Active Shooter Drills Traumatizing Kids

[stinkeypete]

Raimus, as I explained- until you have months of experience in a school, you simply can not understand the environment because each school has a different environment and each is extraordinarily complex.

Here are several simple reasons I object to anyone other than well trained and seasoned professional police, hired by the district, being armed in a school:

* Legal requirements. Teachers have state, local, and federal obligation which (at least in Wisconsin and my district) would put the job of teaching and the job of providing a safe and effective armed response in direct conflict. The teacher takes the heat no matter what they do.

* Liability. What happens when a teacher shoots a child holding a gun? What happens when a teacher shoots a child holding a toy gun? What happens when a teacher shoots a child holding a stapler? What happens when a teacher shoots a child holding a gun but also shoots a child in the crowded hall behind?

- Teachers have close personal relationships with many of the students in the building. What sort of trauma will the teacher endure from shooting an armed child? From shooting an armed child? From finding themselves unable to pull the trigger and shoot a child? From being put in the position to protect but being unable to do so? What sort of guaranteed insurance and support do teachers have? You can bet it won’t be close to what the police union has negotiated for their members. Anyone here shot a child and want to talk about that?

*Practicality. I can find a number of negligent discharges by teachers inside schools. The teacher that drops her gun in the bathroom, blows the toilet to bits, injures self with shrapnel, swat team called, school day wasted.

You have to be there. Kids get in to everything. They are curious, devious, have not learned social norms, have poor judgement, are ignorant of consequences. In my previous post I mentioned the complex mission of the schools: these are some of the reasons kids are in school- to learn to behave. We are not born knowing how to behave. In my school, if you did not want something borrowed or stolen, you leave it at home. Kids are like misconceptions, they will get in to everything. A kid will get their hands on a teacher’s gun. I guarantee it. It will happen. Then what happens to the teacher?

You have to go to a class. You do not like the teacher and don’t trust them. The teacher is armed and you are not. A bunch of the CC people are going to wonder why one person gets a gun and the other doesn’t. A bunch of kids will wonder the same thing. It erodes trust in teachers, the school system, and society.

A community based police officer assigned to the school does not rush from classroom to classroom every 50 minutes with armloads of papers, school supplies, their laptop. They don’t spend every spare minute grading papers or calling parents or preparing the next lesson, filling out IEP papers, recording grades, reporting grades, writing tests, grading tests, talking to students about academics, home life, sports, mental illness... they have other duties.

For me, I love you guys. This is different than the silly discussion “what handgun do I carry to protect myself from bears”. In the bear discussion, there have been 14 fatalities from bears in the lower 48 since 1900 so getting it wrong doesn’t matter. The person most likely to be injured is the person carrying the “bear gun”. Having a gun doesn’t draw bears to oneself. The bear is not surrounded by a school full of children.

Like the “bear gun” debate, most of the participants have never seen a bear or even been within a hundred miles of a bear. Those who live in bear country know that the solution to the problem is not having a handgun; the gun is the last resort in many preparations to not getting eaten by a bear. The solution is to have partners on lookout.

I feel that this whole “everyone needs to carry a gun is the solution” is a marketing ploy made up by people who make money out of the deal. How many of you think 6 rounds is not enough? How many of you (excluding police and military) have ever shot someone that didn’t already have holes in them with the 7th shot? We can have fun playing cowboy or army guy or gangster or secret agent or cop or Camp Perry marksman and it’s fun.

I don’t think it’s fun playing “What I would do in a school shooting.”
It’s not fun, it’s dead kids.

Idiots preparing all wrong for it would be funny except it’s still about hurting kids. Not funny.

So yeah, if you guys want to shoot at steel plates from sitting on a stupid wooden horse, I’ll climb up with you. Fun. If you want to shoot at steel plates shaped like silly animals, I’ll join you. You know me, meet me at target pistol league this winter, or out hunting pheasants, or squirrels or deer or rabbits. I’m in. I even have a good pup. If someone shows me the idpa thing, I reckon it might be fun. If you feel better caring a gun in you pants all the time, just don’t shoot yourself in the burrito, don’t let anyone steal your gun, have a nice day and count me out. That just doesn’t sound like fun to me.

If you bring guns in to schools, fun time is over.

[FireForged]

Pete is correct on many levels


Protecting kids in school is never going to be cheap and it is an important enough task to be the singular mandate of a group of trained and experienced professionals assigned to carry it out. This would require gun toters, support staff and thoughtful coordination with teachers. It would demand a basic culmination of personnel, policy, technology, access control and proper facility design.

