The NRA thinks we should do it. Many security experts agree.
So what do you think- Do schools need trained, armed guards? Sound off here!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 43
Thread: Do schools need armed guards?
01-02-2013, 10:58 AM #1Junior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Do schools need armed guards?
01-02-2013, 05:04 PM #2
IM in favor of it, but an account such as this requires specific training as well as marksmanship. A specific training program, perhaps state or federally drawn up as well as partnerships and training with the local pd. A police detail as well as a properly trained amd equipped guard, and a proper active shooter plan written up.Sergeant Phil Esterhaus: "Hey, let's be careful out there.."
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS WEBSITE/BLOG ARE MINE ALONE AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MY EMPLOYER.
01-03-2013, 04:07 AM #3
Practically speaking and simply put a school would greatly benefit from the presence of an armed security officer or detail of some sort, since school shootings are a reality in many countries nowadays. Schools are easy targets simply because in most cases they do not contain armed security officers and are installations where a shooter can and will be able to target a mass amount of individuals in a very short period of time.
It is a touchy subject despite the apparent instant "gains" towards the overall security at schools that an armed officer would bring, however-
If you post armed security officers in schools, then should it also be considered to post them in other "educational institutions"? Should we also then consider posting armed guards into daycare centers? They are also very much vulnerable not to mention a bunch of other locations.
I've understood that despite schools being the targets of shootings all around the world on a regular basis, the administrations are still unwilling to commit armed security into schools despite everything that has happened. It is a matter of image to many educational authorities, since they do not seem to be very interested of giving an idea of schools being some sorts of armed forts to the general public very easily.
Still though, the short answer to this would probably be that "yes, it would help shorten the victim list and probably even neutralize the attacker or attackers in the event that they hit a school".
01-03-2013, 06:40 AM #4
Mr. Rothman, yes, I believe they do. But it doesn't just end with schools. I think that anyone, with any desire to deter, prevent, or mitigate these massacres needs to take a long look in the mirror, do some homework, and understand that there are very few options in how to stop these events once they have started.
The entire "active shooter event" is a multifacited problem. There are many symptoms, all of which require their own fixes. The mental health community needs to figure out how to make their services more accessable. I work at a hospital with 6 in-patient psych units and a psychiatric emergency evaluation department that are constantly at capacity. There simply are not enough psych beds in the U.S.
Politicians need to do their homework and figure out what the real problems with gun laws are. The "assault weapons ban" that they want to reintroduce was a complete failure. It basically banned cosmetics of certain rifles, and I can tell you that I can fire off three 10 round magazines in the same amount of time it takes someboby to fire off one 30 round magazine. Ironically, the ban was named (or nicknamed) "The Brady Bill." Using the name of a secret service agent (that selflessly sacraficed his well being) to ban "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, when he was shot with a 6 round capacity revolver. ??????????????
From 1992 to 2011, the violent crime rate in the U.S. saw a REDUCTION of 50%. In the same time frame we saw in the homicide rate, a REDUCTION of 54%. In 2011, of the homicides caused by firearms, only 3.5% were caused by rifles, and the AR-15 (that they want to ban so much) was a sub-set of the rifle catagory.
Here in MN we enjoy what is called a "shall issue state." That means, if I meet the legal criteria to obtain a permit to carry a pistol, the sheriff department "shall issue" me a permit. Whereas they used to be able to deny me for any reason that they wanted so long as the carry permit was not required for my job. And even still with that, they could restrict as to when I could and could not carry, ie, "valid only while working for" so and so company.
I don't mean to make this into a gun rights debate, but they are focusing on one part of a much larger problem. I had to take 3 written psych evaluations as is standard practice for all new hires in my department, to obtain the unarmed security job that I have. Yet I never had to take 1 to get my permit to carry a gun in public. I can even have a blood alcohol level of .039 and still carry my gun legally. And if I feel like selling a handgun to an aquaintance, I don't have to take the 5 minutes of filling out the standard purchase background check to verify that they are not a felon. Rediculous.
All of these problems fall on the people whose job it is to make laws, improve mental health. Our job, as security/protection professionals, is to deal with the outcome when those other facits fail, and the shooter makes it to the doorstep of the places we are paid to protect. You are not going to "verbal judo" a crazed gunman into stopping their massacre. You won't stop them with pepper spray, PPCT, batons or Tasers.
I am not a member of the NRA and I never will be. But I agree whole heartedly that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." You have to be able to either match, or rise a level above the amount of force that the bad guy can use against you and others.
There is another good thread about this very topic. Didn't mean to rant, it's just my thoughts.
http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/...chool-MassacreApparently a HUGE cop wannabe...
01-03-2013, 09:17 AM #5
01-03-2013, 12:09 PM #6
01-03-2013, 01:38 PM #7
01-05-2013, 07:20 AM #8
I worked off-duty in school safety in the Seattle area (armed) for over eight years. The particular school district has a hybrid system of unarmed campus officers, armed service officers, and school resource officers from local law enforcement agencies. All incumbents from the school district that carry firearms are required to be active, former or retired law enforcement officers. Many (myself included) have already been through active shooter certification programs and qualify on the range and in the FATS simulator.
I recently learned that the school board was considering disarming the school district officers (either entirely or setting up a "lockbox" system for emergencies). Keep in mind that there were several firearms taken off of students over the years (possibly averting a tragedy), to include a MAC-10 pistol. I want to believe that the tragic events of late and the potentiality for sickening and sudden violence will vigorously shake those who believe that the presence of firearms in schools is inappropriate and/or ill advised. If the "presence" of weapons is such an issue, the officers can perhaps revert to their previous protocols which required them to carry concealed. Such carry was the norm for approximately twenty years without any adverse events unfolding in terms of the in-house security professionals.... --K.Bitter clinger to my guns and religion....
"When I die, I desire no better winding sheet than the Stars and Stripes, and no softer pillow than the Constitution of my country."--Andrew Jackson
Psychological Operations: Because physical wounds heal.
01-05-2013, 10:13 AM #9
Regardless of what schools do or don't do, though, it looks like we can count on a newspaper publishing a database of which schools have armed officers and which ones don't, all linked up with Google Maps, Street View, satellite, turn-by-turn driving directions and even up-to-the-minute traffic and weather conditions.
When I was a lad casting around for a direction in life, my mother said "Little ST, why don't you become an insane gunman? Travel at high speeds, see the world - and really, there's very little competition. Plus, you already have the insane part down cold." (No one could say that Mom didn't call it like she saw it, God love her.)
But the job seemed too tedious, and I didn't realize at the time that all jobs are tedious in one way or another. I mean, there's all that work doing target selection, surveillance, figuring out escape routes, etc. - just for a few minutes of excitement? No way.
Of course, I couldn't have known then that newspapers would one day make the job so damned easy that a child of six could do all that in a few minutes, with nothing more than an iPhone and a data plan.
...and maybe next, a database of which banks have armed security and which ones don't...and then which hospitals...and which malls...and...
Rats! Another opportunity missed. It's enough to drive you insane - if you aren't already.
Last edited by SecTrainer; 01-05-2013 at 11:13 AM.A man who will not lie to his wife has no regard for her feelings. - Anon.
My school was so tough we had our own coroner. - Lenny Bruce
In my neighborhood, you could walk 10 blocks in any direction and never leave the scene of a crime. - Charlie Callas
01-05-2013, 01:06 PM #10