TexasCHLforum.com

“It is now clear that the warning signs were there and tips to the FBI were missed,”

TheFriscoKid wrote:
After a night to think about it, I still agree that you're response and commitment are commendable. At the same time though I began to think about some of the other issues. While a solution like yours makes school shootings less likely or less damaging, several new issues come to mind.

Nothing is perfect. If I could solve the issue 100% I'd be president. (God help us!) However, I think if you asked a million people, you'd get a million responses that favor less school shootings, and fewer fatalities per incident. If the best we ever did was reduce the number of incidents and carnage of each- we'd be way ahead of where we are today!!

As noted in another thread - advocates and volunteers come from across the spectrum. Can enough high proficiency volunteers be found and in lacking that ability will we be willing to let in less than 100% qualified individuals to do these tasks?

There are specific training programs (school focused and public access active shooter focused for CHL's) available for exactly this scenario. LEO training is not nearly as high as most people think. Yes, swat and some other smaller elements are trained better but the average LEO who would be the first responder to the school is not. Research the Police Academy training and I think you'll find it is not too difficult to have that level on site. Plus, until something goes very wrong it can't be proven that this won't work. (and it's already going very wrong so at least, we add a fighting chance to the mix.)

Appx 100,000 schools in the US. 4-5 guards per shift - 1 shift per week, night activities - games etc 2-3 a week ends up being 40 per school to cover most well attended 'events' - that's 4 million volunteers and when we start looking at lost GDP and/or costs - it's not a realistic plan.

Well, let's start with 1 (or 2) at each school and build from there. (some coverage beats the heck out of none) We can eliminate a lot of budget waste but can't perfect the system from day one. Some mix of paid and volunteer... each school will have it's own unique situation. My son's school for instance would have no trouble getting 6-8 volunteers. Some would have none.

Besides it only covers one aspect of the problem. We still have mentally ill with weapons and many other target rich environments - malls, churches, political rallies, sporting events, colleges, unis and trade schools aren't in that number.

So, we should give up on everything because we might miss one element??????? Surely you don't mean that!?!?

Our Church is covered (as are many), malls are not all posted, many colleges have campus carry, trade schools can also be either. This discussion is about minor children in school... adult students can decide for themselves where to go and whether or not to carry.

This also does nothing to stop suicides, and domestic violence and other gun events precipitated by 'mental health decline'.

None of those issues are the subject of this debate. And to be brutally honest (as callous as it may sound) I don't care about someone committing suicide (whether ill or not) as long as they don't take my kid with them! People who have skills and training in mental health can work on that side of the equation- I'm only looking to address the side I can help with.

Again, if we don't start somewhere, nothing will ever change. These mass murderers usually off themselves at the first sign of resistance... so far we have offered them little to no incentive. I'm suggesting that we have to get off of our collective backsides and face the problem, literally.

We will never be able to tweak and perfect a system of response if we don't first put something in place and get started.

Will we make mistakes- YES. Will those mistakes result in more deaths than keeping our heads in the sand- no. If 1 or 2 innocents get shot while taking down an active shooter- that still beats another 10, 20 or ?? while letting them go until running out of ammo. And yes, I take that statement seriously, knowing me or my own child could be one of them. We live in tough times.

Chemist45 wrote:Flechero,
I agree with most of what you said with the exception of paying more money for additional school protection.
I already pay far to much in taxes for a really bad education system.
How about this instead: We take a few of the non-core positions that have proliferated in our schools and trade them for armed guards and armed teacher training.
I'm talking about a few of the, far too many, administrators that now outnumber teachers in school districts.
Or maybe the school's "Diversity director" or "Self esteem coordinator".
I think it is far more important that our kids be safe while learning the three Rs than it is to learn about:
Global warming, Ump-teen genders, same sex marriage, or social responsibility.
I also think it is more important than a free breakfast, a free lunch or "Summer feeding".
I keep getting told that kids can't learn when they're hungry - well they can't learn when they are afraid either.

NNT wrote: My church today talked to some of us and reminded us they don't consider carry guns in the building appropriate, but falling far short of banning us. I struggle with that one. For now I choose to respect the request. I am not sure I alway will.

TheFriscoKid wrote:

Sorry for the long winded response.

It's a good response. I am here to learn from others.

TheFriscoKid wrote: I am starting to see that if we don't make some compromises of our choosing we will find ourselves compromised in ways we don't want and wouldn't choose.