Teacher accidentally fires gun in classroom, students injured

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and a small % of folks (by comparison with all) will be able to auto-react auto-think in a school incident.
But teachers (mostly) just won't be able to do it well enough.
In that earlier scenario my first reaction would have been to keep control of the class, it was about to react in various ways, but the thing is, to be able to do something positive.


.......... and that is why we folks who debate against armed-teachers don't believe in it.

Many years ago my company held a paint-ball fun day and a coach load of us went off to the woods. We were up against another company's employees who played paintball once a month......... we never had! The young ops from our central station were all IT war-games enthusiasts and they bunched together as 'experts' and believed that they would do well. Some of our older employees were ex-service personnel and they reckoned they would shine as well. I kept close to the office ladies's group, not because I'm a sissy but because I thought I might prefer to hide in the woods with ladies rather than get paint all over me with the idiots.

Oh dear...... It was embarrassing. We had four games that day and got trashed with so much ease that it was painful. The IT kids, who were so deadly in virtual reality, and the ex-service 'sandbaggers' (pull up and sit on a sand-bag, and I'll tell you how it's done ) were quietened at last. Subdued! Painted!

The office ladies' group? We all went and hid and didn't move until anybody with a paint gun came along, and then shot 'em red....... the marshals said we cheated because we didn't win the fortress (whatever) but we enjoyed it better than the experts!

Point being......... it takes too much training to prepare a teacher. Let teachers teach, and train proper security officers to do the best they can, supported by perimeter security, access control, cameras etc. That simple means: Spend money to protect your kids, and no cheapskate 'home-guard' nonsense.

How are you so certain that being able to defend oneself requires such extensive training?
I know people who had no training, yet managed it...usually without firing a shot.

 

[oldbadger]

How are you so certain that being able to defend oneself requires such extensive training?
I know people who had no training, yet managed it...usually without firing a shot.

See?
What a mangled view you have about all this.
It's not about defending yourself at all..... that, by comparison, would be easy.
It's about keeping a whole school of children alive.

 

[Revoltingest]

See?
What a mangled view you have about all this.
It's not about defending yourself at all..... that, by comparison, would be easy.

Deflecting, eh?

 

[esmith]

See?
What a mangled view you have about all this.
It's not about defending yourself at all..... that, by comparison, would be easy.
It's about keeping a whole school of children alive.

First schools have to formulate plans in cooperation with local law enforcement and have drills so that students do know what they are to supposed to do under various scenarios. Yes, I know it seems wrong that we have to subject our children to these type of possibilities, but they now exist and no one has a plan. They blame everything but the lack of procedures and training....the 5 P's. They have fire drills don't they, (which are stupid the way they run them). There were warnings since Columbine, but no one headed these warning except to blame inanimate objects, it's easier to blame than to look objectively at a problem and plan for another occurrence.

Now to your above post
I do not see all school staff as an offensive group but as a defensive group or individual
If any of the staff feels that they are confident and have enough training to go on the offense against a shooter then they can do so at their own risk.
Those that feel that are not experienced or trained in an offensive manner should defend in place. Yes, you are probably going to lose more lives in certain situation, like the last one, if you take on the role of defense. It is easier to defend than it is to attack, then again a good offense is better than an good defense in some situations. It all depends on the situation.

 

[esmith]

First schools have to formulate plans in cooperation with local law enforcement and have drills so that students do know what they are to supposed to do under various scenarios. Yes, I know it seems wrong that we have to subject our children to these type of possibilities, but they now exist and no one has a plan. They blame everything but the lack of procedures and training....the 5 P's. They have fire drills don't they, (which are stupid the way they run them). There were warnings since Columbine, but no one headed these warning except to blame inanimate objects, it's easier to blame than to look objectively at a problem and plan for another occurrence.

Now to your above post
I do not see all school staff as an offensive group but as a defensive group or individual
If any of the staff feels that they are confident and have enough training to go on the offense against a shooter then they can do so at their own risk.
Those that feel that are not experienced or trained in an offensive manner should defend in place. Yes, you are probably going to lose more lives in certain situation, like the last one, if you take on the role of defense. It is easier to defend than it is to attack, then again a good offense is better than an good defense in some situations. It all depends on the situation.

But to have, IMHO, no means to defend or attack is irresponsible.

