YouTube
I am writing you about a subject that should not be controversial, but is: Arming some school teachers to deter and stop school shootings.
First, you should know where I am coming from. I am a firearms instructor; a credentialed range safety officer and I hold a license that allows me to carry a firearm in 38 states, including college campuses in my home state. I have also done some competitive shooting. In addition I was a first responder for 10 years and, later, a law enforcement chaplain.
During my time in emergency services, one thing I learned well: You almost never get there in time.
I never saved a single cardiac arrest victim unless their heart stopped in front of me, or someone on the scene started CPR. All the others, hundreds of them, died. There was a time when the Red Cross did not teach CPR. They believed it too dangerous for ordinary people to perform. Now they teach as many as they can. 50 years ago, only doctors could use a defibrillator. They we considered too dangerous. Now we have modern versions all over the place - just like fire extinguishers. Lives are saved every day, by ordinary people, who have been trained to do things previously thought to be beyond the abilities of the average person.
Want to avoid losing your house in a fire? Put in smoke alarms. Get a good fire extinguisher and learn how to use it. Can you end up dead by fighting a fire too big for you to put out? Absolutely. However, we do not cope with that risk by telling people not to have fire extinguishers - instead, we try to teach people how to use them. We know that there are risks in letting average people fight fires, but the risks are outweighed by the benefits.
When it comes to armed self defense, no matter what you have heard, the jury is definitely in. We now have roughly 16 million people licensed to carry. 43 states now either issue permits to anyone meeting background checks and training requirements (called "shall issue") - or allow anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it. The predicted bloodbath has never happened - not in a single one of those 43 states. Official statistics from both Texas and Florida - the states with the most permit/license holders - are published online for all to see. Licensed civilians are involved in unjustified shootings at a much lower rate than police officers and are literally six times less likely to commit crimes than cops. Additionally, states that issue licenses on a shall issue basis have homicide rates, on average, 28% lower than restrictive states. Yes, among those 16 million licensed individuals there are many teachers.
 |
| If your state is colored blue on the map above, your state issues permits to anyone passing the training and background checks. Up to 15% of adults you are around every day are carrying concealed firearms. Would these people become more dangerous by entering a school? |
Not only do lawfully armed citizens save their own lives (on a daily basis), they have also saved the lives of police officers and stopped "active shooters". Don't take my word for it. Consider these local news reports:
How Many More Times Must Armed Citizens
Stop Active Shooters Before We Admit That
They Can Actually Do It?
The average school shooting is over in 3-5 minutes – police response time, even in urban areas is almost always longer than that. Without action by those on scene, a whole lot more people will die. It is almost impossible for an unarmed person to stop an armed person - and it is wrong to demand that people who are screened, trained and licensed do so.
I have spent more hours than I care to think about analyzing this very issue. So, all of that said here are the hard cold realities:
1) Teachers (and other staff) are responsible for the protection of their students. They are there. There is no way around this. We need to make sure that they have the tools and skills to be able to do that without using their bodies as human bullet stops to buy their students a few more moments of life.
2) There are many things that can be done to harden the campus against attack, it's not just firearms solutions. However, irrational fears of firearms should not prevent a sound, well thought out program of allowing SOME selected teachers to carry or have access to firearms.
3) It is neither required nor advisable require any teacher to be armed. It is absolutely essential that they be volunteers, ideally with prior firearms training and experience.
4) They should be trained at a higher level than what is typically required for a carry permit. However, this is not impossible. Only 40 hours of training is required of new police officers under the national POST standards. Much of what is contained in that standard is not applicable to defending students. A great deal can be taught to motivated students, who already have carry permits, in 24-32 hours. Many firearms trainers have offered training for nothing. Furthermore, these teachers will not be going up against Navy Seals. Any attacker will likely have less training than they have - if any training at all. For instance we now know that the Parkland active shooter did not even know how to clear a malfunction - something that is very basic.
5) Teachers must be permitted to drop out of the training and the program at any time. Some will find that they just cannot assume the responsibilities. However, some will be able to do so - time will tell how many are able to complete the training and the screening process (which should include a basic psychological exam).
