Tell Us: Armed Guards at Every School?

Dad of Three December 22, 2012 at 04:26 pm

First of all there are more than one set of doors into schools, at various parts of each building; an intruder armed with assault weapons could shoot through any of the various doors to gain entry, which means that any school would need more than one "armed guard" to insure that other entry points are not used.
Second, if you start putting weapons into the hands of "armed guards" at schools, and if a fire fight breaks out between an armed intruder and that "armed guard", there are going to be wild shots, and some child is going to be struck by one of the bullets from the "armed guard". You have now created a scenario in which that school district is going to be sued by the parents of the child struck by the errant shot, and therefore all of the residents of that school district will have an increase in their financial burdens through property taxes either to pay increased liability insurance premiums, or even directly if the lawsuit settlement exceeds the insurance coverage. That errant shot liability, by the way, is why many banks (including my former employer) took guns away from their branch security guards. In the 60's and 70's, and part of the 80's, many banks in the NY area had armed security officers in their branches. It didn't really stop robberies, and it did create a huge liability risk for the banks, since a shootout would probably hit innocent bystanders. If you put armed guards in schools you will create a field day for litigation attorneys.

Old Fisherman December 22, 2012 at 05:00 pm

Dad of Three, you have it correct.

FYI December 22, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Mary, WHY? Because it makes sense. Let this one fact sink in...seriously. Take away every legally owned gun from citizens and the criminals will still have their ILLEGAL weapons. So yes, IrishDave does have a number of people that would take him seriously. Consider this possibility as an alternative to the SRO.
Signs posted around schools reading "Gun-free Zone" actually serve as an invitation to enter unopposed and wreak havoc. Police cannot get to the schools quickly enough and to post a police or armed security guards in each school main entrance is costly and rather naive. They will simply become the first target. A limited number of teachers or staff members could volunteer to be a primary response team only until police arrive. When seconds and minutes count, many lives could be saved. After passing psychological, drug and background investigations, securing a NYS pistol permit, the volunteers would then undergo the same firearms training as police officers. They would then carry a concealed semi-automatic pistol in their building to serve as an emergency preventive response. Children would not be aware that the teachers are armed. How many lives would have been saved in CT if a few teachers were properly trained and able to do more than shield those children with their own bodies. If you believe a gun ban would work, please put a "gun free zone" sign in your front window. There should be nothing to fear using the logic you put forth.

FYI December 22, 2012 at 11:41 pm

The Garden City Patch has been updated while we here in Northport still are waiting. I went to post on their site but was not allowed. What I did was copy the posting that I read for inclusion with this discussion... We have less than 680,000 peace officers "to serve and to protect" the more than 310,000,000 inhabitants in this country. We have only about one on-duty peace officer to protect each 2000 of us against the thugs and deranged killers within our midst that prey upon the defenseless and innocent. Obviously one per 2000 is not enough. Consequently, as "first responders", these officers are most often and unfortunately left to wear swat regalia and clean up after the damage is done. Today we have more than eight million citizens with a sense of duty to help deter violent crime by being licensed to carry a concealed handgun as an instant responder. (continued)Unfortunately, eight million is not enough. The public is unaware that about one in 30 adults is carrying a concealed gun and providing them with the capability of instant response. I have personal experience deterring a potentially violent crime with concealed carry on the streets of Cleveland. But, unfortunately, I was not present when my customer and her daughters were shot by her husband with a shotgun at the Cracker Barrel. The The evil that occurred in Connecticut was made possible by the asymmetry afforded by gun control in the form of "gun free zones" that become killing fields.

