort is cnsume in simply bringing order to an unruly classroom of impudent occupants.

As an aside, the pastors of the local church congregations have the same problem. And that is why our culture has disintegrated, IMHO.

[vooch]

open carry is even better :)

[imardmd1]

I would prefer that unconstitutional government schools be abolished, quite frankly.

Contrary to what you have led yourself to think, so would I. But you haven't taken the trouble to find out that the ten of my home-schooled grandchildren shine outstandingly in comparison to the nine who have been schooled on the taxpayer's dime. (Though even these are significantly better off than youts whose obedience training was defective.) And I have a high, very high respect for the citizen who can claim the title "Marine."

In fact, I worked with my neighbor, my own children's high school Navy veteran principal, who appealed to me to help rein in both teachers who were not seeing to the proper concerns, encourage those who did, and see to my own children's success in accepting the standards of homework and social performance in both home and school. As they have done for their children. And hopefully to my great-grandchildren, the first of whose father is on the staff at Camp Pendleton.

You speak in bureaucratese. You can't hide it. I see you.

Nah. I hate to tell you what you see if you are in a pack of Malamutes and not the leader of it. No, I just use words that are polysyllabic. If you wish me to use words with you like "sit" or "stay" or "eat" or "shut up" or "give me fifty" I can, and that will tell me if you have been trained and can recognize authority when you come under it. But the polysyllabic communication takes a little more education. Was yours neglected? The words I used are not "bureaucratese." They are simply forms of concisely addressing the concepts familiar to educated adults in their ordinary daily work tasks.

You bureaucrats created gun-free zones so that you could have tragedies like this to exploit and cash in on.

Not me. Another preposterous presumption generated by your oppositional complex. In fact, I just wrote against this mindset on another FR thread, and also to a friend's email regarding the issue. But as you speak, I am not sure you would be as trustworthy in a gun-free environment as I am, nor do you give me confidence that you could be relied on outside such zones as am I; licensed, actually, and for many years and in many states.

You need to get to the point where your ignorance does not overwhelm your fairness in judgment. I just hope that you are not one of the reasons that I do carry.

Vaya con Dios!

[Clutch Martin]

“But aren’t police officers “highly trained” experts in the use of firearms?”

The answer is no or not necessarily, unless they performed force protection duties in the military. And rehearse scenarios frequently. Neither are that many teachers qual’d. CCW trained would probably provide a modicum of backup, but their concern is usually playing mother hen so when the predator busts into the room every body is huddled up in corners (as they’ve been taught), increasing casualty numbers. Why aren’t they throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the shooter. Heck, if everyone had a couple of nice sized rocks... but they don’t. Sheep do the same thing, restricting movement and allowing the predator an easier grab.

So, where am I going with this? Three pillars of physical security? Ladder of justifiable force? There a number of strategies not being employed, never will be, and probably should.

It starts with a hardened site. Adequately staffed with a few force protection professionals. Backed up with more than a few armed staff. Maybe some rocks... and continual training.

Hey I have a couple of questions...

How many people are relaxing at home, fixing dinner, computering, reading, watching some tube?
Do you have your doors locked?
Do you have a gun on you?
Within quick grasp (ie an armslength)?
No?
Why not?

[imardmd1]

I kind of let this critcal sentence pass through. Please correct it:

>> It is up to the parents/guardians to trainteach train them as governable respondents. It was for the purpose of teaching them that schools were founded. <<

[E. Pluribus Unum]

You need to free yourself of your religious belief in government solutions.