6) These incidents typically continue until the murderer runs out of victims, runs out of ammo or another armed person arrives. Until that happens, one person will be shot, on average, every three seconds. Every one of these incidents is planned - and their plan always includes how they want it to end. The arrival of armed opposition always causes them to implement that plan - because armed opposition removes the control they need to force the end they want. In the vast majority of incidents, the shooter takes their own life. The next most common response is surrender. In a small number of cases (well under 10%) they will engage in a gunfight. THE BOTTOM LINE: MORE THAN 90% OF THE TIME, AN ARMED TEACHER WILL NOT HAVE TO FIRE A SHOT TO STOP THE KILLING.
7) The mere presence of armed personnel, especially if they are carrying covertly, is a huge deterrent. We know beyond any doubt that many of these killers select gun free zones. Just a few examples:
a) The Aurora, Colorado theater shooter had many choices of theaters for his attack. He chose the only one showing the film that was prominently posted with signs prohibiting firearms.
b) Fort Hood – This coward of a terrorist did not have to worry that any of the soldiers – who are well trained in the use of firearms – would be able to shoot back. They were in a "gun free zone".
c) The Pulse shooting – After he shot the uniformed officer outside, the attacker did not have to worry about anyone else being armed – in Florida bars and nightclubs are off limits while carrying, even to those who do not consume alcohol.
d) The FBI recently stopped a planned terrorist attack in Michigan. The terrorist said that he was going to attack a church because, “People are not allowed to have their guns there.” In fact, every terrorist attack with firearms, committed in the US, was committed in a so called “gun free zone”.
e) Omaha, Nebraska, mall shooting: The shooter first entered the mall and was seen on surveillance footage to search for a “Gun Free Zone” sign. Once he found a store with one, he exited and returned to the store with a stolen AK47 and killed 8 people.
f) Every school shooting, in every school, that has ever happened including those at colleges and universities has happened where lawfully carried firearms are prohibited.
The greatest risk factor for a mass shooting is a sign that says, “No guns allowed”.
What Is The Real Effect Of Gun Free Zones?
8) When it comes to firearms, my greatest expertise is firearms safety. That is what a range safety officer is responsible for. It is the most important thing I teach. That said, every safety concern I have ever heard or seen expressed is easily addressed. Most of the time, those who express them have little to no firearms experience. For instance, one principal actually sated that he ”Wouldn’t be comfortable” with a teacher, even if they kept it in their desk. Well I sure wouldn’t be comfortable with that either! The only two places that would be acceptable are in a holster secured on the teacher’s person, or in a quick action safe in the room.
So, let's take a look at some of the common objections:
a) A child will be able to access the firearm and accidentally shoot someone with it. If not that, a child will hug their teacher and the gun will go off.
I can certainly understand why someone would be concerned about this - but it is completely unjustified, provided that the teacher or staff member is properly trained and equipped. In firearms safety, we create multiple layers of safety to prevent these things from happening.
First, a holster is much more than something to carry a handgun in. It is a safety device. It has two functions. It is designed to cover the trigger in such a way that it cannot possibly be activated and it is designed to make it difficult for the firearm to be removed by anyone except to person wearing it. Many holsters also have a retention lock that must be released before the handgun can be removed.
Second, in the school setting, little would be lost by having teachers carry with the firing chamber empty, in the same way the military frequently does. This would require anyone gaining access to the firearm to know how to "rack" the slide and have the required strength to do so. This would be impossible for younger students. Carrying with an empty chamber also makes an accidental discharge impossible - as impossible as driving a car with no gas. If the firearm is needed, a round can be chamber during the draw, in less than one second. The huge margin of safety is worth a one second delay in a school setting.
Third, modern firearms have multiple passive and active safeties. Passive safeties make accidental discharges should the firearm be dropped a near impossibility. Modern handguns all have at least two of these. Just like with cars, occasionally there is a bad design - but in the firearms community - which is rightfully obsessed with safety - these are quickly discovered and the guns are recalled. In addition to passive safeties, which remain active until the trigger is pulled, there are active safeties that are activated and deactivated by the user. These safeties frequently not only prevent firing, they also must be released prior to racking the slide to chamber a round.
Fourth, it is not necessary for teachers to actually carry their firearms on their person in order to protect their students. The firearm can be stored in a rapid acting safe. In fact, some police agencies have used larger versions of these safes to preposition semi-automatic rifles for use by school resource officers. There are dozens of brands of rapid access firearms safes specifically designed to both prevent unauthorized access by children and others AND designed to enable access in 1-3 seconds. These could be used as deterrents by positioning one in every room so that potential attackers do not know which teachers have access to a firearm.
