Skip to comments.Some real solutions for making schools safer.
Posted on 12/20/2012 9:57:55 AM PST by servo1969
OK. What are your real solutions to make schools' "Gun Free" zones safer? The current policies are as useful as the TSA - they only give the illusion of safety while actually accomplishing nothing.
I think there are a few different changes that can be made both to the schools and the policies in place. I've tried to limit it to things which aren't really that noticeable to the students. My idea was to make them safer without making things look all that different.
First of all the doors should lock when closing and people should need to be buzzed in. I know, I know. A lot of the schools were already doing this and then stopped because it became too much of a hassle. Well, make it so that it's not a pain at all. Rearrange things so that it's simple and no big deal to follow the rules. If the door is not visible from the desk then install a good camera and intercom if necessary.
How about a little ballistic film on the entrance and exit door windows? If the money is available you could even put some on the classroom doors. You might not even have to replace the glass you have currently. A high quality film on both sides might keep someone out or at least slow them down long enough for the faculty to execute their planned response.
And when I say response I mean various things. The faculty and students should drill at least once a month for this sort of thing. But, once again, it doesn't have to be a big deal to the kids. Call it a fire drill or an earthquake drill or whatever you wish. Only the faculty needs to be concerned with the full aspects of the drill.
The planned response to an armed intruder should be both passive AND aggressive.
The passive should at the very least include calling 911(duh), locking doors and sending the kids to the areas of the rooms that have the least line of sight for any bad guy. All of this should be part of the drills. These passive actions are probably in place at most schools already. And none of them will stop an armed intruder who is truly determined to kill.
So that's where the aggressive response comes into play. The only real thing that will stop a killer is to severely injure or kill him. Up till now the killers have always had the advantage. There has been nobody in the schools who can oppose them with any real force. That needs to change.
Some people may opt for armed guards but guards are expensive and stand-out in the crowd. I think the teachers and other faculty in the schools should be utilized as armed security. Now, I know what some will say. "My kid's teacher is an idiot! Now you want her to be an armed idiot, as well?" Listen, I've seen my share of stupid teachers but that doesn't mean they're necessarily dangerous. And besides, I'm not suggesting we just say "Hey, if anybody wants to bring a gun to school, knock yourself out!"
The teachers should have to volunteer to carry on the job. There should not be any extra pay for doing so. That way only the people who really want to carry will bother. They should have to attend classes by the NRA or police dept. and qualify with the gun they will carry. This qualification should expire every 90 days or so. Then they must re-qualify at the appropriate facility. If they violate a school policy or seem to be acting a bit 'iffy' in some way their permit can be revoked. They won't lose any money if this happens because they weren't being paid for it in the first place. They just won't be allowed to carry at work until they satisfy some guideline or another.
Now, like I mentioned awhile ago, all of this should be 'under the radar' so to speak as far as the kids are concerned. The people who carry should do so safely and discretely.
The students should see nothing but this:
While their security remains quietly just out of sight:
Now I wouldn't recommend thigh holsters for teachers in elementary schools. There's too many kids grabbing the teachers around the legs and the whole idea is for the kids to be completely unaware of the guns. It shouldn't even come up in conversation any more than necessary.
So, to re-cap: Harden the building just a little, have a plan for an armed attacker and practice it, and use some of the people you have on the job as armed security. These are just a few ideas I had. I expect many people will disagree with them. Maybe some will sound good. Something needs to change and I can't see how taking guns away from people who have never hurt or threatened anyone will make children any safer. But, then again, safety is not really the point of gun control no matter what certain politicians may say.
Perhaps Israel just doesn’t have those students that want to do these things, like the US has?
Locks on car doors don’t stop serious car thieves, but you would be foolish not to use them because you considered them futile. In a horrific situation like Newton, your goals become something like this:
1: Try to keep the intruder out as long as possible. Make the intruder spend time and resources to gain entry, or possibly make them change plans, making their attack less effective.
2: Try to limit the intruder’s movements once inside your facility. Basically, this is just goal 1 above, applied recursively to smaller portions of the building.
