School board learns a 20-year active shooter lesson??

[Hodgie]

I know several people who meet the requirements you mention-and are currently qualified under Pa. statute to be "armed school police officers".
Some still waiting to be placed in a school. I think it's a question of both politics and money.

Politics is what it is and we all know it's personal agenda driven, as far as the lack of money I am calling bull shit on that one (not at you) the when we have states wasting 10's of millions on failed programs and piss poor attempts at new ones and the federal gov wasting hundreds of billions every year on nothing like the failed CA bullet train program I fail to see a valid excuse.

What about those millions of education dollars that are supposed to be getting raised by the lottery and legal gambling? In the end any politician that uses money as an excuse over your kids life is a POS regardless if they are pro or anti gun. We are talking a few living wage salaries and some benefits, hell put them in the teachers union and give them tenure.

[Hodgie]

The most effective deterrent to spree shooters in schools would be allowing staff to be armed, if they choose to be armed, and can pass a basic gun safety test from the NRA or local police. Don't make them pass some 80 hour Ninja advanced BS course, just ask them to qualify at the police range, and demonstrate that they understand the basic mechanism of their chosen gun, and the local laws on use of deadly force. If we can't trust them to defend our kids, then why do we already trust them with our kids?

Second most effective would be just TELLING everyone that schools have some armed staff, do some fake news (I bet they have that skill) with interviews of typical 6 footer gym teachers and 5'4" librarians and overweight lunch ladies demonstrating their skill at the range with .45's. Convince the potential murderers that pretty much anyone at the school could be armed.

Deterrents don't require reality, just belief.

The dumbest option would be to hire special armed security details for a few hundred K per year, whose duties would be to stand around for 8 hours a day and do nothing unless their school is the 1 out of 98,000 American schools that gets an armed intruder in a year. That's a nightmare job. Who would work that job for 9 months a year? That's like having a job where your sole duty is to blow a whistle if you see Bigfoot.

Actually, the dumbest option is the one they use now, which is disarming all the victims while providing no security at all. That scheme is DESIGNED to create mass killings in gun-free zones, to provide fodder for more gun control.

Arm the people who are already there, who you're already paying. We aren't ants, with workers and soldiers whose duties never mix. We're human beings, and almost any human being can defend himself and those around him if sufficiently motivated. And allowed.

Sorry I disagree.

[cdi]

I'm not citing a LACK of money. I'm suggesting it's not a priority.

[buxbandit]

50 to 75 students and staff rushing the shooter while yelling crazy shit and throwing everything that's not nailed down sound like a decent strategy to me if you're unarmed.

[Hodgie]

50 to 75 students and staff rushing the shooter while yelling crazy shit and throwing everything that's not nailed down sound like a decent strategy to me if you're unarmed.

Yes I am sure that many kids will be brave enough to run directly into gun fire with a pencil.

Good luck finding an adult that would do it.

[buckengr]

Absolutely Phil. Exactly right. I think the solution should be widely publicized and frequent notices that anyone on staff could be armed rather than these 1 or 2 paid security staff definitely are. Then let them demonstrate basic proficiency and carry on. I would rather have 6-9 basically competent armed teachers that are spread throughout the building than 1 or 2 paid staff that are the known quantities and (unfortunate) potential first targets, or worse, not even have them respond due to being in the wrong place at the time it goes down or cowardice, see: Parkland.

Let those who are going to be there already by virtue of their day jobs be prepared to defend themselves if necessary, albeit potentially imperfectly. Personally I'd rather gamble on having a teacher on scene make a mistake and accidentally kill 1 student than have a mass shooter run unchallenged for 5-10 minutes until police arrive. No joke. I'd take that bet because I think the deterrent is so much more effective, and the expected value of lives lost in the two situations is so vastly different. The body count would be less, virtually guaranteed. The alternative is basically a totally 100% unarmed victim zone with no one to stop them until police arrive to put up an actual resistance. How ridiculous is that?

It may sound cold and unpopular but expected value of loss is how policies should be evaluated. Basic risk management.

[GunLawyer001]

Absolutely Phil. Exactly right. I think the solution should be widely publicized and frequent notices that anyone on staff could be armed rather than these 1 or 2 paid security staff definitely are. Then let them demonstrate basic proficiency and carry on. I would rather have 6-9 basically competent armed teachers that are spread throughout the building than 1 or 2 paid staff that are the known quantities and (unfortunate) potential first targets, or worse, not even have them respond due to being in the wrong place at the time it goes down or cowardice, see: Parkland.

Let those who are going to be there already by virtue of their day jobs be prepared to defend themselves if necessary, albeit potentially imperfectly. Personally I'd rather gamble on having a teacher on scene make a mistake and accidentally kill 1 student than have a mass shooter run unchallenged for 5-10 minutes until police arrive. No joke. I'd take that bet because I think the deterrent is so much more effective, and the expected value of lives lost in the two situations is so vastly different. The body count would be less, virtually guaranteed. The alternative is basically a totally 100% unarmed victim zone with no one to stop them until police arrive to put up an actual resistance. How ridiculous is that?

It may sound cold and unpopular but expected value of loss is how policies should be evaluated. Basic risk management.

If the school has 1 or 2 armed and UNIFORMED security guards, then any spree shooter will simply target them first. Armed security can't spot the spree shooters until they show guns or start shooting, so he has the element of surprise, he can choose when to strike and the security can only react. He couldn't do that with armed staff hidden among everyone else. Recall the difficulty the US had against the Viet Cong, who also were undetectable until they acted. Make that work FOR us instead of against us, arm the undetectable staff against the armed invader.

As for encouraging the kids to rush the shooter, that assumes that the kids are expendable cannon fodder, which is at least consistent with most other NEA policies. No school should make plans that look like desperate last-ditch efforts, when there are other options, and the other options include "letting one of the several armed adults shoot the killer from a distance". That sounds a lot better than "throw children at the gunman until he runs out of bullets", which is monstrous.

[GunLawyer001]

Sorry I disagree.

You are allowed to disagree, but it would be helpful if you provided facts and logic in support of that disagreement.

[Brick]

in a swarm attack using pens or pencils. Stab deeply through the eyes and you get to the brain.

[Big Kahuna 19547]

Lots of Pa. schools hire private armed security. I was working at one such school yesterday.
Over the course of a few minutes, 3 radio cars rolled up from the local jurisdiction.

They were inside the building quite some time with no explanation to the on site security staff.
One of the security staff asked them is there was an issue and was told "I hope not".

When they left, they walked right past me and politely said hello.
No idea what they were investigating and they didn't bother to say.

I was quite clearly armed.

I can see why the fuzz would be mum.
How could I possibly help? I'm just a dumazz security guard.

As an aside, I looked around today to see if something was up.
There appears to have been some kind of threat to use firearms.
Quickly followed up by a statement from school admin- nothing to see here, we took care of it, all is well, etc.

You see this yet ?

https://www.abc27.com/investigators/...rm-/1820911310