Fifth, there are programs around the country that arm teachers - and their have been zero problems with these programs. In addition, if you live in one of the 43 states with "shall issue" carry laws, 5-15% of adults you are around in public, right now, are carry concealed handguns. When was the last time you heard of an accident. Yes, they do happen - but the number per year is in single digits among 15-16 million persons licensed to carry.
I would also point out that the entire state of Utah, every single school, allows any teacher or staff member with a carry permit to carry at school. They are not even required to notify the administration, much less get permission. Sounds really dangerous, doesn’t it? Well, the rest of the story is that in 10 years they have has not been one negative incident. There also have been no mass shootings. In fact there has not been one child killed in a school shooting in those 10+ years. Given this track record, it’s clear that a more carefully structured program, with even more training, would be safe.
This Utah Teacher Carries A Firearm
In This Video She Explains Why And
We See Some Of Her Training
b) Teachers are not security officers or police. Training them as such would be way too expensive and is too much for an teacher to do in addition to their many other responsibilities.
First of all, let's get one thing straight: Giving someone a badge does not magically give them special abilities to handle firearms. I have seen the low level of marksmanship skills required in many departments. Those who are very good with firearms have usually attained these skills on their own time - or they are on the SWAT team, or they got very good in the military. I have seen officers who can shoot much better than I can - and I have seen officers who I could easily out shoot - some on my worst day. Cops have a job that is as multifaceted and demanding as that of a teacher. Those who rise above the minimum standard do so because they like to shoot. The same will likely be true of any teacher volunteering for an armed teacher program.
Secondly, most people radically overestimate how much firearms training police officers receive. The national standard (POST) is 40 hours of firearms training - not all of which would be applicable for an armed teacher. Many departments then only require their officers to qualify once or twice a year - simply meaning that they must shoot a minimum score on a target. Assuming that only teachers with current carry licenses (or prior police or military training) are accepted into a program a great deal could be accomplished in 24-32 hours of additional training. This would put their total training on par with police - and far above that required of carry license holders who have, as reported above, stopped active shooters.
Third, I absolutely agree that training and arming all teachers is a practical and moral impossibility. No one should ever be required to bear arms against their conscience. No one who works for a school should be required to carry a gun as a condition of employment. This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about permitting those who wish to carry to do so, provided that they already have training and are willing to complete more training. Some schools would have no armed teachers. Others might have several. However, all schools could post signs warning that they permit their teachers and staff to carry - resulting in would be active shooters thinking twice and possibly selecting another target.
c) If teachers are armed, they will only make things worse. Police won't know who the shooter is. More people will be killed.
Let me begin to answer that objection by asking a question: What is better evidence, speculation or actual experience? Clearly, the best evidence is actual experience, not speculation. This entire objection is speculative. I have looked at every mass shooting, or attempted mass shooting, in which a legally armed citizen was present and took action. This is what I found:
The number of times that the armed citizen made things worse is ZERO. They did not shoot the wrong person. They did not miss and kill someone This simply has not happened. In other shootings involving legally armed citizens such mistakes are very, very rare. I know of exactly one. One incident out of 16 million licensed to carry. One case out of thousands to tens of thousands of defensive firearms used over 30 year of experience. I do know of one case where a citizen lost his life attempting to stop a mass shooting. He didn't know that there was another shooter hiding in the crowd. Although he was killed, according to local law enforcement he completely disrupted the plans of the attackers and enabled everyone else to escape.
Just think about that objection for a moment. Someone is actively hunting down your students and killing them. An armed teacher fires at the shooter, misses and kills a student. Now that shooter stops killing kids and turns their attention to the armed teacher. How many students would they have shot in the time they are focused on the other person with a gun who is trying to shoot them? What is the most common response of an active shooter when meeting armed resistance? It is suicide. What is the second most common response? Surrender. In well under 10% of cases does the active shooter decide to fire back. So, even in my worst case hypothetical, odds are that teacher still saved lives.
The number of times that a citizen has used their lawfully carried firearm to end a violent incident and has been mistakenly shot by police is also ZERO. At least in my efforts to find every such every self defense use of firearms I can ha turned up none. Additionally, I am plugged in to the self defense community and if such a thing had happened, people better than me would be working on how to prevent it from happening again.
