School Safety: To Plan, or Not to Plan.........

Z, we're good. Broad statement about fortresses, guns don't make a fortress, nearly impenetrable walls and doors do. Nothing however is truly impenetrable, hence false hopes. All "gun free zones" are merely a shooting gallery for whack jobs (sorry for non pc term). All that can be expected and hoped for is to minimize the damage. Quick response is part of that. Who can respond quicker than those right there?
SC, regarding training, there are many forms and sources that put the person under additional stress to demonstrate deterioration of skills under stress, adrenaline flow, etc. The purpose is not to embarrass, but show the need to develop muscle memory. Competition in IDPA and similar shooting scenarios are helpful and inexpensive. School staff is supplemental too, not a replacement for other security.

The only thing, albeit minor, I take issue with in this article is the reference to "automatic" weapon when it should read "semi-automatic". Gun rights advocates I've interacted with are very quick to point out this "misunderstanding" of guns. The rest of the article goes to the heart, in more ways than one, of our national malaise toward school shootings, in my opinion.

abcnews.go.com/US/curse-newtown-cope-sch...gs/story?id=26776713

To me, this may just be another "feel good" technology being marketed for profit. The key take-away from the article for me? Two quotes: 1.) "But he had only a few minutes to wreak havoc." And, 2.) ‘‘It’s amazing, the short, split-second amount of time from identification of the shot to transmission of the message,’’ The second from the Police Chief. Bottom line, most of the school shootings we've seen take mere "minutes" to be carried out. So, the first quite does not support the technology from my perspective. The second quote goes to the time from detection to transmission. More importantly, I believe, is the "response". Please don't misunderstand. Technology is a good thing. This may be a good thing for schools to have, just as fire detection systems are. But they aren't the sole answer, and that is something I believe far too many may wind up believing this to be.

www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/...vhtj5C48H/story.html

Hmmmm, interesting:

www.fastcodesign.com/3038273/can-newtown...feel-like-a-fortress

It is part lawyer driven (CYA for the dept.) and part best case scenario with budget constraints. Law enforcement is asked to do an impossible task (a true Kobayashi Maru). Even with a body guard per person, what does one do when their body guard goes down under fire? We're back to those that are there are the quickest response scenario.
A typical human being puts their own survival above all else. The exception to that is parents, family members and those that serve as our first responders, though they are under departmental policies and procedures.
We're a lot of pages into this discussion without many poster suggestions. Don't hold back if something may serve to save of kids.

HEARTLESS wrote: It is part lawyer driven (CYA for the dept.) and part best case scenario with budget constraints. Law enforcement is asked to do an impossible task (a true Kobayashi Maru). Even with a body guard per person, what does one do when their body guard goes down under fire? We're back to those that are there are the quickest response scenario.
A typical human being puts their own survival above all else. The exception to that is parents, family members and those that serve as our first responders, though they are under departmental policies and procedures.
We're a lot of pages into this discussion without many poster suggestions. Don't hold back if something may serve to save of kids.

I agree with most of your post. I'm just not sure, from a professional perspective, that arming school staff is the right thing to do based on a best practices perspective. There are a lot of planning issues that would also need to be considered if a school decides to do so (I'm not opposed, necessarily, to this happening - I just have a lot of questions I'd like to see being addressed prior to).

Involvement, suggestions, recommendations are all something I asked for from the beginning. So, thank you for offering your input. If someone can take anything away from information gleaned in this thread, or on our website, as well, to help them in helping their school system be as safe a learning environment they can possibly be, then it's worth it to keep this subject going.

Today provides a perfect example. Imagine a large area county with a small population, hence small law enforcement presence. Now add in bad winter weather with many auto accidents. What is the response time?
Handgun training is a learned skill and no one is simply born into it. Correct repetition creates correct muscle memory. Bruce Lee said "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
Even so called advanced handgun techniques are mostly the basics done very well in nearly all scenarios with speed and precision.

Also look into Briggsdale and Dove Creek, Colorado schools that are doing what were talking about.

HEARTLESS wrote: Also look into Briggsdale and Dove Creek, Colorado schools that are doing what were talking about.

I understand the limitations in response times associated with more rural settings. And, I'm not the least bit opposed to what these schools are doing in response. Rather, what I'm trying to do is ask the types of questions they should be addressing before doing something like this from a planning perspective.

For example, has the school gotten "consensus" from law enforcement and the rest of the "community" before going ahead with this? Has the school's insurance carrier been informed? Has the insurance carrier bought into the action? These are just the immediate questions that pop into my mind being the planner I am.

I know you've addressed the issue of adequate training for armed staff in a previous post. I defer to you on that because I'm not an expert in concealed or open carry. That being said, how should the issue of carrying at all in a school setting be addressed - open or concealed? Who should know, if anyone, when concealed is the preferred option?

Finally, but by no means the end of planning questions I have, what to do about parents on campus being allowed to open carry or concealed carry? This one is one of the most pressing planning concerns I have. And it's not a question related to gun free zones at all. My personal position on this is if a parent wants to carry on a school campus, they should agree to be placed on a list kept on file by the school (photo ID required) so as to be able to do a viable threat assessment if they identify a potential situation developing. Granted, in a more rural setting, the likelihood of school staff "knowing" every single parent is higher thereby setting minds at ease. However, given the possibility of domestic disputes involving child custody and so forth, the potential does exist for parents to cause some real mischief on school grounds.

Again, I offer all these questions strictly from a planning issues perspective, and am not be opposed to, or for, any of them. It's what I'm trained professionally to do, nothing more.

Thanks, again, for your feedback.

Without law enforcement approval, anyone carrying concealed on school property is violating state law under C.R.S. 18-12-105.5. Seeking the entire community consensus is a recipe for failure, so provide information on the level and limitations of the training. I pity the insurance carrier that won't insure our schools because we want to protect the students.
Regarding open vs concealed, out of site is out of mind. Also let the bad guys guess who they should worry about.
Law enforcement must work in conjunction with law makers on parents, etc. carrying on school property.