As regular readers know, the good folks at PJ Media are kind enough to publish me from time to time. My most recent post there has to do with how the police see the recent mass murder of school children in Newton, Connecticut, and their frustrations in dealing with such matters.
My second purpose in publishing that article is to mention the necessity of allowing school staff to carry concealed handguns. Nothing else–nothing–has the potential to serve as a deterrent and to actually stop school attacks, potentially before anyone is injured or killed. I’m also reprising my four part series on that topic here over the next month.
If you have a bit of spare time and the interest, drop by, and thanks!
Stately McDaniel Manor 
How do you imagine a school staff member would have stopped this madman had he/she been carrying a concealed weapon? Perhaps a shoot out amongst the terrified children?
In this case the shooter picked a gun free zone. Clearly he was not interested in facing anyone who could shoot back. And yes a shootout might still have resulted in deaths but a fighting chance is better than no chance. As it stands he could wander the school halls certain no-one else was armed.
So, are you implying that a shoot out amongst terrified children is worse than a prolonged shooting of terrified children?
Hmm, interesting.
No I’m implying that people who think they can defend themselves against madmen with assault rifles by carrying concealed handguns watch too many movies and too much television!
Gee, gpicone, I understand your point because of personal experience. You see, there was this little boy drowning one day and I thought, what the hell, he’ll probably pull me under and my attempt would have been in vain.I’d probably get drowned too. I don’t like movies because they create fantasy scenarios. Thanks for the straight thinking.
Pangloss, apples and oranges and you know it.
RuleofOdor, no, zucchini and yellow squash. No essential difference. The principles are the same. You do not know it.
Really? I wasn’t aware that by spectating a drowning kid I had the capability of in turn drowning. You are asking to alleviate a problem by rescuing a person when not doing so puts you in no danger, and even leading up to rescuing them can put you in no danger. Armed gunman == drowning kid in your world? I bet the apples DO taste like oranges then.
dear RuleofOdor,
gpicone’s assertion concerned teachers carrying weapons not to protect themselves from possible danger but to protect others–their charges–from possible danger when they might have the choice to hide–what if Miss Sota chose to hide in a closet instead of facing her killer? I have the ability to swim and some would say also possess the moral responsibility to save another who is drowning. Yet, sometimes trying to save another from drowning can lead to two deaths. That is what happened to my Uncle Bedsnearmer. You still do not know. I tire of you now.
By the way, gpicone, I am told by those knowledgable that at times a handgun is superior to a rifle,which requires more exposure to aim well and is less easily and quickly aimed in close quarters.
“what if Miss Sota chose to hide in a closet instead of facing her killer?” — then maybe her AND her kids would have lived to see the next day. Ifs and maybes, however, are not your argument. As I recall, you asserted the PRINCIPAL is. In PRINCIPAL you are stating rescuing a drowning person is the same as getting in a firefight with a gunman.
“You still do not know. I tire of you now.” — look, just because your “in principal” argument has holes big enough to drive trucks through, you shouldn’t have to tire yourself out in explaining it or defending it. Rework your analogy, and try again.
RuleofOdor,
Learn to spell correctly.
Pangloss:
Learn to correct other people correctly. Learn to accept that you will have to defend your position, and possibly explain it further. Learn that harping on spelling, and making “cute” versions of people’s SN’s is juvenile.
My premise is that spectating a drowning victim has a whole different set of obligations than being in a gunfight with bystanders. You disagree. Explain why.
Issue semi-automatic Bushmaster rifles to all teachers.
They get the gun, lots of ammo – and a card proving that they are men (even the women get one)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-gray/bushmaster-rifle-ad-masculinity-gun-violence-newtown-adam-lanza_b_2317924.html
Do YOU have YOUR Man Card?
Dear gpicone:
In Newtown there was already a shootout among terrified children, except there was no return fire. Tell me: Do you really prefer teachers have no means to save the lives of themselves and children when a murderer is actively seeking their lives? That’s what this issue is, ultimately, about.
Hi Mike,
From that PJM article:
“Since that day, the police response model has evolved to require the first officers on the scene to immediately enter the school and to seek out and assault any shooters. Unfortunately, not every police agency has adopted this model, and the quality and quantity of training in the necessary tactics and skills are far from standardized and effective.
Most Americans would be equally stunned to learn that a great many police officers are not good shots.
