arming school staff?

#1
My local school district is looking to arm school staff in addition to SRO’s. I am looking for information/statistics on where school terror attacks have been stopped or prevented with little to no loss of life by an SRO or armed school staff. The information could come from news sources or government entities. Preferably from the .gov since it is less likely be biased.

My wife and I are for this. At the last school board meeting, “the other side” was against it; Fearing kids would be shot because of angry teachers. Kids would know who was carrying within a couple days. Innocent kids would be shot in the even of an attack. Kids would try to take the gun away. It would be left alone for kids to grab. Kids would be injured/killed, because a teacher was playing with their CHL.

We are trying to get this all done before the next board meeting, on the 18th. Also, we are having a meeting locally for parents that are for arming school staff.

Any pointers or cites would be greatly appreciated.
 
#3
Matt's on point there. I think the phrase "arming teachers" is a buzz-phrase for the left to use when it's convenient. It's either pure ignorance or purposeful tactics when spoken.

The option should, in my opinion, be on the table. Those who are already capable or wish to be capable with arm themselves appropriately. The debate of "but will they defend our children" is an irrelevant argument up to the point where an active shooter must be taken down. I calculate that those, who are trained well, won't even flinch if the moment ever came.

It is also my opinion that those who utter that question are the ones who wouldn't defend your children and are of weak-minds. Those who are weak have always proven themselves to question those who aren't. For some reason or another.

I'm a college student, and I possess a CHL, so you can figure out why I hold these opinions. Being unarmed on a campus is like being on a hunting ranch as the mule deer...
 

ggammell

Regular Member
#4
Just make sure that you stress that it would be optional for the teachers. Many that I have spoken to feel that they would be required to carry. That is obviously a misunderstanding but I’m not sure the left if doing anything to correct it.
 
#5
I feel it should be an option, but just an option. I can't personally think of many teachers I know that would want to be armed up at school, there are some though. There are also some cops who shouldn't be, like that guy in Broward Co. who didn't go in.

I have two main concerns with having teachers armed. First, what are the training requirements going to be? Will they be run through something equal to the local PD's academy firearms training with ROE, legal concerns, hours on the range, stress inoculation, sims, and annual re-training and quals? Or is it going to be what I suspect would be more realistic, a basic week or two class with a range day at the end?

Second, what will they be instructed to do when my squad and I, as patrol officers, make entry? Are they to defend their classroom only or are the armed teachers going to be allowed to go hunting? I've met some teachers who were (likely still are) badasses before they were teachers. Most I've met aren't cops or in the military for a reason. There is a mindset difference there.
 
#7
Just make sure that you stress that it would be optional for the teachers. Many that I have spoken to feel that they would be required to carry. That is obviously a misunderstanding but I’m not sure the left if doing anything to correct it.
Of course the left isn't doing anything to correct it. The people this frightens are people who wouldn't arm themselves voluntarily and don't want to be armed, this miscommunication by the left gets more people to be against it. I'm not trying to be all "the left deals in lies!", but if a lot of your support is from a misunderstanding that goes away once corrected, you aren't likely to set people straight.

To get back on topic, make sure to stress that this is a opt-in-only policy, and if a teacher wants nothing to do with it then they have that option.
 
#8
I feel it should be an option, but just an option. I can't personally think of many teachers I know that would want to be armed up at school, there are some though. There are also some cops who shouldn't be, like that guy in Broward Co. who didn't go in.

I have two main concerns with having teachers armed. First, what are the training requirements going to be? Will they be run through something equal to the local PD's academy firearms training with ROE, legal concerns, hours on the range, stress inoculation, sims, and annual re-training and quals? Or is it going to be what I suspect would be more realistic, a basic week or two class with a range day at the end?

Second, what will they be instructed to do when my squad and I, as patrol officers, make entry? Are they to defend their classroom only or are the armed teachers going to be allowed to go hunting? I've met some teachers who were (likely still are) badasses before they were teachers. Most I've met aren't cops or in the military for a reason. There is a mindset difference there.
First concern to be addressed is the arming therein. Like with the potential for college students to be armed, in my case, they need to first have a CHL in their possession. And, that's it. Why? Because it takes someone with an understanding of the hostilities of the world around them to go out and spend the money to get a CHL. To put it in perspective, there's an additional $60 fee in Louisiana for the license if the applying party hasn't resided in the state for 15-years. My total was $295 after the CHL fee, the class, and the digital fingerprinting. I have met very few applicants who were ignorant of the point of obtaining one. Now, does that mean the training class that I ran through was enough? No, not necessarily. But, what is. The point of the class was to cover the laws one is expected to abide by. The point wasn't to train an individual in, what I believe, amounts to combat with an armed assailant. You must take it upon yourself to train for that scenario and the handling of a firearm that is required therein.

The second point is something I've also thought about. Albeit, as a student, so bear with me. If I was to engage an armed individual, I would want to get that word out as quickly as possible. A plan that I've had for awhile is to immediately get on the phone with emergency services with statements on who I was, to shortly explain that the original gunman was downed, and to explain where it had taken place. I would inform them that, until first responding law enforcement entered the building, I would hold security in case there were other hostiles in the area.

