Ruark wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:57 am
troglodyte wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:26 pm
2:21:38 - first shot
2:24:35 - first outside officer arrives, Kratz. 24 had been shot. 11 fatally.
2:25:18 - last casualty. 34 total shot, 17 fatally.
Less than 4 minutes
Kratz could not have gotten to the shooter to stop any of the deaths or injury before it was over even if he had gone straight in and not stopped to,instead, direct traffic.
This, I think, is why I think the value of armed personnel is overestimated. Yes, I think we should have some armed personnel, but it by no means will solve the problem and make everybody safe. Think of the typical classroom building. You have a LONG hallway, with classroom doors going down both sides. You hear (ASSUMING you're in that building) a gun go off down at one end. Bang, bang, bang.... and every 2 seconds, it's another kid dying. What will you do? Run down the hall with your gun and locate and skillfully engage the shooter? Easier said than done; you don't even know what classroom he's in. Meanwhile, bang-bang-bang-bang.....
Even if the teacher in that room just happens to be armed, it's unlikely that he or she is actually WEARING the weapon. More likely, it's in a desk drawer, possibly locked. If a shooter holding a cocked AR bursts into the room, it's very possible that that teacher will be dead long before a gun can be brought into reach. I'm sorry, I just can't visualize a teacher standing in front of a room full of kids with a 1911 hanging from her belt.
Additionally, most modern urban high schools have MANY buildings, including temporary buildings set up to handle student overflow. I've seen big urban high schools with over a dozen temporary buildings, plus gyms, shops, libraries, admin buildings, vocational buildings, health centers, cafeterias, auditoriums, etc. as well as several regular hallway-type classroom buildings. How is an armed officer in Building 38, going to get to Building 3 in time to save lives? It's not going to happen.
Of course, you could have an armed officer walking every hallway on the campus, but that's not going to happen, either, for many reasons.
I thing one step that needs to be taken is limiting campus access in the first place. There needs to be an entrance point where only vehicles with a current valid sticker can enter. That would help some. Of course, a current student would still be able to enter the campus in his own vehicle, carrying a weapon. So to stop him, you'd need a metal detector at every entrance to every building.
All that being said, how would you implement a really thorough, effective security program for the school in the picture below?
We talk about arming teachers and school security, but when it comes to actually implementing something, the challenge is somewhat daunting.
Arming teachers is not a perfect solution, not anymore than putting in metal detectors or fencing the campus. It has to be a layered approach and, even at that, it will not be perfect.
Arming personnel does allow the chance to fight back and neutralize the threat. Nobody is expecting them to run down the hall through a hail of lead and engage a unseen threat. If they have the opportunity then they might get lucky. Even if they are able to put a few rounds safely above his head it may distract him long enough to get the advantage or keep him pinned down. I just sat in a Safety Committee meeting last night at a school where we were trying to figure out how to have at least one Guardian in each primary use building. No it's not perfect but it's a start. Since the school makes public they have armed Guardians it may help in deterrence. We will likely never know. We also talked about training, fencing, communication, access, and a number of other solutions. Their Guardians, and most of the other schools I have trained, require on-body carry.
Your whole comment generally comes across as defeatist. It is a tough problem that is going to require a multilayered approach. There are so many factors involved that each school, even down to each building, may require a different approach. While there is a shift in thinking, most communities around here don't like the idea of perimeter fencing or metal detectors, "it makes the school look like a prison" so we'll have to work around that. SRO's, IDs, clear backpacks, armed faculty, metal detectors, frisking, training, body scans, security cameras, radios, locked doors, fencing, controlled access, and school monitors are all tools and they all have their strengths and their failings.
A combination of several tools drastically increase the safety of the students and school personnel. Each school has to weigh the costs, financially, mentally, and time-wise. In a perfect world there would be money falling from heaven to make the necessary changes but, then again, in a perfect world we wouldn't have this problem. We can cry "but the children" and think everyone will be willing to fund the necessary changes but too much of the public still believes that "it can't happen here." Unbelievable, yet true.
Fencing is expensive, metal detectors are expensive, SROs are expensive, security cameras are expensive but they are effective (save Peterson). Locking doors, monitoring entrances, being aware are (usually) free. Radios, IDs, and arming teachers are usually low cost. So which ones should we do first? I'm all in favor of all of them but raising funds for a fence and metal detector is going to take more time than keeping doors locked, being aware, and allowing a few teachers to carry. Let's do the things we can do now and work towards the larger items.
When it comes down to it, like my own protection, if a bad guy is shooting I want the personnel to have the ability to shoot back. I also want the school training the staff (both armed and unarmed), hardening the campus, and finding ways to help keep the school safer.
No it's not perfect and it gripes me.