FYI December 22, 2012 at 11:43 pm

All "gun free zones" without police presence should be posted with the caveat that "This sign will not stop a mad man with a gun. You will be defenseless. Enter at your own risk." More than eight million people are now prevented from providing an instant response to violence in all "gun free zones" such as schools and posted theaters as in Colorado. This is why and where most of the major shooting tragedies have taken place. Without providing adequate screening and armed security, these postings constitute reckless endangerment. There is the ignorant argument that someone with a concealed carry gun would not be effective in stopping carnage. Someone trained to use an easily concealable small five shot 38 caliber revolver with a laser grip, would either put the red dot on center of mass or a head shot depending upon body armor. Under the present circumstances of limited police resources to patrol our schools, I believe that we desperately need trained volunteer concealed carry instant responders in our schools to protect our kids and we need to eliminate all “gun free zones” where there is no police presence. Authored by light engineer on GArden City Patch

kptree December 23, 2012 at 03:06 am

Oh N'prtr- your arguments for armed personnel, either safety officers or staff, in schools are at best, simplistic. 1.Suicidal attackers cannot be deterred. In March 2008, a crazed gunman attacked a city council outside of St. Louis, Mo. He first shot and killed two armed police officers before continuing his rampage. He even used one of the slain officer's guns to further his attack. Mentally ill and determined attackers have access to sophisticated bulletproof gear and would more than likely take into account any knowledge of armed guards in school to plan for and maximize their firepower. 2. Arming school personnel sends the clear message to students and parents that the only solution to an attack is a return offense. How many more lives would have been lost in the CT attacks if the heroic staff had rushed out to become involved in a shoot out rather than hide and shelter their students? 3.How do police tell who is the attacker and who is a defender? What happens when proper authorities converge on the scene? 3. Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Factors that can easily translate into a school, especially if guns need to be easily accessed at a moment's notice to answer a surprise attack. What if a teacher's gun is stolen? What if a teacher or safety officer "shoots first, asks questions later" of a student they perceive to have a gun?

kptree December 23, 2012 at 03:13 am

Of course the arguments for guns in school is motivated by a desire to keep children safe. This tragedy was unthinkable. Despite that, schools are safe places. According to the CDC’s School Associated Violent Death Study, less than 1 percent of all homicides among school-age children happen on school grounds or on the way to and from school. So the vast majority of students will never experience lethal violence at school. This call for arming of schools is a knee-jerk reaction that ignores the greater issues surrounding the massacre in CT and other violent mass shootings.

kptree December 23, 2012 at 03:41 am

Let's also take a look at shootings where armed civilians have failed to stop mass shootings. 2002- Appalachian School of Law- armed students intervened. Those students were actually current and former law enforcement officers. The shooter was stopped- by the armed civilians? No. He ran out of ammunition by the time the armed civilians got to him. 2005- a Tacoma Washington mall. Brendan McKown, a citizen with a concealed-carry permit confronted the shooter with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown as well as shooting 6 other people before being subdued by police. 2005-Tyler, Texas courthouse. Mark Wilson, a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage. Wilson was shot dead by the body armored assailant. How about looking at the fact that when the ban on assault weapons was lifted, mass shootings increased? How about looking at the fact that firearms are now easier to get than ever and that there are around 300 million guns in private hands- a 50% jump since 1995? More guns=more violent death. Arming personnel in schools will not change this- it will only increase the chances of our children being harmed.

FYI December 23, 2012 at 10:31 pm

kptree. Perhaps the call for arming of schools is a knee-jerk reaction as you state but the real farce about to be perpetrated is that banning certain types of guns will make the kids in our schools safer. I think you will agree with me on that point. I agree with certain points you make but not all. Like you, i believe there is no need to play into the mass hysteria taking place now. Our schools are safe. I am comfortable having our children in our schools just the way they are now. You may think my suggestions are simplistic but they were not a final plan, only a beginning point for discussion. Thanks for your input.

kptree December 24, 2012 at 02:23 am

N'prtr- your ideas were a "beginning point for discussion"? You stated that you believe we "desperately need trained volunteer concealed carry instant responders in our schools to protect our kids and we need to eliminate all “gun free zones” where there is no police presence" I can state in no plainer language that this type of thinking is patently ridiculous for all of the reasons I stated in my posts. And I believe with all of my heart and soul that civilians have no right to buy, carry, or discharge military grade firearms. Imbeciles that live in a Hollywood fantasy that "bad guys" can be stopped by "good guys" carrying guns should be ashamed of themselves. The U.S.A. leads all populous, high income nation in rates of firearm death- and the shocking fact is that the gun lobby makes it HARDER to screen gun sales that may prevent criminals, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited persons from buying firearms. Responsible gun ownership has been replaced by a culture of hubris and a cult of status where the uneducated and ill trained purchase heavy firepower as a status symbol and means of intimidation.

