Gun owner's thoughts about how to make schools safer

Reason why I ask this is that gun owners have more knowledge about weapons, how weapons work and what's possible to do and what's not (or just unlikely or more likely).

i'm also searching for minimum needed real counter action to reduce school shootings and I'm asking that from gun owners. Maybe we should think what's making it worse or just keeping violence rate where it is now (if it's not raising?).

I'm not gun owner, so I'm far from true knowledge about guns.

Get the crazies off the street. Better mental healthcare. Properly vet who can have a weapon. I believe the 2A is open to interpretation. If I were required to get a license I think I'd pass, but maybe it would stop some of those who shouldn't at the gate.

You don't need information from gun owners as much as you need information from people with resource protection and personal security experience.

My personal opinion is that school security needs to start with a dedicated security team. Teachers and administrators have their own jobs to do and tossing security onto that pile only makes everything less effective. Educational staff would have an important role to play but it WOULD NOT be as the primary defensive component of the security system. The best way to develop a security team is likely through community volunteers, especially those with police and military experience.

Ideally, the security team would be engaged with the students, the faculty, the parents and the community as a whole. They would liaise with local law enforcement but would not be tied to law enforcement other than through emergency communications. Their first objective would be to get to know the school community. They should be reasonably familiar with the kids and the faculty including any areas where kids and faculty are having communication issues. The team would be expected to not only identify problem students but to assist in resolving or managing those problems. This might include interactions with parents, school psychologists, social services and other resources. Bottom line, the first line of defense is to know the terrain and monitor danger areas.

The second objective for the security team would be to establish and enforce standards of student conduct. They should be a visible and active presence in the school and the school community. This DOES NOT mean that they need to be hall monitors on steroids but, rather, that they should be on the lookout for drugs, bullying, abuse, gang activity, etc. Students should be well aware of what will and will not be tolerated on school grounds and the security team should be there as a reminder of those standards as well as to intervene when standards are not being followed. The idea here is to encourage self discipline in the student body and to serve as a buffer between the students and the administration when self discipline is not displayed. Students should only be brought to administrative sanctions when security intervention isn't working. Bottom line, we want the kids to feel comfortable coming to security if they see a problem brewing.

The third objective would be for the security team to interact regularly with faculty, local law enforcement and parents groups. The objective of these interactions would be to broaden the view of the security plan and reinforce relationships between the agencies responsible for security. Police, for example, might have perspective on some of the kids and their family situations that aren't directly evident at the school. Likewise, parents and community groups might have perspectives on certain situations that change what law enforcement or school security is seeing. Bottom line, if a kid is heading off the rails that broad perspective might be better able to identify triggers and improves the chances of helping the kid before anyone has to defend themselves from the kid. Bottom line, if at all possible we want to get troubled kids the help they need and get them turned in a positive direction.

The final objective is physical security. The team should train for engagement, be on constant lookout for stashed weapons, stop and frisk students WHEN WARRANTED and generally maintain a security presence in the school. School security should not be uniformed and not be visibly armed. The kids will definitely know who they are but the perception of security as simply another branch of the administration is important to keeping lines of communication open.

With regard to allowing faculty to be armed, I am not opposed to the idea but a teacher should be responsible for their classroom. In an emergency situation an armed teacher should lock down their room and insure that any incursion into their room is met with proper force. That teacher SHOULD NOT be out roaming the halls looking for the shooter.

Lutherf said:

You don't need information from gun owners as much as you need information from people with resource protection and personal security experience.

Click to expand...

That's my assessment too. A gun owner in the end is just a typical citizen, not by default a security expert.

FinnFox said:

Reason why I ask this is that gun owners have more knowledge about weapons, how weapons work and what's possible to do and what's not (or just unlikely or more likely).

i'm also searching for minimum needed real counter action to reduce school shootings and I'm asking that from gun owners. Maybe we should think what's making it worse or just keeping violence rate where it is now (if it's not raising?).

I'm not gun owner, so I'm far from true knowledge about guns.

Click to expand...

It's not about guns, it's about the mass drugging of kids. Nearly every school shooter was either currently or formerly on mind altering drugs (usually but not always prescription). If you're mentally ill but have never been on a psychotropic drug, your chance of shooting up your school is close to zero.

A solution would be to ban the use of prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children except to treat physical illnesses. Some sort of exception would need to be made for those kids already addicted to be slowly weaned off, but this would cause the number of school shootings to plummet over the next decade or so.

AmNat said:

It's not about guns, it's about the mass drugging of kids. Nearly every school shooter was either currently or formerly on mind altering drugs (usually but not always prescription). If you're mentally ill but have never been on a psychotropic drug, your chance of shooting up your school is close to zero.

A solution would be to ban the use of prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children except to treat physical illnesses. Some sort of exception would need to be made for those kids already addicted to be slowly weaned off, but this would cause the number of school shootings to plummet over the next decade or so.

Click to expand...

A large portion of military personnel are walking around drugged up.

Kids in school are drugged up.

Veterans are drugged up instead of fixed up.

