Home Forums Hunting Firearms Legislation Discussing and Implementing Ideas for Protecting Our Schools

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 150 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    This is not a discussion about support for or opposition to our 2nd Amendment rights, firearm legislation, mental illness, or the depravity of our current culture, etc.

    I am interested in discussing the following ideas with people who have the power to get them implemented within our public schools. Who do I need to get in front of, and how do I go about doing it? Is this something that should be approached at the school district level, county level, state level, or national level? Thanks in advance for your feedback.

    Below are a few ideas that I believe will deter school shootings from taking place. Please feel free to add your own ideas, but I’d like to mainly focus on these, or variations of these, as I believe they are budget friendly and could be implemented relatively quickly and easily.

    1. Place one or multiple armed National Guard men/women at main entry points of all public schools. Screen all people entering, similar to how courthouse entries are screened today. If this means use of metal detectors, banning certain items, capping the size of backpacks, etc., so be it.

    2. Lock all other entry points and establish security devices on them to stop unauthorized entry. Similar to many office buildings today.

    3. Make annual self defense and firearm training courses mandatory for all faculty, and support qualified faculty to carry a firearm. Faculty would not be required to be armed, but carrying a firearm would be promoted.

    Thanks again, BID

    Avatarfowl_attitude
    Participant
    Post count: 602

    I would say if you want it a law…state level.
    If you want it to be a policy. local school district level.

    Looking at your list, it is a good list. But Number 2 is a difficult one. The high school I teach in has 6 entraces. Only two are open for students in the morning and those are locked at 8:40. Anyone using those entrances after 8:40 buzzes the office and some one comes and lets them in. However that does not prevent students from using the other entrances. They prop the doors open with a pencil, if they see someone there they let them in. And you can not chain or block the door from being used from the inside, otherwise you upset the fire marshal. All of those exits are used during fire evacuations. And try giving a student a consequence for using one of these doors and watch what happens. It is difficult to secure a building with 6 sets of doors and 1400 students.

    We even tried making kids wear ID’s on lanyards so we could identify people that should not be in the building. It was a three year battle. Kids didn’t see the point and parents were not supportive. Everyone talks a good game until there is the slightest bit of inconvenience. Then it is “my kid shouldn’t have to…”

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Questions…

    1) So you want to make it basically a lock down facility with armed guards at entry points, key card entry and mandatory firearms training for all faculty AND you think this is budget friendly?

    2) Do you presently have children in school?

    3) Do you think a shooting similar to a school could not happen at say “Nationwide” insurance for example because they have a guard station?

    4) Do you rally think there will be mandatory firearms training for anyone, let alone members of the teachers unions?

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: fowl_attitude

    I would say if you want it a law…state level.
    If you want it to be a policy. local school district level.

    Looking at your list, it is a good list. But Number 2 is a difficult one. The high school I teach in has 6 entraces. Only two are open for students in the morning and those are locked at 8:40. Anyone using those entrances after 8:40 buzzes the office and some one comes and lets them in. However that does not prevent students from using the other entrances. They prop the doors open with a pencil, if they see someone there they let them in. And you can not chain or block the door from being used from the inside, otherwise you upset the fire marshal. All of those exits are used during fire evacuations. And try giving a student a consequence for using one of these doors and watch what happens. It is difficult to secure a building with 6 sets of doors and 1400 students.

    We even tried making kids wear ID’s on lanyards so we could identify people that should not be in the building. It was a three year battle. Kids didn’t see the point and parents were not supportive. Everyone talks a good game until there is the slightest bit of inconvenience. Then it is “my kid shouldn’t have to…”

    Thanks for your feedback fowl_attitude. Sounds like your school’s main 2 entrances already have a security system set up on them for people to be somewhat screened after 8:40 AM. This is great. Adding National Guard personnel to them prior to 8:40 AM, or at all times, wouldn’t be a big change. Other entrances can easily be converted to Emergency Exits ONLY, that would be locked if attempting to access from the outside unauthorized, and would sound an alarm if opened from the inside. Similar to how many office buildings are equipped today. So, this should address all of your door / entrance concerns, and would meet all current fire codes.

    As for students and parents fighting against carrying/displaying ID’s, etc., this is something that the school shouldn’t have caved on, and wouldn’t have the opportunity to cave on in the future, if/when new regulations were put in place. (I can complain and argue all I want about not needing to wear my seat-belt, but I’ve never argued myself out of a ticket, yet.) 😉

    AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    With budgets as tight as they are for public education (and getting tighter) these ideas would possibly deter tragedies in the future but school districts are not in the financial situations to implement them.

    I can only imagine the insurance nightmare that would come with arming teachers. There would be grievances from teachers opposed to firearms training

    Avatarspeng5
    Participant
    Post count: 2928

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    With budgets as tight as they are for public education (and getting tighter) these ideas would possibly deter tragedies in the future but school districts are not in the financial situations to implement them.

    I can only imagine the insurance nightmare that would come with arming teachers. There would be grievances from teachers opposed to firearms training

    Not only this stuff ^^ but

    what happens when a teacher going through a bad divorce or a psychotic break or a chemical dependency or something snaps and shoots someone – maybe another teacher caught in a love triangle with him/her, maybe a kid.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Questions…

    1) So you want to make it basically a lock down facility with armed guards at entry points, key card entry and mandatory firearms training for all faculty AND you think this is budget friendly?