Ranger Sewer December 24, 2012 at 11:56 am

Yes JEN,It's a sad day when so called Parents who send their kids to school are willing to accept their kids will be MURDERED by a CRIMINAL WITH A FIREARM then have their KIDS protected by one. These are also the same "Parents" who pimp out their Daughters to others, and let them leave their home dressed up like HOOKERS. The same so called "Parents" also have ALARMS on their Homes and Cars, But will not have their OWN DNA PROTECTED by a FIREARM? PARENTS TODAY find no value in their Families, so why care? There was a time when DADS would give their life up to protect their families. Very few even today come close to even being called a Man. Today it seems like DADS just want to go to the MALL and shoe shop or go to their favorite beauty place and get their weekly Mani-Peds.
If YOU want to make YOUR school a "Gun Free Zone" then you will also have to BAN any GAY TEACHER or GAY EMPLOYEE of that school. How many UNDER AGE KIDS have been MOLESTED BY GAY TEACHERS OR GAY EMPLOYEES OF THE SCHOOL? Why would you allow your child to be the DREAM of a Gay Chicken Hawk? There is more of a chance of your child being attacked by a Gay Chicken Hawk then a LEGAL FIREARM going off. There was a time when PARENTS loved their kids and wanted to protect them instead of PIMPING THEM OUT to be RAPED.

Concerned Citizen December 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Merry Christmas to all, and God help the mentally ill... In other words, God help you Ranger Sewer. Children need to be protected from you.

kptree December 24, 2012 at 02:50 pm

The above comments are like giving gun control advocates a Christmas gift, isn't it? A neatly wrapped package that says "Guns need to be restricted, licensed and controlled because too often deluded people have a fantasy Wild West in their hands and they can get access to really dangerous firearms"

jill December 24, 2012 at 03:28 pm

We already have retired cops and yes cops on disablity working as guards at our schools why don't we allow them or find out if they can carry a conceled weapon and use the security force we already have.

FYI December 24, 2012 at 07:16 pm

KPTREE I never stated we needed to eliminate all gun-free zones. I was quoting verbatim from LightEngineer from the Garden CIty Patch. I was trying to agree with his assertion that the gun free zone signs lull people into a sense of security which cannot be guaranteed. The only reason for the signs is due to a federal requirement of The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (GFSA) which mandates the expulsion, for not less than one year, of students who bring a firearm to school.
http://asumag.com/mag/university_knowing_legislation/#ixzz2FzhSZbU7 So to your points 1. Suicidal attackers can absolutely be deterred, and better still, stopped. You cite specific instances where they weren't but overlook a multitude of situations where they were. Look no further than the recent mall shooting in Oregon "While reports of Tuesday's shooting at the Clackamas Town Mall in Oregon, dominated the national media, until Friday's horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one very important detail has been repeatedly (and intentionally) left out of the MSM's coverage. The shooter, Jacob Tyler Roberts, was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. When police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead. That armed man was 22-year-old Nick Meli, who was at the mall shopping with a young woman who was babysitting her friend's baby." Go to KGW News Channel 8 website, the only media outlet to cover this part of the story,

FYI December 24, 2012 at 07:37 pm

Not so well said Ranger. Perhaps you are getting a bit too much of that methane gas during the day. I believe your point is that there is a greater chance of your child being the victimized by a teacher or adult from their school than there is of being assaulted in their classroom by a crazy individual with a weapon. Dress at school is another hands off topic. God forbid we institute a decent dress code in Northport. That's a sacred cow the administration won't address, but the influence of movies, media, violent video games and the general decline in decency and moral standards in general is a societal problem not limited to Northport. We have a pretty good community here and parents that do really care and love their children. Please, though, don't give the likes of kptree and concernedcitizen any more fodder to draw illogical conclusions that you are mentally ill or a threat that requires sanctioning or restriction. You see, it's only their rights that are important, to be able to say whatever they want. Just don't disagree with them. They are better than you...