 

[oldbadger]

Deflecting, eh?

No.
Not at all.
'Guns with teachers' (if effective at all) would be primarily about protecting and securing the lives of school-children. To talk about just protecting oneself is way off the mark.

 

[oldbadger]

First schools have to formulate plans in cooperation with local law enforcement and have drills so that students do know what they are to supposed to do under various scenarios. Yes, I know it seems wrong that we have to subject our children to these type of possibilities, but they now exist and no one has a plan. They blame everything but the lack of procedures and training....the 5 P's. They have fire drills don't they, (which are stupid the way they run them). There were warnings since Columbine, but no one headed these warning except to blame inanimate objects, it's easier to blame than to look objectively at a problem and plan for another occurrence.

Fire Drills........ No doubt you heard about the Grenfell Tower fire in London, when aluminium cladding reached it's ignition temperature and engulfed the whole huge building. How the architects, building inspectorates, fire service and others could have allowed aluminium to cover a building just beats me, but they used this stuff in hundreds of similar tower blocks. But the fire drill in the Grenfell Tower instructed emphatically that residents should NOT attempt evacuation in a fire, but to remain 'safely' within their own flats until the fire brigade had control of the fire. They burned to death in their homes.
Bloody experts.............................
Please excuse the rant........

Now to your above post
I do not see all school staff as an offensive group but as a defensive group or individual
If any of the staff feels that they are confident and have enough training to go on the offense against a shooter then they can do so at their own risk.
Those that feel that are not experienced or trained in an offensive manner should defend in place. Yes, you are probably going to lose more lives in certain situation, like the last one, if you take on the role of defense. It is easier to defend than it is to attack, then again a good offense is better than an good defense in some situations. It all depends on the situation.

I don't think it can work well enough.
I really do think that the US should prepare financial provision to install perimeter security around all schools, colleges and universities, with access control at the main entrance, and with trained security staff on duty. The cost is huge, but then it is going to be less expensive than the cost of so many attacks on so many establishments.

 

[esmith]

I don't think it can work well enough.
I really do think that the US should prepare financial provision to install perimeter security around all schools, colleges and universities, with access control at the main entrance, and with trained security staff on duty. The cost is huge, but then it is going to be less expensive than the cost of so many attacks on so many establishments.

Ideas are always presentable, if none are presented there are no procedures. I'm still going with controlled access to the school with backup armed staff.

 

[Revoltingest]

No.
Not at all.
'Guns with teachers' (if effective at all) would be primarily about protecting and securing the lives of school-children. To talk about just protecting oneself is way off the mark.

Protecting oneself has positive spillover effects to other innocents.
But you're play'n word parsing anyway....& still deflecting from my question.

 

[godnotgod]

sorry I ate them after adding some bacon strips.

LOL

 

[Shaul]

This doesn’t relate to whether teachers should be armed actually.
1) He wasn’t allowed to have the weapon there. So we already know he wasn’t using them as armed teachers would. Therefore it is evidence that a policy that safely outlines how teachers should have guns in the classrooms is needed. Since the blanket prohibition allowed this case, he simply violated it. An appropriate policy is needed to replace it so teachers can bring them into classrooms in the right ways.
2) Identifying him as a teacher is misleading. He had his weapon there on the basis of his being a reserve police officer. It would therefore more related to making the case that police officers should not be allowed to bring guns to schools than that teachers shouldn’t.
3) This case is clearly exceptional. Basing policy on extraordinary cases makes for extraordinary poor policy.

 

[oldbadger]

Ideas are always presentable, if none are presented there are no procedures. I'm still going with controlled access to the school with backup armed staff.

