Hiring armed guards at all schools would work but it is expensive and the guard would then be the first person killed. Allowing highly trained teachers to have guns would be a better option. The only additional cost is for the training.
No training or weapon will help then.
However, the next armed person will have the chance to be prepared and can be successful.
While no one would have wanted anyone to die at that school it would have been much better if the number had only been half as large or possibly less.
Originally Posted by Laz
Who said anything about "hiring armed guards" .... ?
Hire existing police/deputies with street experience and upgrade their training, which will be
less expensive that training a bunch of teachers in closed quarters, close proximity, crowded combat style live fire confrontations with "shoot-don't shoot" decisions making in which the shooter is wearing body army (CHL classes?????).
Put four officers to each school AFTER installing video/audio monitoring equipment for the perimeters and automatick lockdown doors exterior and interior that are activated by the officers ONLY.
Then implement a "visitor" policy that pre-screens all visitors prior to coming to the campus with requirements/bans just like the airport for things you bring to the campus with scanning equipment in place with an officer present to enforce indentification, authorization, and compliance mandates.
BTW: Training is not the only cost involved in arming teachers, but the "training" that would satisfy the requirements to meet the threat situation would involve roughly 200 hours minimum initial traiining, including classroom instruction, with about 40 hours a year "re-qualificaiton" training.
In addition to that the district would have to implement and monitor weapons and loads to assure that the teachers were carrying the weapons with which they were trained loaded with the proper rounds for the assignment and added insurance costs for school and teacher liability (if insuance can even be bought for the risks), and those teachers authorized to confront instruders would be required to hear center mass body armour, assigned to them and paid by the district,
Those teachers would have to be paid additional on their contracts and they would have to be paid during their training and their training would have to be paid. Forget about one-year contracts. The school district cannot and should not afford combat-handgun training for each teacher on a one-year contract, and school district should be allowed to recoup the cost of the training from the teacher if the teacher does not complete the contract with the district for either cause or no cause.
Now start examining the school district hiring policy and practice, which will include criminal psychological backgrounds and psychological testing and counseling. Just as a realistic proposition ... for those who have spent any "quality" time IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS interacting with the teachers in them on a level to evaluate their "readiness" for combat, how many would pass the superficial observation ... "sight" qualification... test regarding their behavior alone.
When someone
volunteers to become a police officer or
volunteers to become a servicemember they understand and accept the risks of armed confrontations with people that want to kill them, and the police have special circumstances that are similar to the teachers in that they will have limited presence with them, if any at all, at the initial confrontation in which they must operate at close proximity, customarily within 10 to 15 feet, surrounded by walls on the otherside of which are innocent people (children) for whom they have a responsibility of PROTECTING ... with 1 to 2 seconds of evaluation and response time to determine if this is a risk and how to respond to neutralize the risk. One reason there is a HIGH rate of ADD in LE.
When an 18-year-old enrolls in college to study to be a teacher that was not in the mix.
Originally Posted by markroxny
