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

ZHawke wrote: And what I find a little hard to understand is why you immediately went to the "useless laws" perspective. These kids are still learning - on that we definitely agree. By the same token, they also have a lot to offer, and I believe we adults need to listen. That doesn't mean we must agree, nor does it mean we must accept their positions. I'm approaching this whole thing from a perspective that they have voices, too. The majority of them appeared to me to be a little intimidated and afraid to ask questions based on the fact they ARE high schoolers. Part of my mission in doing this is to try to set their minds at ease in this regard and to invite questions without fear of being made to look "stupid". Again, this meeting was the first one, and we didn't have a lot of time to get too deeply into anything substantive with regard to your question about why they don't want adults with permits to carry on campus.

The laws that took effect on July 1, 2013 are examples of useless laws. They were opposed by 55 of the 62 sheriffs in the state. Whom was saved by them, no one.

OK, that's your opinion. What is "useful" about HB 15-1168 if it were to be passed other than to give pro-guns everywhere advocates the ability to do so?

Back to one of your previous posts, you said context matters. I agree. It does matter a whole lot. That begs the question, then, why did you not ask me the questions you asked in a later post regarding legislation instead of coming at me with the "hatchet" so to speak? In other words, why does it seem everything must be an argument with you?

HEARTLESS wrote: The laws that took effect on July 1, 2013 are examples of useless laws. They were opposed by 55 of the 62 sheriffs in the state. Whom was saved by them, no one.

As stated in my previous post, the part about useless laws you mention here is your opinion. This post is an attempt to address the second part of your post.

55 of the 62 elected county sheriffs did, in fact, not support these laws. Were they right in not supporting them? That's open to opinion.

As far as anyone being "saved" by these laws is concerned, laws don't save people. Whether you agree with this assessment or not, I'm providing a link to a site that talks about this issue in a well thought out, viable, and rational manner as far as I'm concerned:

www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-cr...against-gun-control/

And, this will be the last post I make in this thread that deviates from the OP which focuses on school safety.

Every school, public or private, in every location really should consider all planning issues especially when it comes to arming staff. I know that doesn't agree with many who post in MMT, but from an emergency planning perspective if we do not consider all potential consequences, the results can be dire.

The article I'm providing a link to goes into some of those planning issues. I'm not presenting them from an "I'm right and you're wrong" perspective, so I ask anyone and everyone who decides to respond to this to leave that kind of an attitude at the door when putting together a post. The issues presented in the article are put there as considerations for schools as they go through their risk assessment process to help them better determine their priorities and, ultimately, their own policies in this regard.

The author of this article has 25 years of experience in the field of school safety, so I believe he can be called a subject matter expert on school safety.

Personally, I agree with his assessment and with the issues he's identified as being necessary to consider.

www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/arming-teachers-and-school-staff/

First and foremost, attacks on our children at school can not be eliminated, only minimized. More policies and procedures is only an attempt to minimize school liability as no criminal follows laws or policies and procedures. Many articles focus heavily on "what if?" Look at the absolutes, many of our children have been murdered for various reasons at school. Now look at the what if there is an accidental shooting by school staff, or law enforcement for that matter. Is the concern for the student or the school liability? Until we are willing to address how to minimize the damage by whomever with adequate force, expect lots of excuses, hand wringing and finger pointing (all we currently get).

HEARTLESS wrote: First and foremost, attacks on our children at school can not be eliminated, only minimized. More policies and procedures is only an attempt to minimize school liability as no criminal follows laws or policies and procedures. Many articles focus heavily on "what if?" Look at the absolutes, many of our children have been murdered for various reasons at school. Now look at the what if there is an accidental shooting by school staff, or law enforcement for that matter. Is the concern for the student or the school liability? Until we are willing to address how to minimize the damage by whomever with adequate force, expect lots of excuses, hand wringing and finger pointing (all we currently get).

H, no disrespect intended, but your response here begs the question whether you read the article I linked to?