Many fire their duty handguns only for yearly qualifications on courses of fire with generous passing scores. A great many citizens are far more capable with firearms, and due to military training — most police officers are no longer veterans — and other specialized training widely available to civilians, more tactically adept.
Firearm training and standards vary wildly from agency to agency.”
You made a couple of posts following the NYPD injuring nine bystanders as they gunned down a guy who had shot a colleague shortly beforehand.
I should imagine that the training and standards achieved by arming teachers would also vary wildly.
What you are proposing to do is to take the issue you describe in the first paragraph of the quoted section above and substitute a teacher as the first responder.
Would these teachers by in a distinctive uniform? I assume not.
What happens when the police first responders come through the door and see a civilian shooting? “and the quality and quantity of training in the necessary tactics and skills are far from standardized and effective.”
It all sounds potentially very messy.
Would armed teachers really be a significant deterrent?
If the shooter has a connection with the school, the identity of the carrying teachers might be guessed, if not actually known.
Even if unknown, what is the motivation of the shooter?
They mostly seem to have had the intention to kill themselves. Is the possibility of being killed by someone else any real deterrent? Getting away is not part of the plan.
One thing is certain. In an environment where some teachers could be armed, a shooter would shoot any adult on sight and then start on the children.
Every adult in a school would know that they would be the first to be shot – even if unarmed and/or they did absolutely nothing to protect children or stop the shooter.
If, as you postulate, teachers wind up being no more skilled with firearms than the police, in what way will a police presence too late be preferable to an armed teacher already on the spot?
Police shooting an armed teacher? It’s true that “friendly fire” is a problem for law enforcement as well as for soldiers, but in the most common scenario of this type, how did the police get there so fast? Mike didn’t say average response time is five minutes, he said it is is significantly longer than that, and he is correct. The majority of gunfights on the other hand, (outside Hollywood studios that is) typically last only seconds. Please to do not research and regale us with counter examples. We are aware of them and they are statistical outliers.
“One thing is certain. In an environment where some teachers could be armed, a shooter would shoot any adult on sight and then start on the children.”
Better that they shoot the children first? Will all the armed adults be in one place, waiting to be shot all at once on that “special day?”
“It all sounds potentially very messy.”
Yes, uncontested mass murder is much cleaner.
“Is the possibility of being killed by someone else any real deterrent? Getting away is not part of the plan.”
Hmm, I dunno. How often do these creeps attack police stations and gun shops? Again, outliers are interesting, not significant. Even if they are not deterred, they may well be stopped sooner and amass fewer victims. Perhaps that doesn’t count for much with you though.
Is the idea of arming teachers and training them to fight like soldiers a happy one? No it is not. Would I wish for a world where even thinking of it were unnecessary and utterly beyond the pale? Would I? I do. But then, my wishes don’t ever seem to count for much either.
Have a nice day, Sling.
Joel
I do agree that a presence of an armed teacher might possibly help to keep the body count a bit lower in this sort of incident.
It’s not a preventative measure though. As a response, it accepts that the killing will have started before a teacher has the possibility of intervening.
What you’ll have is “Well, he killed 15 but he could have killed more.” That’s only if the shooter didn’t prioritise shooting adults first – and only if the teacher’s response was effective.
Whatever level of annual/monthly training the teachers can absorb and retain, there a question of the weapons. Concealed Carry weapons are really for personal protection and close up.
What you could have is
1) A teacher who spends years teaching as normal, but just happening to carry a defensive weapon. For years nothing happens. Their mindset and experience is that of a teacher, not that of a cop or security guard.
2) A shooter with intent to kill some people and then kill themselves. The shooter has a number of weapons heavier than the concealed ones of the teachers and with high-capacity mags.
The teacher is ‘outclassed’ both as to weaponry and to an actual preparadness to use the weapons.
I think that ‘arm the teachers’ is a distraction from the real issues.
It’s *an attempt* at damage limitation. There is a danger that people might think it a solution.
It accepts that these incidents will continue – forever.
Why has the shooter been able to obtain a number of weapons?
Why does he have high-capacity mags?
Why does he have the means to loose off a very large number of rounds in a short time?
Who actually needs to have a 30-round mag?
Are they expecting to be involved in a lengthy fire-fight?
Do they need that firepower simply because they couldn’t hit a barn even if they were inside it?
Those NYPD cops mentioned above….
One fired nine rounds. The other fired seven. FFS!!! And they were close.
.
School bus drivers would need to be trained and armed too.
Ditto for playground attendants.