1 in 6 American civilians are drugged up.

Hardened entry points.

An armed presence.

Lets start with your premise...that schools arent safe. IF your school is beset by daily violence and criminal acts, you might have a point and a legit need to do things to make your schools safer. But most people dont talk about the schools that experience day to day violence. Why? Because the perptrators are often (not always but often) minority, as are their victims. And we know that at the end of the day, leftists literally dont give the first **** about minorities.

No...I suspect what you mean is how do we keep schools safe from "Mass Shootings". OK...lets talk about that. Since records have been tracked beginning back in 1982, there have been a total of 112 mass shootings in EVERY environment from malls to restaurants to workplace to schools. 16 of those mass shootings involved schools. Considering that there are some 340,000 schools (universities, public, private schools, etc) if we used the raw number of 16 mass shootings, then in ANY GIVEN YEAR there is a ..0000047% chance of a particular school being involved ina mass shooting. If we are being honest, thats pretty ****in safe. BUT....thats not really accurate because those 16 shootings have been spread out over 37 years. That means there has been an average of .43 school shootings in any given year. SO in reality, there is a .00000126% chance that any school will be involved in ANY mass shootings in any given year.

Pretty damn safe.

I think it is a mistake to place armed guards in schools to safeguard against mass shooters...simply because they arent needed. Heres more fun facts. in several of those shootings including the Parkland shooting and the Columbine Shooting, there were already armed law enforcement officers on site. They did nothing. Its also not really an answer to claim that what we REALLY need is better access to mental health care. The absolute fact is that there has never been an incident or case involving a mass shooting at a school where the shooter was in need of and had been denied mental health care.

If you want to make schools safer you have to change the mindset of everyone involved. Students need to be taught that in the EXTREMELY unlikely possibility that their school is under attack and they are in immediate risk, then they need to charge the shooter and bring the shooter down (and then beat the ****er to a pulp). Sure...that may not work with elementary school kids. Thats where teachers have to step up. Teachers should have the right to keep and bear arms...and no one should know about who is or isnt carrying. Again...statistics show that when a shooter is met with armed resistance by citizens with guns, the mass shootings stop. Notice...I didnt say arm every teacher. Thats also not the answer. But every teacher ought to be prepared to fight, rather than look for a convenient place to lay down and die.

apdst said:

Hardened entry points.

An armed presence.

Click to expand...

Exactly!! Don't make them " Gun Free" zones. They are sitting ducks that way, tells a bad guy there's defenseless people in there.

uptower said:

Get the crazies off the street. Better mental healthcare. Properly vet who can have a weapon. I believe the 2A is open to interpretation. If I were required to get a license I think I'd pass, but maybe it would stop some of those who shouldn't at the gate.

Click to expand...

How do you interpret "Shall not be infringed"?

FinnFox said:

Reason why I ask this is that gun owners have more knowledge about weapons, how weapons work and what's possible to do and what's not (or just unlikely or more likely).

i'm also searching for minimum needed real counter action to reduce school shootings and I'm asking that from gun owners. Maybe we should think what's making it worse or just keeping violence rate where it is now (if it's not raising?).

I'm not gun owner, so I'm far from true knowledge about guns.

Click to expand...

You can’t.
If someone wants to attack a school they will find a way, if not by guns, a vehicle, a knife or other means.

There are too many crazy people in the world.

School violence is not just a US problem, it a global problem.
9 students were killed in China last year following a knife attack.

School violence is not a new problem, there has been school violence for decades.

Unrelated to school, in the UK, where they have strict gun laws, there there 215 fatal stabbing among teens in the 12 month period prior to March 2017.

uptower said:

Get the crazies off the street. Better mental healthcare. Properly vet who can have a weapon. I believe the 2A is open to interpretation. If I were required to get a license I think I'd pass, but maybe it would stop some of those who shouldn't at the gate.

Click to expand...

Can you cite an instance where the shooter was denied or didnt have access to mental health care? That isnt to say the shooters didnt have mental health problems at some point in their lives...only that there are no indicators that lack of care was related to the shooting. And we can then move to consider at what point people represent a credible threat and when do we remove their firearms...and cars...and knives...and acces to chemicals...ad custody of children...

Most of the mass shooters bought their guns legally, after a proper vetting process or stole their firearms from people that did. I dont know that you can point to an instance where an individual snapped, ran off and bought a gun, and then immediately went out and perpetrated a school mass shooting. Maybe you can...but I dont see that as being the case in any of the mass shootings in the database.

jimbo said:

How do you interpret "Shall not be infringed"?

Click to expand...

We worked a case yesterday where an individual was separated from his firearms...after it was determined he had made threats to coworkers and expressed suicidal ideation.

The reality is that after a psychiatric examination and recommended treatment, he will be able to have access to his firearms again...probably within 6-8 weeks. Because Constitutional rights must be restored after it is determined that someone is no longer a threat to themselves or others.