As a last ditch effort or last line of defense, I have no real beef with trained and qualified Teachers carrying a firearm. When I say last ditch effort, that's what I mean. It should not be anywhere near the pinnacle of the plan. I would not suggest this as a plan, I don't care for it but I would not stand against it as long as the participant meets basic physical, metal /emotional thresholds and successfully completes competent training in armed fighting methodology. If a person wants to get a carry permit, watch some youtube videos and call themselves ready to protect themselves, that's one thing but protecting other peoples children who are in your care and under your supervision is something else entirely.

That said, I think arming teachers is not a competent plan in and of itself. Its just not how you should protect a facility or those within it. A Teacher, by the very nature of being in the classroom(Teaching) is not in a good position to contribute meaningfully toward Security. If violence is already occurring inside the school, you have already failed to a large degree. Sure, they can respond to the sounds of violence but that is not really a competent plan if you consider the basic edicts of personal protection to be important. Simply putting yet another HAT on a teachers is just not how you go about competently protecting a school.

[Lohman446]

Its been twenty + years since I have been a school student and even back than the amount of teachers I would have trusted with a firearm during my high school career could be counted on my fingers. I am going to guess that ratio hasn't gone up. Not a knock on teachers but there are some people who are prepared to use deadly force and some who are not. Teaching does not generally seem to invite or retain those that are.

Ever try to herd a bunch of school kids? Its like herding cats. And herd them where in the case of an active shooter? The only realistic thing to do is to shelter in place behind locked and hardened doors at the classroom. Beyond that your best defense is breach style doors that will prevent the shooter from having access to the entire school and limit him or her to a confined area where appropriately trained responders can respond.

A) Limit access to targets by locking targets behind hardened doors and in classrooms rather than running around

B) Isolate the shooter(s) it is better to know a shooter is in hallway A than to know the shooter is "on campus"

C) Respond with appropriate force by trained and equipped personal - be they carefully selected and armed teachers, janitors, administrators, coaches, or the local police force.

Don't complicate this and don't turn the whole concept into a political football where you use "active shooter response" drills to frighten children and convince them that their demise is imminent at the hands of one of their class mates. It does no one any good.

[raimius]

Stinkeypete, most all of your "but what about" questions are things faced by people carrying concealed in most other places in society. The potential to shoot the wrong person or cause serious PTSD exists in darn near EVERY defensive shooting. Society already has plenty of laws (and lawyers) to figure that out. I get that schools present some difficult issues for potential concealed carriers, but they are not magically unique places that completely destroy the sense and responsibility exercised by several million Americans who carry on a daily basis. The school property line does not present an insurmountable challenge to people who carry.

Can you explain how a teacher's legal teaching obligations are in conflict with defending themselves (and by proxy, their students) against an armed attacker? I must not understand what you are implying because I can't see anyone criticizing a teacher for deviating from their lesson plan to deal with someone trying to murder them.

[Lohman446]

Just to be clear: when an armed teacher responds to the sounds of an active shooter, presumably by making his or her way towards the threat and abandoning the classroom full of students in front of them, who is in charge of the defensive measures within the classroom? Please don't tell me we are actually going to trust one of the students on this one. Been around many high school students lately?

[Nanuk]

You do not arm teachers just to arm teachers. The decision needs to be theirs. Maybe they are a competitive shooter, maybe they are vets, maybe the just have a sheepdog mentality for lack of a better word.

The idea would be that as is current doctrine they shelter in place with their students and when a mass killer breaks down the door during a killing spree instead of hiding under a desk or throwing a staple they have a pistol to defend their students and themselves.

Some of you guys make it sound like they would be forming a fire team and hunting the killers. NO....... Or going solo after a killer.... NO... There is no confusion when faced with someone actually trying to kill you.

You don't like guns, that is your right. But when your school resource officer is cowering down the road who is gonna stop the slaughter? You do understand that EMS will not enter until the scene is deemed secure, that could take hours......Many wounded will die during that time.

You don't want guns in schools..... Too late. Either you develop a real plan to deal with a crazed killer or you tell yourself that the odds are really low and if you are slaughtered in a GFZ it was your time.

Do I have all the answers? Absolutely not. But I have a decade or three experience dealing with criminals of all shapes and sizes.

[Lohman446]

You do not arm teachers just to arm teachers. The decision needs to be theirs. Maybe they are a competitive shooter, maybe they are vets, maybe the just have a sheepdog mentality for lack of a better word.