    2) Do you presently have children in school?

    3) Do you think a shooting similar to a school could not happen at say “Nationwide” insurance for example because they have a guard station?

    4) Do you rally think there will be mandatory firearms training for anyone, let alone members of the teachers unions?

    1) Yes. Compared to providing private security, it’s absolutely budget friendly. The NG is already funded by our tax dollars, (same as our public schools), and NG personnel are currently available to provide this service at no extra charge to tax payers. Key card entry points and any additional electronic devices, such as metal detectors, would be an additional expense. But who can put a price on human life, and these would be MUCH cheaper than any attempt to ban and / or confiscate legal firearms from all of the general public. As for firearms training for school faculty, I recently read on IS that a local firearm trainer is offering $1Million worth of FREE firearm training for school faculty. Talk about budget friendly…

    2) Yes.

    3) No, I don’t think that. It most certainly could, and does from time to time. The difference is, all of the “Nationwide” insurance type office buildings that I’ve ever been in have many security measures in place to deter these sorts of things from occurring, and immediately oppose them if they do occur. Public schools don’t, and they house hundreds of thousands of our defenseless children on a daily basis. If my office is attacked, I am a grown man who is better equipped to respond to the situation than an average group of school children. (Even wrestling all 4 of my children at the same time, they don’t stand a chance against me as an adult, and I’m not armed with anything other than my body. To think children, even of advanced mental and emotional maturity, could respond to a deadly situation as well as an average adult is not valid.) The security measures implemented up-front are usually enough to stop these types of things from ever happening in the first place, though, so if it has this type of positive impact at an office full of grown men and women, imagine what type of positive impact it would have at a soft target like a school filled with children.

    4) Yes. Since the government runs our public schools, they should be held responsible for protecting our school children within them.

    Avatarnorthwoodsbucks
    Participant
    Post count: 1519

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    Avatarberettadouble
    Participant
    Post count: 530

    Arming people that don’t want to be armed is asking for trouble.

    I am also uncomfortable with a Guardsman being posted, because you are essentially asking him/her to shoot a kid. if something comes up. However justified a person may be- livi9ng with that is too much to ask.

    I disagree with the notion of it being impossible to lock a place down. Ever push open a side door at Walmart? Alarms everywhere but people can still get out in a fire. Post a teacher at doors when they should be open, no excuses lockdown the rest of the time. I worked at a 2000+ person office building and the electronics were there that it was nearly impossible to sneak in.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: speng5

    Quote by: TeamAsgrow

    With budgets as tight as they are for public education (and getting tighter) these ideas would possibly deter tragedies in the future but school districts are not in the financial situations to implement them.

    I can only imagine the insurance nightmare that would come with arming teachers. There would be grievances from teachers opposed to firearms training

    Not only this stuff ^^ but

    what happens when a teacher going through a bad divorce or a psychotic break or a chemical dependency or something snaps and shoots someone – maybe another teacher caught in a love triangle with him/her, maybe a kid.

    I’m not going to address what-if’s. Too many of them, and these types of situations can happen to anyone, anywhere.

    Think about how much money it will cost to ban and confiscate currently legal firearms. Or making sure everyone has a current and accurate mental screening and firearms are ‘managed’ per individual according to the diagnosis. Expenses associated with implementing these security measures into our schools would be a drop in the bucket compared to those expenses. We’re no longer talking about a public education budget. We’re now talking about a national security budget, for our children, no less. With the number of school murders within the last 1-2 decades, I’m surprised insurance companies aren’t promoting school faculty members to carry firearms. As for grievances from teachers… So what. They’re government employees. The government runs our public schools, so the government is responsible for protecting the children who attend them.

    Avatarnahdogg
    Participant
    Post count: 212

    I met with my school’s principal yesterday. And they already have all doors secured and a secured Atrium that prevents entrance from going farther into the building then allowed. She indicated they have regular run hide fight drills. I like the idea of a voluntary concealed carry in the school by teachers and or faculty that pass additional screening. But I think most teachers would be against it.

    AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    The notion of better entry and exit security is feasible, as long as the public agrees that their taxes would have to be increased to accommodate improvements. The state is talking about a 1.5% allowable growth for public schools…that doesn’t go too far.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: berettadouble

    Arming people that don’t want to be armed is asking for trouble.

    I am also uncomfortable with a Guardsman being posted, because you are essentially asking him/her to shoot a kid. if something comes up. However justified a person may be- livi9ng with that is too much to ask.

    I disagree with the notion of it being impossible to lock a place down. Ever push open a side door at Walmart? Alarms everywhere but people can still get out in a fire. Post a teacher at doors when they should be open, no excuses lockdown the rest of the time. I worked at a 2000+ person office building and the electronics were there that it was nearly impossible to sneak in.

    Government employees don’t have a choice in the matter if it’s mandated.

    I don’t feel this way about any armed guardsmen/women I’m around any other place. Do you?

    Yes, many office buildings and stores are currently set up with these types of entry / exit systems. They work well.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    If you really think this then there’s really no sense continuing on with the conversation.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 150 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.