FinnFox said:

Reason why I ask this is that gun owners have more knowledge about weapons, how weapons work and what's possible to do and what's not (or just unlikely or more likely).

i'm also searching for minimum needed real counter action to reduce school shootings and I'm asking that from gun owners. Maybe we should think what's making it worse or just keeping violence rate where it is now (if it's not raising?).

I'm not gun owner, so I'm far from true knowledge about guns.

Click to expand...

Arm all the children. Have 50 cals mounted on guard towers. Razor wire on the playground fence. 2 hours self defense and weapons training for the kids every day. Bullet proof vests for everyone.

This is America.

Shall not be infringed

uptower said:

Get the crazies off the street. Better mental healthcare. Properly vet who can have a weapon. I believe the 2A is open to interpretation. If I were required to get a license I think I'd pass, but maybe it would stop some of those who shouldn't at the gate.

Click to expand...

requiring a license to merely own a gun violates the constitution. Its really not open to interpretation if the constitution is taken seriously, but the Democrat party has been doing its best to cloud the meaning since 1934

VanceMack said:

Can you cite an instance where the shooter was denied or didnt have access to mental health care? That isnt to say the shooters didnt have mental health problems at some point in their lives...only that there are no indicators that lack of care was related to the shooting. And we can then move to consider at what point people represent a credible threat and when do we remove their firearms...and cars...and knives...and acces to chemicals...ad custody of children...

Most of the mass shooters bought their guns legally, after a proper vetting process or stole their firearms from people that did. I dont know that you can point to an instance where an individual snapped, ran off and bought a gun, and then immediately went out and perpetrated a school mass shooting. Maybe you can...but I dont see that as being the case in any of the mass shootings in the database.

Click to expand...

It is pretty much well known that if someone gets mad, runs to a gun store, buys a gun after filling out the paperwork etc-and then goes and shoots someone-it is premeditated first degree murder-not a "Crime of passion" etc. Gun banners pretend that making people "wait" will stop that-the evidence is this sort of thing doesn't happen

TurtleDude said:

It is pretty much well known that if someone gets mad, runs to a gun store, buys a gun after filling out the paperwork etc-and then goes and shoots someone-it is premeditated first degree murder-not a "Crime of passion" etc. Gun banners pretend that making people "wait" will stop that-the evidence is this sort of thing doesn't happen

Click to expand...

Yet in countries where guns are harder to come by gun crime, and especially mass shootings, are comparatively rare. Numbers exist for this, so it's hard to refute it with 'it's hardly as if...' statements. We know that's exactly how it is already.

uptower said:

Yet in countries where guns are harder to come by gun crime, and especially mass shootings, are comparatively rare. Numbers exist for this, so it's hard to refute it with 'it's hardly as if...' statements. We know that's exactly how it is already.

Click to expand...

that has ZERO relevance to this issue.

jimbo said:

How do you interpret "Shall not be infringed"?

Click to expand...

Guns for everyone anywhere anytime. Unless you are a gun grabber.

Merica

TurtleDude said:

that has ZERO relevance to this issue.

Click to expand...

It makes for useful comparative evidence

uptower said:

It makes for useful comparative evidence

Click to expand...

Not at all. Those countries don't have 300 years of firearms freedoms, open borders or the population mix we have

This isn't an either/or issue. many of the suggestions could be implemented. Harden up the schools, encourage volunteer security, and improve mental health care.

But i would also suggest we need to decide if security or privacy is most important. Almost all of the weapons used in school shootings, indeed most all shootings, over the past years have been purchased legally. And most of these people have a history of mental problems. Obviously the Instant Check isn't working. It's almost worthless. Two main problems; some states do a good job of reporting in general and there is virtually no mental health reporting. I understand patient/doctor privacy but I value security more. If doctors have a patient they believe is a danger to others, they should be mandated to report that person. And that person should have their gun rights suspended until they complete therapy.

I know the mental health community has lobbied hard to prevent having to report, as they think it will discourage people from seeking help. Maybe it will, but reporting may also save a lot of lives.

So let's do ALL of the above.

TurtleDude said:

Not at all. Those countries don't have 300 years of firearms freedoms, open borders or the population mix we have

Click to expand...

Dunno what so-called 'open borders' or America's particular mix of diversity has to do with it - sounds like a grab bag of things the Right doesn't like about the Left best left to other topics.

But I understand other countries have different legislative histories and most have nothing analogous to the 2nd Amendment. However Canada, Australia and New Zealand are similar in terms of living standards and the fact a lot of people can fairly easily get firearms. Not as easily as America, but they have a lot of guns and gun owners. They also have a diverse, if different, population mix whatever that has to do with it.

And back to school shootings: guns are harder to get in some of these countries and they have fewer mas killings. There's a comparison to be had on those two statistics alone, undeniably.

uptower said:

Yet in countries where guns are harder to come by gun crime, and especially mass shootings, are comparatively rare. Numbers exist for this, so it's hard to refute it with 'it's hardly as if...' statements. We know that's exactly how it is already.

Click to expand...

Australia has had just one mass shooting since banning rapid-fire firearms twenty years ago.