kptree December 24, 2012 at 07:49 pm

N'prtr- you might want to take a course in reading comprehension. Mr. Meli was indeed armed but in his own words, never confronted the attacker. Mr. Meli positioned himself behind a pillar and then chose not to shoot in fear he might hit an innocent bystander. So your "numerous instances" of armed civilians stopping suicidal attackers, turn out to be "none" because despite the headlines there is no evidence that the shooters suicide was motivated by anything other than his own mental instability. http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen
I find it interesting that in your response to "Ranger Sewer" you seem to think that anyone who argues with your specious logic is "better than you" and cares only about "their rights". It seems similar to the argument that civilians should be able to purchase and own guns that were designed for warfare simply because they have "rights". It also seems similar to a child's tantrum when their arguments have been met with facts and logic.

FYI December 24, 2012 at 08:31 pm

KPtree cont. To answer your #2, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iGsy4rev-iQ #3, logistics that are worked out when a plan is put into effect. Much better than locking your door, bending over and kissing your ass goodbye. To quote a friend, " If you read James Madison's essay, Federalist 46 (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46) a standing militia is exactly what he (and the other framers of the constitution) describe, to protect the people in the event of a corrupt federal government. The National Guard is a division of the Army, another military arm of the Federal Government, and so could not be trusted to protect the people is such an event (however unlikely).

kptree December 24, 2012 at 08:48 pm

N'prtr- How about actually reading the "Federalist Papers" instead of relying on Wikipedia to interpret them for you? And try to remember that Madison had a specific and concrete definition of "militia" that has nothing whatsoever to do today with individual private citizens arming themselves for giggles and kicks. Madison was speaking of specific organized militias with elected officers as a check to the encroachment of the federal government. And your "locking the door, bending over and kissing your ass goodbye" comment is a direct insult to the incredibly brave teachers and staff in CT who locked their doors, kept their students safe, and prevented further tragedy. So far, you haven't answered one of my arguments with a single salient point.

FYI December 24, 2012 at 08:56 pm

KPtree. if YOUR reading comprehension was bit better ... "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself." Isn't it a possibility that Roberts, the shooter, after SEEING a gun pointed at HIM decided to take his own life?
You seem to think you have all the answers and by attacking me I will bend to your irrational thinking. Let me leave you these facts to consider since you are unable to discover them on your own. (continued)

FYI December 24, 2012 at 09:00 pm

Here are a few facts about armed Americans:
-In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance which required all heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than it was in 1981. -Armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as the police do every year in this country (1,527 to 606). -A 1996 University of Chicago study concluded that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rates by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent. -According to the National Safety Council, with guns being used 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, firearms are actually used more than 80 times more often to protect lives, rather than to take lives. -A 1979 Justice Department study entitled Rape Victimization in American Cities, concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed. -Another Justice Department study found that 57 percent of felons agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running the police." http://www.examiner.com/article/what-s-driving-the-continued-skyrocketing-gun-sales continued...

FYI December 24, 2012 at 09:06 pm

http://www.examiner.com/article/so-called-gun-free-zones-never-protect-the-innocent
http://www.zianet.com/web/gunstudy.htm http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED178812&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED178812 Please don't let facts stand in the way of your opinions. If you need more, GOOGLE it!

kptree December 25, 2012 at 03:33 am

Oh, N'prtr, I don't have to attack you, you foil yourself. So let's recap- 1. armed civilian hides behind post, pulls gun 2. does not shoot because (thank goodness, he is rational and doesn't want to harm innocent bystander) 3. "thinks" gunman sees him and that causes the gunman to be so scared that he... runs off to commit suicide? and this chain of events equates to armed civilian stopping suicidal gunman. Oh, right- no facts at all. Mr. Meli did not stop the shooter. End of story. period- no "laser sight to the head" no "stopping him in his tracks" The shooter accomplished whatever goal he set out to and then killed himself. And you accuse me of being "irrational" because I don't agree with whatever wish fulfillment you choose to pursue. Your mention of Kennesaw, GA made me giggle because in 1981 a year before the mandatory gun law the burglary rate was a scant 11 crimes per 1,000 people. OOOH, big drop in crime with mandatory gun ownership- totally proves your point!
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm And I took the time to "GOOGLE" some of your statistics that you accepted without question from an internet article, just as you accepted without question a Wikipedia interpretation of the Federalist Papers, and curious thing- the "National Safety Council's" actual study on self defense never showed up- only blog mentions. Also, no actual "Justice Department" study about the nervousness of armed felons meeting armed civilians. Guess you're a patsy for false info