Schools, all too often, are kind of "damned if they do, and damned if they don't". If they "do", then it would appear, from your response, you believe it to be a waste of time and a "hand wringing and finger pointing" exercise in futility. If they "don't" and s&*t gets real, they're more than screwed because they haven't done anything to provide for the safety of the kids. If campus carry is "forced" on them by legislative enactment and they choose to ignore the potential for "accidents", as you put it, they're held liable and parents go apes&*t.

All I'm trying to do is point out they could be proactive on this issue. If they anticipate campus carry will be enacted legislatively, they can look at the list, add to it as necessary, and do something to allay fears and concerns that may arise. If they choose to keep their heads in the sand (as some are wont to do), those listed potential liability issues will most certainly bite them in the arse if s&*t does get real and they haven't even tried to address them beforehand.

The ultimate goal, as you kind of alluded to, is the safety and well-being of our children. However, given the litigious nature of our society, I, as a taxpaying citizen (we are the ones who ultimately "pay" for these kinds of settlements indirectly, aren't we?), want my kid's schools to be as prepared as they can possibly be in order to be able to defend the actions they took in court if it more than likely comes down to that. After all, that's pretty much where these kinds of things end up in the end anyway. In other words, if I, as a parent of a child affected by in incident of gun violence, can be shown beyond any reasonable doubt that everything was done beforehand, using commonly accepted practices and standards (which is what this article is trying to put out there), to try to either prevent it from happening in the first place or to do everything possible during a response to bring it to a quick, conclusive and least harm done type of conclusion, I'm going to be less likely to go "after" the organizations, including schools, that were instrumental in that response. But that's just me. I chose to NOT file any lawsuits following the tragedy at Columbine High School against anyone involved in the response because I do believe commonly accepted practices and standards of the time were followed. They've since changed dramatically, but that's what was in place at the time. I accepted that, and now I'm trying to work toward even more positive change in the way these types of activities are designed, developed, and implemented. That's the genesis behind this thread in the first place.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it goes against my training in the field of emergency management to support legislatively enacted campus carry laws. That, by no means whatsoever means I'm right and everyone else is wrong if they support campus carry laws. I also believe campus carry, in whatever form, is a decision best left to the local jurisdiction in which a school resides. Additionally, I also believe that campus carry should have restrictions placed upon it based on viable threat/risk and vulnerability assessments to help in making those kinds of decisions.

Schools, by and large, are still some of the safest environments in this country. Incidents of mass school shootings are low probability/high consequence events. Sometimes it behooves us to keep that in mind when pushing for things like campus carry laws which might make situations better in some instances, but also have the potential to make them much, much worse in others.

JHawke, Your presumptions are ridiculous and unfounded, but that has never stopped you before. Continue making up things as you see fit.

HEARTLESS wrote: JHawke, Your presumptions are ridiculous and unfounded, but that has never stopped you before. Continue making up things as you see fit.

First, I'd ask you to prove that my presumptions are ridiculous and unfounded. Second, I'd ask that you prove that I'm making things up as I see fit. My professional experience in this arena stacks up quite nicely with everything I've shared thus far. Has yours?

You read things in to what I post, you aren't clairvoyant are you? You can coddle and caress our troubled youth up until people start dying, then the only acceptable response is immediate and overwhelming force to stop the threat.

HEARTLESS wrote: You read things in to what I post, you aren't clairvoyant are you? You can coddle and caress our troubled youth up until people start dying, then the only acceptable response is immediate and overwhelming force to stop the threat.

Are you? Clairvoyant, that is? Again, why does everything need to be an argument with you?

I have 20+ years professional experience in the field of emergency management at all levels of government plus the private sector. What I present is based upon commonly accepted practices and standards in that field. Obviously, you have no respect for my professional experience. Therefore, I won't try to "defend" anything I've presented thus far because no matter what I say, you will somehow find fault even though you present nothing whatsoever to back up your claims other than ad hominem attacks and innuendo.