The idea would be that as is current doctrine they shelter in place with their students and when a mass killer breaks down the door during a killing spree instead of hiding under a desk or throwing a staple they have a pistol to defend their students and themselves.

Though I despise the whole "sheepdog" wording that is commonly used I'll accept its use as intended. This I can support if the argument can be succinctly worded. Its not about creating an effective "offensive" team to go out and "hunt" the shooter (despite my statement above) its about as effective defense as possible.

[Double Naught Spy]

Either you develop a real plan to deal with a crazed killer or ...

Nobody here has even remotely hinted at not having a plan. It is just that some folks here haven't agreed with what you think should be the plan.

Being in law enforcement gives you a different perspective than some may have on the situation, but it does not give you a universally accepted view on the situation by law enforcement, many of whom are against arming teachers and who have comparable or superior experience to you. That cowering RSO in Florida also had a decade or three in dealing with criminals of all shapes and sizes and is now retired.

I am not against the arming of teachers (voluntary, appropriately trained). I am against training drills that unduly traumatize students who need not be traumatized.

[TunnelRat]

If we're going to use one example of a law enforcement officer that didn't act as we would want to somehow typify all law enforcement then this argument quickly loses any validity in my opinion. By that same token I have zero doubt that there have been concealed carriers near mass shootings that didn't intervene either. Does that mean we shouldn't consider them in a possible solution either?

Law enforcement officers have been injured and killed attempting to intervene in mass shootings. The continued use of the actions of one man to stereotype them is pretty disrespectful and also pretty ignorant in my opinion.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[zxcvbob]

* if it’s true some @sses shot a few teachers with airsoft guns without their full consent, I hope those idiots get sued so bad all they can afford to keep are their boxer shorts.

Suing them is not enough. You sue the school administrator who approve the drill. You press criminal charges against the officers who shot the teachers. (you probably can't sue them anyway. "Qualified immunity")

[Lohman446]

law enforcement, many of whom are against arming teachers and who have comparable or superior experience to you.

I'm not certain that the premise you are offering here exists for the reason you are offering it to exist (experience or, if you will, expertise). I have met law enforcement officers who object to anyone, other than law enforcement officers, being armed. There is also a concern that arming teachers will result in less responsibilities for officers and thus threaten potential jobs for law enforcement officers.

I'm not a big fan of the "lets arm teachers to solve the problem" idea. However I am a big fan of "lets not keep otherwise qualified teachers from being armed". If my children's instructor is competent to carry a handgun and is goes beyond CCW level training to carry a handgun in the classroom I see it as a bonus - one more capable and equipped individual between my child and a potential aggressor. Their current instructors plans involve a special lock to "harden" the door and herding the children into a windowless bathroom until help arrives. I don't think a gun in these teachers hands would really help matters. Others may vary.

[TunnelRat]

If my children's instructor is competent to carry a handgun and is goes beyond CCW level training to carry a handgun in the classroom

Then you have to establish what is the minimum requirement for that teacher to carry in the classroom, and that's not an easy task. We have states that have Constitutional Carry. I have no issue with that (I live in such a state), but does the bare minimum become just obtaining a CCW permit when we have states that don't have any requirements to get a permit, or do we expect/demand more? Who determines what is or isn't required?

I say this as someone that has done 20+ training courses, some multi-day, that started with something as basic as drawing from a holster and went to force on force with UTM and conducting break contact drills across a 100 yard distance with a 4 man fireteam. People that know I do this ask me what I think the "minimum requirements" should be to carry concealed, and I frankly don't know. For an individual to just protect himself or herself I don't really care what that individual does for training, absent the concern of negligently hurting others. To be in a public school classroom with children (and potentially being paid with my taxes to act as an additional guard)? Yeah I do care. If we decide training is necessary, who pays for that training? What are the requirements to pass that training? Just former service in law enforcement or the military can't be automatic qualifiers, because I've seen people from those backgrounds that aren't the best of shots.

When someone is at the classroom door trying to murder students, I'm onboard with the notion that someone shooting back is likely better than no one shooting back. But if I follow that logic through then I imagine people with no training at all, and at that point I do have concerns that those people being in the classroom and the chances of them being negligent might actually add more risk compared to the chances of being in a school shooting in the first place.

This isn't an easily solved issue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Lohman446]

You touch on law enforcement. My impressions may be a bit dated but I have the impression the minimal qualification standards for most law enforcement agents is not onerous. If I was discussing a starting place for those authorized to carry a firearm in a state job I would start with the same standard as state law enforcement agents. Keep in mind I am not arguing that all teachers MUST meet this standard I am arguing that those that want to carry would have to meet this standard in order to carry.