SlingTrebuchet, The school I work at has an ex-cop, a vietnam vet, several vets of the recent wars in the Middle East. I think a bad guy might be reduced to dead meat sooner than a squad car could arrive. This is probably a reflection of a good number of schools. But, like you say, too many imaginable problems to surmount to try to defend students. Run and hide, or try to assess his/her mental/emotional state/needs and look in the district handbook for the appropriate, approved response.
Pangloss,
As I said above
“I do agree that a presence of an armed teacher might possibly help to keep the body count a bit lower in this sort of incident.”
“probably” a reflection of a “good number” of schools.
Even if it were ‘definitely’ ‘a lot’, it would remain that the move is not a solution. It’s an attempt at damage limitation.
Think about that phrase “reduced to dead meat”. Perhaps you meant “stop”. The phrase smells of the movies. Yeah baby , lock and load (as one loads and then locks – or indeed never locks at all )
Ex-cops: The NYPD cops mentioned above, for example, would be ex-cops after they left the force.
Vets: I don’t know how many of those those vets actually were involved in closeup firefights inside buildings during on their tours. Perhaps it’s probably a good number?
Whatever the number, I’m shocked – yes shocked! – that those vets were sent into those firefights against heavily-armed opposition with nothing more than a puny concealed carry gun each.
Nevertheless, “I do agree that a presence of an armed teacher might possibly help to keep the body count a bit lower in this sort of incident.”.
Another way of reducing body counts is to have a situation in which a potential shooter does not have access to heavy firepower.
So who actually needs a high-capacity mag? Who actualy needs to be able to get off a very large number of shots from one or more weapons in a short time?
Why is such equipment out in the community?
Dear Slingtrebuchet:
Teachers as first responders? Not at all. I advocate for the right of teachers, as citizens, to retain the inalienable, human right of self defense regardless of where they are. Unless we are willing to argue that any teacher/citizen concealed carry licensee’s life is of lesser value at the moment they step onto school property, what justification is there for taking away the single most fundamental human right based on where a person happens to be standing at any given moment? Since teachers act every day “in loco parentis,” in the place of the parents, what parent does not want to be reasonably assured their children are as safe with those teachers are they are with their parents?
When a school shooter begins his assault, the only question is how fast can they be engaged and stopped. Arguing against the arming of willing teachers–people able to be armed the moment they step off school property–is arguing for delay in the stopping of school shooters, for there is absolutely no question the police will always–always–be a very long way off when they get the call. In Newtown, it took them a full 20 minutes to arrive. That’s just to arrive. It would have taken longer for them to enter, seek out the shooter, and stop him, but as is almost always the case in school shootings, he shot himself. In this case there is no doubt that if the office staff and/or principal were armed, they could have deterred or killed the shooter when he was in the process of shooting his way into the building. It is entirely possible not a single innocent would have been harmed.
A shooter would shoot every adult in sight? Unlikely. More likely is the deterrent effect of concealed carry–which is indeed a significant deterrent–as I outline it in the PJM article. Every mass public shooting in public schools in recent years–every one–has occurred in gun-free zones. And shooters already tend to shoot the adults first. Better they have something besides their unarmed bodies to interpose between a killer and their students.
Training and other issues are easily sorted out. The skills necessary are not difficult to teach or learn, and believe me, there are more than a few police officer out there I wouldn’t trust to do the right thing in a shooting situation.
Messy? Yes. Murderers running amok in schools for more than 20 minutes do tend to make quite a mess. I’m proposing a way to lessen or even eliminate the “mess.” There is simply no other way as effective.
Your daughter is in my classroom, and there is an armed killer on his way down the hallway. Is your ideological purity such that you would truly rather I be unarmed and unable to protect your daughter? If so, would you be willing to live your principles and post a prominent “we are completely unarmed and proud of it” sign in your front yard? You would truly rather trust her life to the mercies of a deranged killer? That’s what we currently do with our schools.
There is a better way.
“Every mass public shooting in recent years–every one–has occurred in gun-free zones”
Well, except for that Tucson one. From what I can understand of that, a few attendees were CC’ing.
Dear RuleofOrder:
Thanks for the catch. You’re quite right. I meant to say that every school shooting in recent years took place in a “gun-free” zone. I’ve corrected that comment. This is also true of most of the public shootings, including Fort Hood. Most people don’t know that with the exception of military police officers, soldiers are not allowed to be armed on military installations in the United States. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, but I’ve been dealing with final tests this week.
Thanks again.