kptree December 25, 2012 at 04:28 am

But anyway, N'prtr, I'm signing off. It was fun at first to point out the flaws in your logic and irrational thinking but now it's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Studies from 1979? really? 30+ year old research? From suspect internet articles that don't cite sources? I wish you luck with your firearms and pray for you and your family that you don't wield them like you wield your ridiculous arguments. It is my sincere wish for you that you never have to experience the incredible damage and distress that gun violence brings. That you never see a man shot to death in front of you. Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be so smug about "self-defense". No matter. Good night.

FYI December 26, 2012 at 04:37 am

Kptree, Older statistics may be better than no statistics that you backed up your assertions with. Here's one more for you to quibble with because you WILL be back. You must have the last word as in very post you've made on Patch. http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-armed-asst-principal-stopped-school.html#.UNp-LqX6TjR
My family is very well protected , thank you. Be brave and hang a "Gun free zone" sign in your front window so anyone contemplating a crime against your property or family will have no reason to feel unsafe entering your home. Perhaps you can use your oratorical skills and wit to charm them into going to another home. You know nothing of what I have experienced during my lifetime so for you to assume to know how I would feel about encountering violent crime is very shortsighted. From your hundreds of posts on Patch, I've read where you've declared yourself as an older grandfather and also have a six year old son. Early dementia or Alzheimer's? Stay away from guns. You'll shoot your eye out...

kptree December 26, 2012 at 01:30 pm

N'prtr- it's fun again! Thanks, you've inspired me to return because you completely misinterpreted not one, but all of the things you've posted about. I'm going to suggest that whatever adult reading comprehension courses there are, you take them. 1st and foremost, Mr. Myrick, gun-slinging assistant principal subdued the gunman after he STOPPED shooting. As a matter of fact, the gunman was leaving the school and in the parking lot. The assailant had already completed his killing in the school. Mr. Myrick followed him outside, grabbed the gun from the glove box and stopped the gunman until the police arrived. Did he prevent the gunman from hurting others or committing suicide? Perhaps. But he did not in any way stop the mass shooting that had just happened. Secondly, I'm torn between being flattered and seriously weirded out that you took the time to read my "hundreds" of comments-wow, I wouldn't have the time or interest to go thru another poster's comments. I prefer to use that time to read serious journalism- NYTimes, WSJ, etc.- try them, their digital editions are fantastic!. Again, though, your reading comprehension has failed you. I am not, nor ever have claimed to be a "grandfather". What I did say was that "I'm an old retired guy". But you know, or perhaps that you don't, that men can have children into their twilight years. Cheers, N'ptr- thanks for giving me me first laughs of the day!

FYI December 26, 2012 at 02:40 pm

Told you that you'd be back. Go ahead now. You can have the last word. It should make your day. Try hanging that sign before you settle in to your daily reading.

Allie's Grandpa December 26, 2012 at 04:20 pm

Npt'r, you have occasional bouts of logical comments, but you still manage to piss off more people with some of your intemperate obsessions.
That's too bad, as you seem like someone I'd love to have a beer with, even where I disagree with you, which of course is often. However, I do agree with you that Ranger Sewer is off into a perverted fantasyland of bigotry combined with delusion.

Jim January 2, 2013 at 11:26 pm

You're a complete and utter disgrace to humankind.

vera charles January 3, 2013 at 03:41 am

Who, or maybe WHAT, is this "Jim."
He sounds deranged and delusional. Maybe he's just a troll?