Yes I realize some officers should not be carrying guns but there at least are clear and concise standards.

[TunnelRat]

Fair enough. But the standards often differ by department. Take the schools in a given state. Do the teachers at each school then meet the standards for the corresponding department for that town, or do you establish a state requirement? Is the onus completely on the teacher to get to that skill level, or if a teacher is interested is there money provided to get the training or shooting time needed to meet those standards? I say this as someone that has shot the qualification course for a local department and passed and while many of us here likely could too, it's not completely trivial (news stories of poor accuracy to the contrary). Shooting is only one aspect of this though. Do the teachers have to acquire or are they provided with insurance in the event that a child is shot by them in the crossfire? This isn't me saying don't do this, this is me saying this is a possibility and for the child that is shot there has to be some way to get compensation for medical expenses.

This is me thinking off the top of my head. We could go a lot further with this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

The LEO-only bias is extremely well entrenched and difficult to overcome. How well entrenched? Let me offer an example:

The NRA has quietly created a program they call School Shield. It's a program that offers to schools the opportunity to have trained personnel come to the school, perform a sirvey of the facility and it's security, and prepare a series of recommendations. The cost to the schools? ZERO -- it's free. I said the NRA created this program "quietly" because, depending on where you hear or see about it, you may never find out that it's an NRA program.

I am, by education, professional licensing, and forty-plus years of experience an architect. My career has included work on grammar schools, high schools, and university buildings. I am also an NRA certified instructor in Basic Pistol, Personal Protection In the Home, and a few others. I'm an NRA-certified Chief Range Safety Officer as well as a CMP Range Officer.

Foolishly thinking that someone who designs schools for a living might have something to offer in reviewing schools for safety and security, I contacted the NRA to ask how I could become certified as a School Shield consultant. The answer: I can't. Why not? Because I'm not a cop.

[Nanuk]

Foolishly thinking that someone who designs schools for a living might have something to offer in reviewing schools for safety and security, I contacted the NRA to ask how I could become certified as a School Shield consultant. The answer: I can't. Why not? Because I'm not a cop.

Its not cop bias, its ignorance. I would think that you could offer insight to design and materials. But what do I know, I am just a semi retired Fed.

[TunnelRat]

I am also an NRA certified instructor in Basic Pistol, Personal Protection In the Home, and a few others. I'm an NRA-certified Chief Range Safety Officer as well as a CMP Range Officer.

I watched an NRA certified instructor kill two people (force on force with UTM) in a course specifically on Active Shooter Response for the Concerned Citizen (taught by Todd Rassa). Only one other person in the class felt the need to kill. The other 12 people in the course got through it without having to kill them and no one was saved from her effort. It was quite eye opening for the person to see that there was another way out (we watched the videos of every other student's experience during the lunch break and then again at the end of the day). She had presented a pistol, expected compliance, and when she didn't get it she was in a world of trouble.

If a law enforcement background isn't a guarantee of performance, and there are times when it hasn't been (as mentioned in this thread), frankly neither is some NRA certification. All any certification provides is a basis for understanding the minimum experience of a person (and even then some people put a lot more into their work than others). Quantifying that experience in a way that "proves" the usefulness of someone isn't easy.

[FireForged]

anyone can amass certificates but until they have the occasion actually utilize their training in real circumstances, make decision and take actions ( over and over) make mistakes, fail and learn from their mistakes.. they dont know what they dont know. Rookies leave the academy with all sorts of "training" and certifications but it takes months and months, usually a year or more ..sometimes longer to actually become adept at properly dealing with potential dangerous circumstances. I am not sure why anyone would feel that going to some classes would imbue them with warrior competence via pure osmosis.

Going to classes and learning is a good thing. Application of tactics, techniques and methods on a training field is a good thing. Knowing something more than you did prior to the class is a good thing. I just wouldn't confuse that with competence or experience. Those things usually come later

[JERRYS.]

how about the nuclear bomb drills of the 50s?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by FireForged

anyone can amass certificates but until they have the occasion actually utilize their training in real circumstances, make decision and take actions ( over and over) make mistakes, fail and learn from their mistakes.. they dont know what they dont know. Rookies leave the academy with all sorts of "training" and certifications but it takes months and months, usually a year or more ..sometimes longer to actually become adept at properly dealing with potential dangerous circumstances. I am not sure why anyone would feel that going to some classes would imbue them with warrior competence via pure osmosis.