Fair enough.
Your support for 'controlled access' aligns with my ideas as well, because that would require suitable perimeter-security for it to work.
The problem is, imo, what level of perimeter security would be required? Around here (for instance) military barracks have a wide, open and flat margin within a (circa) 4 meter high fence system and since the 80s they will (mostly) have used a seismic movement detection system, one of the products called 'e-flex'. Now schools won't be able to get anywhere near that level of protection ..... no-where near. If no suitable provision for perimeter security can be obtained, your armed-teacher initiative is all that remains, but I just don't see it being safe enough.
Further, each school is unique, with individual perimeter characteristics .... blah blah, and so some organisation would need to review surveys for each premises to approve installation quotations. Local security companies' ideas would wander from competent to inept.
Over here our schools have already reached a low level of perimeter security which can deter snoopers, individual abductions by estranged parents, pupil egress etc, but a maddened nutter with a gun and any vehicle..... determined to make an entrance, is off the charts. But posts from other US members (on other threads) have suggested that ram-raiding with vehicles is not common where you are........... over here the term 'ram-raid' is common knowledge and ram-raiding deterrents are just hugely expensive.
Yeah, the security of schools is hugely expensive, and I hear that State school funding has actually been reduced by the present government. So if you've got any ideas about perimeter security at this time, then that would be positive discussion.

 

[oldbadger]

Protecting oneself has positive spillover effects to other innocents.
But you're play'n word parsing anyway....& still deflecting from my question.

Your question..... which showed a myopic view of the main objective, was:-
How are you so certain that being able to defend oneself requires such extensive training? I know people who had no training, yet managed it...usually without firing a shot.

No, you very probably don't... know anybody who deterred a mass murder in a school.
Deterring a would-be attacker in some other situation don't count for much. I could list hundreds of incidents where I deterred attacks, and not one of them involved a maddened nutter who was determined to kill in some suicidal mindset ....... they nearly all were linked to somebody who wanted to achieve some living-goal, such as 'getting away'.

If you think it would be 'probable' for a teacher to be able to control a large group of children all filling with adrenaline and starting to make decisions for themselves, whilst filling with adrenaline themself and deciding on a plan for a unique situation, then you're havin' a laugh.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your question..... which showed a myopic view of the main objective, was:-
How are you so certain that being able to defend oneself requires such extensive training? I know people who had no training, yet managed it...usually without firing a shot.

No, you very probably don't... know anybody who deterred a mass murder in a school.
Deterring a would-be attacker in some other situation don't count for much. I could list hundreds of incidents where I deterred attacks, and not one of them involved a maddened nutter who was determined to kill in some suicidal mindset ....... they nearly all were linked to somebody who wanted to achieve some living-goal, such as 'getting away'.

If you think it would be 'probable' for a teacher to be able to control a large group of children all filling with adrenaline and starting to make decisions for themselves, whilst filling with adrenaline themself and deciding on a plan for a unique situation, then you're havin' a laugh.

I just cannot get you to address what I posted.
But I forgive you. It would be difficult.

 

[esmith]

Fair enough.
Your support for 'controlled access' aligns with my ideas as well, because that would require suitable perimeter-security for it to work.
The problem is, imo, what level of perimeter security would be required? Around here (for instance) military barracks have a wide, open and flat margin within a (circa) 4 meter high fence system and since the 80s they will (mostly) have used a seismic movement detection system, one of the products called 'e-flex'. Now schools won't be able to get anywhere near that level of protection ..... no-where near. If no suitable provision for perimeter security can be obtained, your armed-teacher initiative is all that remains, but I just don't see it being safe enough.
Further, each school is unique, with individual perimeter characteristics .... blah blah, and so some organisation would need to review surveys for each premises to approve installation quotations. Local security companies' ideas would wander from competent to inept.
Over here our schools have already reached a low level of perimeter security which can deter snoopers, individual abductions by estranged parents, pupil egress etc, but a maddened nutter with a gun and any vehicle..... determined to make an entrance, is off the charts. But posts from other US members (on other threads) have suggested that ram-raiding with vehicles is not common where you are........... over here the term 'ram-raid' is common knowledge and ram-raiding deterrents are just hugely expensive.
Yeah, the security of schools is hugely expensive, and I hear that State school funding has actually been reduced by the present government. So if you've got any ideas about perimeter security at this time, then that would be positive discussion.

I'm not for perimeter security if your talking about controlled access to school grounds. I'm advocating for manned single access, with metal detectors to a building by non-staff personnel, all other entries alarmed. However, key-coded entry access for staff members on other entry points. Got to get to and from the sports

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not for perimeter security if your talking about controlled access to school grounds. I'm advocating for manned single access, with metal detectors to a building by non-staff personnel, all other entries alarmed. However, key-coded entry access for staff members on other entry points. Got to get to and from the sports

OK......... but if there is no perimeter security than access to the building cannot be controlled.