Now, at that point, there are some grey areas. I, and the teachers, would be relying on the dispatcher to get that information to officers just like you. Those points are vital to you guys. The bad guy is dead, he's been killed by a CHL holder and the CHL holder is holding post inside waiting for the cavalry to arrive. And, if it was me, I'd be thinking: "For the love of fuck, don't shoot me, guys." It's a risk. It's a risk for me to defend other people that way and it's a risk for you to have to encounter me after the fact. And it's the same for an educator in the same scenario. But, in my mind, I need to get that information out to you guys. What if there are a pair of active shooters? One is down now and here's the location, so go get the other guy first. At least, that's what I'm thinking is a properly conducted scenario. Send SWAT after the other asshole and send some regular uniforms for my location. Information has to be used properly because it's the most important asset to everyone involved.

Should they, or I, go after the other guy or the lone gunman across campus? My first thought is that this isn't a Liam Neeson movie series, but if it's in the first minutes, and you know the first responders just got the call? I wouldn't go bounding across the campus with my sidearm drawn. I may go, as quickly as possible, to the location to see if I can assist in subduing the asshole. But, that's me speaking from the position of doing the right thing. I'd like to think I'd do that weaponless. I'm not law enforcement and I'm not military (former or otherwise). It cuts me to the core of my soul to see the body counts of mass shootings and there wasn't anybody there who had the heart and sack to take on the shooter. It just seems like the right thing to do.

You're looking for a doctrine that has civilian and law enforcement cohesion in mind, WAVandal. I don't think it will ever get anywhere close to being as good as it is between two patrolmen. Us holding down our own mental forts, in a manner of speaking, is as good as it will get, I think. I don't want to get shot, by the police, after having taken down a gunman. You don't want to get shot by a nervous civilian and you don't want to walk into an ambush, due to a clear-call to your dispatcher, from an assailant. It's all about trust.

All in all, I don't think there's a clear cut answer aside from that. Situational awareness and trust may be as good as it gets.
 
#9
...I would want to get that word out as quickly as possible. A plan that I've had for awhile is to immediately get on the phone with emergency services with statements on who I was, to shortly explain that the original gunman was downed, and to explain where it had taken place. I would inform them that, until first responding law enforcement entered the building, I would hold security in case there were other hostiles in the area.

Now, at that point, there are some grey areas. I, and the teachers, would be relying on the dispatcher to get that information to officers just like you...
This brings up one point I always have... all the time really (domestic LE, and small wars). Commo is the best force multiplier. If I had an armed force anywhere that I relied on, I'd want them to be able to share their info, take orders, and coordinate. Mobile phones to dispatch? Meh.

Seem burdensome to give ever armed teacher an HT? Lots of schools have them already for half the staff. Or more specific, how about corporate Safety Marshalls? They have a flashlight, hi viz vest, sometimes a bullhorn, a bit of training, and an HT on the same channel as the building security.

Issue the radios the county* has, encrypted and all that. TAC-3 is School Event channel. Lock out the normal channels. Make them secure the HT just like the gun is so minimal risk of theft or pranks. On all the time, and you can call the armed teachers if there's an event they must know about, fire, wx, or armed threat. They can be directly on the channel (the school channel, remember, so not interfering with the patrol or SWAT officers) so no delay, etc.


* Here, county runs the commo network for the many towns, but metro or city or whatever.
 

Steve Y

Newbie
WARLORD
#10
Checkout http://fastersaveslives.org
Ohio has been training and arming teachers since 2013 using this program. The website has a lot of resources that will help you counter the arguments against arming teachers and give you ideas on how to implement a program. I presented a program to my school board modeled after FASTER. Unfortunately, I was unable to get the program for allowing teachers to be armed approved but I was able to convince them to implement the ALICE program so we can move away from the old lockdown drill. With the information from FASTER I was able to answer every question the board had and counter arguments against the program but a board member said no other school in our state has a program for allowing teachers to be armed and we don’t want to be on CNN. That’s an example of cowardice leadership in my opinion. Best of luck to you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#11
This brings up one point I always have... all the time really (domestic LE, and small wars). Commo is the best force multiplier. If I had an armed force anywhere that I relied on, I'd want them to be able to share their info, take orders, and coordinate. Mobile phones to dispatch? Meh.

Seem burdensome to give ever armed teacher an HT? Lots of schools have them already for half the staff. Or more specific, how about corporate Safety Marshalls? They have a flashlight, hi viz vest, sometimes a bullhorn, a bit of training, and an HT on the same channel as the building security.

Issue the radios the county* has, encrypted and all that. TAC-3 is School Event channel. Lock out the normal channels. Make them secure the HT just like the gun is so minimal risk of theft or pranks. On all the time, and you can call the armed teachers if there's an event they must know about, fire, wx, or armed threat. They can be directly on the channel (the school channel, remember, so not interfering with the patrol or SWAT officers) so no delay, etc.


* Here, county runs the commo network for the many towns, but metro or city or whatever.
Now imagine being a civilian and trying to figure these logistics out.
 

Nathan Mack

Newbie
Network Support I
#12
It’s difficult to offer statistics on crime that doesn’t occur. Criminal activity is generally reported, but passively deterred criminal plans are generally not—mostly by virtue of: it didn’t occur. How many home burglaries are prevented merely because flood lights kicked on? Who knows?

Some assumptions can be made, but the unfortunately vague and snarky answer to how many school shootings were prevented due to “X” is, “all the ones that didn’t happen.”

I say follow the advice in this thread regarding arguing for the matter at hand. Their side has statistics because crime is reported. Our side has to rely almost solely on principles, morality, and logic to make our points. Crimes that don’t happen aren’t reported.