Going to classes and learning is a good thing. Application of tactics, techniques and methods on a training field is a good thing. Knowing something more than you did prior to the class is a good thing. I just wouldn't confuse that with competence or experience. Those things usually come later

Then that again gets into what should or shouldn't be expected of an armed teacher in these situations or even a law enforcement officer in those situations.

I've seen people with prior training shut down in force on force. It wasn't because their training was bad, they themselves lacked courage, or they didn't have the physical strength when it came to hand to hand. In most cases it was because their training taught them that doing this causes that, and when that didn't happen they hadn't considered an alternative.

My point in all of this is people assume they'll push people through some standard training and they'll get people performing at an expected level. That's not always the case.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

If a law enforcement background isn't a guarantee of performance, and there are times when it hasn't been (as mentioned in this thread), frankly neither is some NRA certification. All any certification provides is a basis for understanding the minimum experience of a person (and even then some people put a lot more into their work than others). Quantifying that experience in a way that "proves" the usefulness of someone isn't easy.

The School Shield program isn't about training first responders to deal with active shooters, it's about assisting schools in formulating a comprehensive plan for safety and security. I admit that there is nothing in the NRA Basic Pistol curriculum that would pertain to an active shooter situation. The Personal Protection classes -- maybe. My forty years of experience as an architect, dealing with school design and construction and building and fire codes -- definitely. I think I can bring as much to the table as a cop. Cops don't know building and fire codes -- some of their suggestions may be code violations. They don't know hardware -- they may not understand the nuances of classroom door lock options, how they work, what's NOT allowed by code, and what options are available that ARE allowed by code.

The School Shield reviews are supposed to be conducted by a team, not by one individual. If that team can't include an architect because he's not a cop -- it's intentionally omitting potentially valuable insight. And, IMHO, it demonstrates that there is a cops-only bias even within the NRA. And that was my point.

[FireForged]

Then that again gets into what should or shouldn't be expected of an armed teacher in these situations or even a law enforcement officer in those situations.

I've seen people with prior training shut down in force on force. It wasn't because their training was bad, they themselves lacked courage, or they didn't have the physical strength when it came to hand to hand. In most cases it was because their training taught them that doing this causes that, and when that didn't happen they hadn't considered an alternative.

My point in all of this is people assume they'll push people through some standard training and they'll get people performing at an expected level. That's not always the case.

Exactly...

This is why I keep saying that at least with occupational professionals you generally have someone who has faced danger and it adept in making decisions and taking actions in those type of fast moving circumstances.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The School Shield program isn't about training first responders to deal with active shooters, it's about assisting schools in formulating a comprehensive plan for safety and security. I admit that there is nothing in the NRA Basic Pistol curriculum that would pertain to an active shooter situation. The Personal Protection classes -- maybe. My forty years of experience as an architect, dealing with school design and construction and building and fire codes -- definitely. I think I can bring as much to the table as a cop. Cops don't know building and fire codes -- some of their suggestions may be code violations. They don't know hardware -- they may not understand the nuances of classroom door lock options, how they work, what's NOT allowed by code, and what options are available that ARE allowed by code.

The School Shield reviews are supposed to be conducted by a team, not by one individual. If that team can't include an architect because he's not a cop -- it's intentionally omitting potentially valuable insight. And, IMHO, it demonstrates that there is a cops-only bias even within the NRA. And that was my point.

I don't doubt your architecture background, but that wasn't the only background information you gave. You brought up the NRA instruction background as well and my comment was more on that.

You're right that having something with a construction background for a program about fortifying a location makes sense. In my experience when starting a program such as you mention you get many people that volunteer their "help", whether it is helpful or not. The default answer sometimes becomes to turn down people regardless because saturation becomes problematic. That's a possibility here too, or it could be as you say and they didn't care because you aren't a cop.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

I wouldn't take it personally.

As important as architecture and fire codes are... its probably not what is driving the train. Comprehensive planning of this type is likely about methods, operations, information sharing and specialized security/protective infrastructure. Much of those types of things come from local think tanks made up of LEOs, LEO vetted and highly specialized sub contractors, security consultants and information shared from specialized programs. Building the physical plant is not likely the problem, they will probably have a municipal/county project manager or 2 or 3, a facilities manager, a schools facilities superintendent, local fire departments to oversee fire code issues, local code enforcement liaisons and of course a architectural firm. I agree with TunnelRat, its probably more about access to information.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

... or it could be as you say and they didn't care because you aren't a cop.

It's not "it could be." I was specifically told that I could not apply to be a School Shield consultant because I am not a law enforcement officer.