That's an interesting angle, I think....... is there any record of how the killers entered the school premises in, say, the last 50 incidents?

You mention intruder detection (24hrs shuntable) alarms to all secondary entry points. That isn't any good on its own because in a visiting killer incident it's all happening by the time any alarm activates. All other entry points needed primary perimeter protection, and then they themselves need to be very well protected. They're altready going to be full-hour fire-check doors and so of very tough construction, but they need hinge bolts, and their locking mechanisms have to be very high security standard together with auto-unlock in the event of a fire-alarm activation. Of course, and easy route in is accomplished by causing a fire inside the p[remises and I'm not detailing how that can happen but it's fairly easy (as I guess you already know).

Hence....... perimeter security................. what the heck.... flog off an aircraft carrier, that should pay for the whole country's schools...

 

[oldbadger]

I just cannot get you to address what I posted.
But I forgive you. It would be difficult.

It's no good, Revolting.... I did address your question in the last post. And letting teachers carry guns in school with some training or other just doesn't come near to handling the many mass murders.

Proper perimeter security with access control and employed security officers is a much better answer, but obviously that'll actually cost some money. If you were slightly closer to home I'd drop round some hankies for you to sob into.

 

[esmith]

OK......... but if there is no perimeter security than access to the building cannot be controlled.

That's an interesting angle, I think....... is there any record of how the killers entered the school premises in, say, the last 50 incidents?

You mention intruder detection (24hrs shuntable) alarms to all secondary entry points. That isn't any good on its own because in a visiting killer incident it's all happening by the time any alarm activates. All other entry points needed primary perimeter protection, and then they themselves need to be very well protected. They're altready going to be full-hour fire-check doors and so of very tough construction, but they need hinge bolts, and their locking mechanisms have to be very high security standard together with auto-unlock in the event of a fire-alarm activation. Of course, and easy route in is accomplished by causing a fire inside the p[remises and I'm not detailing how that can happen but it's fairly easy (as I guess you already know).

Hence....... perimeter security................. what the heck.... flog off an aircraft carrier, that should pay for the whole country's schools...

Disagree, secondary access doors wired with alarms would sound if the door was opened. Ever been in a store with a fire escapee door? If you open it a alarm goes off. Alarm can be only disabled with a pass-code.
What 50 incidents? But the 3 major ones were through the front or other access doors.
You can postulate various scenarios but each location is different and different protocols have to be established at each location.

 

[oldbadger]

Disagree, secondary access doors wired with alarms would sound if the door was opened. Ever been in a store with a fire escapee door? If you open it a alarm goes off. Alarm can be only disabled with a pass-code.

Yes, I've been in stores with F/E doors. Is that kind of door, with tower bolts and push-handle, with shuntable alarm circuit.... what you think will suit your schools?
Surely that's what they have now?
I'm talking about a very much higher level of security than that.

What 50 incidents?

You didn't know? There have been 50 school shootings in the US inside of 14 months.

But the 3 major ones were through the front or other access doors.

They were all major ones. When folks are shot dead in schools, it's major. Yes?
And that is very woolly..... 'through front or other access doors' is woolly info. But your sentence shows that schools need to have one main access point through which all visits are controlled.
......'other access doors'...... !!!!!!!! dreadful.

, and You can postulate various scenarios but each location is different and different protocols have to be established at each location.

Yes...... you're repeating my point that 'each school is unique'.

I though that we could both learn and progress from each other's posts. A discussion.
Maybe we still can?

So far I cannot see that US schools have safe access-control systems or policies in place. 'Other access doors'. My Goodness.

 

[Shaul]

Yes, I've been in stores with F/E doors. Is that kind of door, with tower bolts and push-handle, with shuntable alarm circuit.... what you think will suit your schools?
Surely that's what they have now?
I'm talking about a very much higher level of security than that.


You didn't know? There have been 50 school shootings in the US inside of 14 months.


They were all major ones. When folks are shot dead in schools, it's major. Yes?
And that is very woolly..... 'through front or other access doors' is woolly info. But your sentence shows that schools need to have one main access point through which all visits are controlled.
......'other access doors'...... !!!!!!!! dreadful.

I will challenge that. Provide citations, please.

Read this,
No, There Haven't Been 18 School Shootings This Year — Not Even Close