” Is your ideological purity such that you would truly rather I be unarmed and unable to protect your daughter?”
Mike, I think that you need to read what I wrote.
I began my reply to Joel with:
“I do agree that a presence of an armed teacher might possibly help to keep the body count a bit lower in this sort of incident.”
I then repeated this twice in my reply to Pangloss – as an opener and near the close.
The standard of debate here would be enhanced if you debated what I actually said rather than what you would like me to have said.
I also wrote above:
“I think that ‘arm the teachers’ is a distraction from the real issues.
It’s *an attempt* at damage limitation. There is a danger that people might think it a solution.”
Who exactly needs semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity mags?
There is a better answer than “We need more guns”.
.
Consider this story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42665638/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/-year-old-brings-gun-houston-school-hurt/#.UNIdneTBGE4
“A kindergartner who brought a loaded gun to his Houston elementary school Tuesday was among three students injured when the gun fired after falling from his pocket as he sat down for lunch, officials said.”
How about this for crazy – in that story…
“The parents need to be more concerned about checking backpacks before their kids leave home. It’s the parents’ fault because the kids don’t know better,” said Moffett, a security officer at a medical building. ”
She is saying that the safety point is to search the kids before they leave home.
How about not having a loaded weapon lying around the house, where a kid or intruder can pick it up?
What Moffet should have been saying was: “It’s the parent’s fault for being total morons who ideally shouldn’t be allowed have guns or children.”
.
OK. It’s their sacred right and entitlement to lave loaded weapons lying around – even a Busmaster rifle if they want to, There’s nothing in the Second Amendment about not being a stupid ***hole.
The problem is not “Not enough guns”.
The problem is “Too many guns” out there in the hands of the great dumb herds of terminally stupid people.
I have to make two posts, because as far I remember this blog has a limit of one hyperlink per post.
I’ll start with a “Head ’em off at the pass” by posting something that I’ve said four times above:
“I do agree that a presence of an armed teacher might possibly help to keep the body count a bit lower in this sort of incident.”
First post links a story that has some points that people could take issue with.
However,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
From that:
“In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.”
“Arm teachers” is in the territory of moving deckchairs on the Titanic.
Put up a big notice outside every school saying “We gonna shoot your ass”.
Suicidal perp who wants to delay the suicide puts on body armor and enters.
How many teachers are capable of using a concealed-carry (small and dainty) to get a headshot on a perp who is emptying one of his/her 30-round mags in their direction?
At the same time, just noticing the bangs might lead a body-armor-wearing suicidal to take their own life a bit earlier than intended.
They have a plan. They are insane – as opposed to evil. They are totaly insane if they are going to do what they they do. They are only evil if they intend to get away.
The problem is.. once you introduce people shooting back into the environment.. they adapt their plan. Darwinism – but Darwinism in which the entity is not striving to survive.
““Every mass public shooting in recent years–every one–has occurred in gun-free zones”
— oh, yeah, and that military base one, forgot about that one.
Presumably if the students at Kent State had been carrying, there would have been less death and injury.
Next post ( and Mike, can we pretty please take my now 6? times posted caveat as standard?)
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/19/1360511/michael-jock-shooter/
The bit I want to call attention to is:
“The two began to shove one another, prompting Jock to pull out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver that had been concealed on his person and fire twice, hitting White both times in the lower torso.”
Wow! He shot that guy twice and real close up! Really efficient! Two shots – two hits.
And then…..
“After the shooting, both men went outside and waited for police.”
WTF is this?? Like wierd sado-masochistic male bonding or something?
Did they hold hands???
Does “both men went outside” mand that the shooter carried the shooted?
Maybe the shooter used very cheap/inexpensive hollow-point that had ambitions to be armor-piercing?
.
There would appear to be at least two issues raised in my pair of posts.
1) What are the chances of an averagely-trained teacher-by-vocation getting a clean head-shot?
2) How many times do they have to hit the torso of a non-body-armor-wearing perp with small-calibre ammo in order to stop them shooting?
Someone above used the operative phrase “reduced to dead meat”.
I think that there are too many guns out there and available to the stupid and the insane.
I should add that any typos or mis-spelling in the above are abnormal and due entirely to nervousnes about the Mayan end of the word due tomorrow (again).
I know that some of you are digging bunkers and locking and loading, but I am thinking about how fast I will be able to run away.
Pingback: The Realities and Legacy of Newtown, Part 1 | Stately McDaniel Manor