Mass shooting at school. This time it was a female shooter.

[Scobrey]

There is no need to find vets or off duty officers. Schools need to welcome and insist on having school resource officers. The benefits of a good SRO program far outweigh just having someone armed in the building. When done correctly, probably the best example of community policing and relationship building LE has ever had. If the agencies cant afford the extra manpower, let the schools reimburse those salaries. Doing it that way has proven cost effective time and time again, with both the agency and school system benefitting. One caveat, it can't be a dumping ground for those not capable of handling other assignments.

 

[pintail2222]

Same thing will school shootings here. Spending more money on this issue will not solve it. Eliminating the "Gun Free Zone" will.

The school in Nashville that was attacked charged over $16k tuition per year per student. Wonder how much they had in their budget designated towards security?

Any idea who in that school would have had a gun on them, at the time of the attack, had it not been a "Gun Free Zone"?

 

[freefall]

 

[Steelshot Scott]

I'm not arguing about Ukraine....
Putting an armed vet or off duty officer in a school will eliminates the gun free zone at that school. That takes money so yes, spending money on that (money well spent imo) will make a difference in that respect. I don't think we are disagreeing here.
Interestingly enough I saw a story that I couldn't reference that suggested the Nashville tran chose that school because other targets it had I'm mind were too secure. That speaks for itself if true.

It does not cost one dime to stop the problem.

Simply take down the gun free zone signs.

A armed vet doesn't cost a dime. A shooter would be more afraid of encountering a armed parent than a deputy sheriff.

 

[Steelshot Scott]

The school in Nashville that was attacked charged over $16k tuition per year per student. Wonder how much they had in their budget designated towards security?

Any idea who in that school would have had a gun on them, at the time of the attack, had it not been a "Gun Free Zone"?

An unknown number of staff and parents. And maybe a odd sprinkled in deputy or two.

A shooter might enter a school and find no one armed(that would be stupid, but possible). But he might encounter 5 teachers, 2 janitors and 15 pizzed off armed soccer moms.

The fear of the unknown is worse than the fear of the known.

 

[pintail2222]

An unknown number of staff and parents. And maybe a odd sprinkled in deputy or two.

A shooter might enter a school and find no one armed(that would be stupid, but possible). But he might encounter 5 teachers, 2 janitors and 15 pizzed off armed soccer moms.

The fear of the unknown is worse than the fear of the known.

I haven't read that anywhere that there were an unknown number of staff and parents who claim that they would have been carrying the other morning had it not been a "Gun Free Zone".

Where did you rear/read that?

 

[Dr Swane]

I'm not arguing about Ukraine....
Putting an armed vet or off duty officer in a school will eliminates the gun free zone at that school. That takes money so yes, spending money on that (money well spent imo) will make a difference in that respect. I don't think we are disagreeing here.
Interestingly enough I saw a story that I couldn't reference that suggested the Nashville tran chose that school because other targets it had I'm mind were too secure. That speaks for itself if true.

It’s more than a suburban resource officer that makes Tik-Tok videos with the kids to make them feel “safe”

It’s the need for a professional watchdog that can balance the mission and focus with maintaining a professional security standard and observation, making a place a hard target. That is needed to really take a foot hold of these situations. Pay and compensation for such a high standard needs to be recognized and a reality in order to not halfasz this implementation of security for schools. Federal money can be allocated to supplement the pay/retirement into a program structured like this. This cottage industry has grown in the private sector with high value corporations and their individuals needing constant protection.

Take US Marshals that look to slowdown / retire (got military buddies in that arena), full time SWAT guys with a standard timeline of service, other higher level training standards that need aggressive decision making; it’s the best vetting system for assimilating a comprehensive security element into the mainstream and the acceptance of the need, that want to slow down. Set and maintain a standard. Keep quals and certs current/up to date and rotate the personnel in the areas they cover for 5-10years. Train and remediate these individuals in the federal schools and training grounds the state department uses. It’s utilizing our resources to invest into our future resources.

 

[Dr Swane]

There is no need to find vets or off duty officers. Schools need to welcome and insist on having school resource officers. The benefits of a good SRO program far outweigh just having someone armed in the building. When done correctly, probably the best example of community policing and relationship building LE has ever had. If the agencies cant afford the extra manpower, let the schools reimburse those salaries. Doing it that way has proven cost effective time and time again, with both the agency and school system benefitting. One caveat, it can't be a dumping ground for those not capable of handling other assignments.

We work with and train in active shooter response for a variety of gov personnel. SRO’s are ok, but a very entry level solution to a heavily armed person intending to kill. I’ll venture to speculate most SRO’s have never been in a gun fight. Some guys take their roles very seriously, some flounder in walking the hallways.

It’s not a great idea to throw them to the wolves, regardless of 10-20years of OJT in suburbia.

 

[Scobrey]

An unknown number of staff and parents. And maybe a odd sprinkled in deputy or two.

A shooter might enter a school and find no one armed(that would be stupid, but possible). But he might encounter 5 teachers, 2 janitors and 15 pizzed off armed soccer moms.

The fear of the unknown is worse than the fear of the known

So add 22 people putting rounds into hallways, classrooms, common areas. Out of 22 you might get 1 or 2 that are actually capable of doing good. The rest are panic firing at best. The people would have to be vetted and trained to a standard. Lot's of people CLAIM to be good to go. I stand by the best option is a good, well-trained capable officer with jurisdiction. Many of us seem to forget all the legal hurdles that will come in to play with just Joe, I used to be a ______, being armed in a school. The process of policy writing, best practices etc etc will take far too long and be a constant point of attack by those that don't agree with guns in schools at any cost. The vast majority of parents and staff I know have no business with a gun anywhere.

 

[Scobrey]

We work with and train in active shooter response for a variety of gov personnel. SRO’s are ok, but a very entry level solution to a heavily armed person intending to kill. I’ll venture to speculate most SRO’s have never been in a gun fight. Some guys take their roles very seriously, some flounder in walking the hallways.

It’s not a great idea to throw them to the wolves, regardless of 10-20years of OJT in suburbia.

You think most officers have been? Most parents and teachers or even vets? Not sure what experience with SRO's you have, my experience is they are the same, some better, than the average cop responding to the calls for service. I clearly said well-trained/capable officers.