3: Have hardened “safe rooms” for precious assets, and a plan to get them there in a minute or two.
4: Have staff members that can deploy offensive measures. Guns, gazers, mace, heck, have you ever been blasted by a big fire extinguisher?
5: Video sources throughout the building that LEO’s can access, in the event that the intruder is still at large when they arrive.
Age and existing building design will dictate what measures are practical for goals 1 and 2 and 3, building codes can take care of future structures.
Goals 4 and 5 are just a matter of deciding to to them.
That would be probably the most effective and cheapest method to achieve quick results.
Good for you and your school district. Have you seen the national statistics on the ratio of women to men teachers in public schools, especially the lower grades? I think your 33% is pretty far above the norm.
That is, of course, the one unthinkable approach to the problem. A liberal so abhors the sight and thought of guns that he truly feels it is better that 20 children get massacred than that there be legal guns in a school. To a liberal it is worth any number of dead innocents(except, perhaps, himself) to preserve a gun free status.
It's psych warfare against psychos. The schools should follow up with the real thing as soon as they can make it happen.
Do not hire armed police all you will get is the rejected TSA people. Make the teachers carry guns.
A female will shoot you quicker than a male will when children are involved. It's the whole "emotions" thing I guess...
I went over and read The post including the update. I checked around and found this. 1 member of the Congress tried to repeal the law that prohibits firearms around schools. And that guy was Ron Paul. I am not a paulbot BTW.
The guy makes a lot of sense sometimes.
To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Citizens Protection Act of 2011’.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 AND AMENDMENTS TO THAT ACT.
(a) In General- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (q).
(b) Related Amendments-
(1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking paragraphs (25) through (27) and redesignating paragraphs (28), (29), and (32) through (35) as paragraphs (25) through (30), respectively.
(2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended—
(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking `(k), or (q)’ and inserting `or (k)’; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.
(3) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 921 note, 922 note; section 1702 of Public Law 101-647; 104 Stat. 4844-4845) is repealed.
what they need to do, is install a small lock box in the admin office, and store 2 pistols. have the box wired so that accesssing it alerts the local police.
when trouble starts, authorized people in the admin office would have to be able to quickly open the safe, grab the guns and attempt to deal with the threat.
the teachers wouldnt like having guns in the school, but they would have to learn that its a different world and
they cant afford to be disarmed sheep.
I wonder how many folks would get behind repealing 922 in it’s entirety from Title 18.
It’s ALL in explicit violation of the Second Amendment’s prohibition and none of it comes near being an Art 1 Sec 8 power of the FedGov.
I saved a newspaper article w/ picture of two of my wife's teacher friends at the range during one of their weekly practice sessions. Both were shooting .357 magnums although they probably dialed back to .38 special for the range time. Both have since retired from teaching. I'm guessing that both went for their CCW as soon as Wisconsin joined the rest of the real world.
We all need to communicate to our Congressmen about the bill.
Strike while the Iron is hot. Point the blame of those children being killed to the law that let it happen. Use the lefts tactics on the left.
That law had it been repealed by Congress may have saved some of those kid’s lives or all of the lives lost at the school.
I sent her a reply already pointing they don't have the authority under the Constitution. I'm not expecting a reply back.
I really don't like gun haters. A more ignorant, or downright criminal, bunch you will never meet.
Since your previous post I have come across this Can you look at it. And give me an opinion on what it means I do not speak lawyer talk. I did ask someone to forward this to ARFCOM, I don’t have an account there. Here is the link to the SCOTUS case.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 93-1260 Argued: November 8, 1994 -— Decided:
After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, § 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.
Held: The Act exceeds Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that, by its terms, has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court’s cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, § 922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government’s contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. ___.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O’CONNOR, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., and SOUTER, J., filed dissenting opinions. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
I don't know but they would have had a hell of a lot better chance than with bare fists. The reality is that all teachers won't carry so give them something, anything that might give them a chance.
I bet a number of them did have mace or something similar, but no chance to use it.
Decision over turns the original Gun Free Schools victim disarmament nonsense. It was redone and repassed in 1996. Hasn’t been rechallenged yet that I can find.