Why doesn't this happen? Well, a great deal of credit goes to the good training that people licensed to carry get. Trust me, police interaction is a topic that is covered in initial CCW training and in other training classes too. A great deal of credit also goes to law enforcement. Think for a minute: Cops must consider that someone the armed person they have encountered may be a licensed citizen or, for that matter, an off duty cop from another jurisdiction. They do not start shooting everyone with a firearm. They are better trained than that.
d) We need more school resource officers, not armed teachers.
The problem here is not that school resource officers are anything but good. We should have as many as we can. The problem is that they are not enough. There never will be enough. Consider:
The very same people who say that training willing and able teachers would cost too much, also say that we should put all our efforts into school resource officers that cost way, way more. Excuse me for believing that the reality is they want neither.
The high cost of school resource officers results in no more than one officer being assigned to all but the largest of schools. Many schools are so small that even a single officer cannot be assigned full time. Finding one or more teachers willing to be trained could be the only option.
School resource officers are not tethered to the school. They will, at times have to respond to off campus incidents.
With the exception of the smallest schools, one resource officer cannot cover the entire school. Yes, they can and have stopped school shootings - but expecting a single officer be on scene is simply not reasonable.
If you are in uniform, you are the first one shot. If you are known to be armed, you are the first one shot. (This is why, under normal circumstances, I do not carry my gun openly.) Consider the Pulse nightclub shooting. Who was the first one shot? The police officer at the door. Then another 48 people unarmed people were shot and killed. On the other hand, if someone or several someones were carrying covertly, the shooter has a much hard time identifying them as a threat because they blend in. The same advantage exists on a school campus.
Without question, the best system is the Israeli system: School security officers backed up by armed teachers. Neither option should be ignored in favor of the other - they are complementary not contradictory. This system completely stopped school shootings in Israel - and they were up against terrorists.
Finally, we should consider what police officers think about people licensed to carry. In 2013, after Newtown, 15,000 police officers submitted their opinions to Police One. Not only are they overwhelmingly opposed to most gun control laws, not only do they want our current laws enforced, they overwhelmingly are supportive of armed citizens. 86% of 15,000 confirmed active police officers and sheriffs stated that they believed armed citizens would have saved lives at Newtown and other mass shootings. The citizens who were present at Newtown were TEACHERS.
e) Few teachers will want this responsibility, few to none will volunteer.
This is the easiest one of all. We shouldn't sell our teachers our teachers short. In just one Ohio county where the local sheriff made training available 300 teachers signed up in one afternoon. More could have been signed up, but the sheriff wasn't yet prepared for any more students at this point, so he cut it off at that point.
The sheriff said, “We thought we’d get 20, 25 signed up. We had 50 within the first hour. We had 100 within two hours, we had three hundred within like five hours. We offered to teachers first, then we start getting calls from a secretary that works in the school, janitors that work in the school,”
Of course the number of "objections" that can be raised is unlimited. The number of objections that are legitimate is much smaller, and the number that cannot be overcome is zero.
9) The NRA has a program to help schools formulate and implement an overall security plan - with or without armed teachers. Their services are free.
The NRA has many police officers and security professionals on staff. They have spent millions developing this program over a four year period. Any school can access it at no charge. It is not all about the defensive use of firearms. In fact, I would recommend that any school or district thinking about allowing teachers to carry access this program first. Just arming teachers is not enough.
Finally, you have to ask yourself, are there any qualifications you would accept as adequate? How about a teacher who is...........
............ a retired Secret Service agent with experience
on the president's protection detail?
..........a retired FBI agent?
..........a retired Navy Seal?
...........a retired police officer?
..........a retired FBI agent?
..........a retired Navy Seal?
...........a retired police officer?
Would you really compel any of these people to remain disarmed? Would you really consider any of them a treat to the safety of your students? I think that it's absurd do that.
Of course, once you accept that properly trained teachers can be armed, it then comes down to a discussion about what those qualifications should be. That certainly is a discussion that needs to happen - and one in which educators should be involved. However, is it reasonable to rule out arming any teachers before knowing........
...............how much training they will have?
.............what safety precautions will be taken?
.............how many teachers have any prior experience or training that applies?
...............will your local law enforcement support and coordinate with your program?
............how many teachers are willing to commit to the training?
.............how many will complete the training?
.........what, if any, problems have been encountered by existing programs?
.........what, if any, problems have been encountered by existing programs?
No comments:
Post a Comment