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

And, BTW, H, I've talked about "engage and neutralize" in previous posts. The immediate and overwhelming force to stop the threat isn't something anathema to first responders.

Have you seen the video "It Can Happen Here", by any chance?

ZHawke wrote:

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.

ZHawke, You take ever post as a personal attack. When you post someone else's articles or comments, do you ever consider that a response is to that? Many pages ago I stated you need to make a private thread since you don't seem to want any contradictory response to your "expertise." That still stands.
In response to have I seen "It Can Happen Here," yes I have and know you and your wife and kids from it. Columbine was a previously unimagined tragedy. Many of our responses were wrong and are being corrected.
I have trained with John and Vicki Farnam, and as a result, some of the Park County Deputies. I have tremendous respect for our first responders and their difficult jobs. As bad as things have gone in our nation, others have suffered much more. Look at how they now respond to active shooter/bomber/terrorist/gang situations. We may not be ready yet for that type of armed situation, but shouldn't have to wait for an unacceptable event to bring it. Don't believe that some of our school staff isn't capable of the training required to react properly to these situations.
In the mean time, have fun as I'm done discussing anything more with a legend in their own mind.

HEARTLESS wrote: ZHawke, You take ever post as a personal attack. When you post someone else's articles or comments, do you ever consider that a response is to that? Many pages ago I stated you need to make a private thread since you don't seem to want any contradictory response to your "expertise." That still stands.
In response to have I seen "It Can Happen Here," yes I have and know you and your wife and kids from it. Columbine was a previously unimagined tragedy. Many of our responses were wrong and are being corrected.
I have trained with John and Vicki Farnam, and as a result, some of the Park County Deputies. I have tremendous respect for our first responders and their difficult jobs. As bad as things have gone in our nation, others have suffered much more. Look at how they now respond to active shooter/bomber/terrorist/gang situations. We may not be ready yet for that type of armed situation, but shouldn't have to wait for an unacceptable event to bring it. Don't believe that some of our school staff isn't capable of the training required to react properly to these situations.
In the mean time, have fun as I'm done discussing anything more with a legend in their own mind.

This thread is about as "close" to a personal thread as I'm able to do right now. That being said, why would that be any different, really, than what I'm trying to do here? If I were to do a personal thread, does that mean you wouldn't participate?

You didn't specify any of your responses as being directed toward something I shared. It's a little bit difficult to get a positive impression with some of the posts you make because they do, in fact, seem like they are directed at me, personally. You once asked me if I'm clairvoyant. No, I'm not. So, when you also once said context matters, it would be helpful if my lack of clairvoyance were taken into account when you respond.

I asked about "It Can Happen Here" not from a "kudoes pat me on the back" perspective. It seemed to go to the heart of what we were discussing. That's all. Since you've seen it, you should also know your comment about changes since Columbine were what I was going to mention next and try to have a discussion about.

You mentioned training with the Farnams. I looked at the "About" page on their website, and many of the points they talk about are, quite simply, similar to, if not the same as, what I've been trying to say all along. That's not a boast, nor is it meant to be. For example:

Our response can range from myopic pacifism to precipitous over-reaction. Neither extreme is desirable. A carefully planned, prepared and controlled stratagem, consistent with one.s own personal beliefs, is usually the best solution.

There's more, but it goes to the same thing, really. Now, I could have reacted in a negative manner simply because this bit of info came from you. I didn't. I checked it out, and I found that their philosophy in this regard has some very positive aspects that I can buy into. That they have training, and have provided training that they have goes to their being subject matter experts in their particular field. I'm asking that you consider recognizing the subject matter experts I research in the same light.

I also have the utmost respect for first responders. Some of them saved my daughter's life while under fire. So, when you say "many of our responses were wrong", does that mean you were one of those on the front lines? And THAT question is meant with the utmost of respect because if you were there that day, I will have the utmost respect for what you went through that day, too.

As far as looking at how first responders now respond to active shooter scenarios, that's part of the point I've been trying to make all along, albeit unsuccessfully it would seem.

I believe some of our school staff is, in fact, capable of just about anything. Again, if the local district wants to arm staff, they should do so with eyes wide open with a view toward helping to ensure those staff that are armed HAVE adequate training. I've said that before, too. I just got a response to my query from an organization I consider to be subject matter experts in campus safety. If you're interested, here's a link to what they had to say:

www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/oba...both-right-and-wrong

I've inquired of other organizations like this, as well, and am still awaiting a response.

I can't help if you look at me as me believing I'm a legend in my own mind. That's certainly not how I see myself. I do see myself as someone willing to learn. I'm also an activist in the area of school safety. If it's wrong to offer whatever expertise I might have in this area, tell me why. Please, tell me why because I'm one of the few who experienced first hand the tragedy at CHS that tries very hard to engage in the discussion of school safety from as pragmatic and unemotional a perspective as anyone I've seen other than perhaps John-Michael and Ellen Keyes, two individuals I have the utmost respect for.

If you're going to attack my sources, I'd simply ask you to do so by noting that fact. It'll go a long way toward helping me understand where you're coming from.

Finally, I don't claim to know everything there is to know about school safety. I do know, however, quite a bit about emergency management, and the authors in the sources I use are considered to be subject matter experts in their respective fields. Otherwise, I wouldn't use them in the first place. So when you told me in a previous post that my "presumptions are ridiculous and unfounded", how am I supposed to take that?

No one has required you to be involved in this discussion. Ultimately, that choice has been, and will continue to be yours and yours alone. Your comment about "legend in their own mind", while appearing to be carefully worded so as not to be directly directed at me arguably is. At least it is from my side of the fence.

And, finally, your reference to contradictions is a point taken. It isn't that I don't want contradictions. It's that you seem, more often than not (as I've said before), to come at me with a hatchet most of the time, and to dismiss out of hand anything I might have to offer in this discussion about school safety. I don't look at it as not being open to contradictions. It's the hatchet thingy that bothers me more than anything.

If this is it, so be it. If not, I'd hope both of us might be able to "give" a little in the positions we take.

Here's a survey the organization mentioned in my previous post conducted on campus carry:

www.campussafetymagazine.com/docs/detail...ampus_survey_results

Here's a blog post on the issue of concealed carry on campus:

www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/wit...school_administ/blog

And here's the last one I'll share at this point on the issue of negligent discharge:

www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/acc..._guns_on_campus/blog

As I receive more info, I'll post it. Again, these are subject matter experts in the field. It isn't as if I'm consulting Roto-Rooter for what to expect from a colonoscopy here. I'm trying to find those individuals and organizations who keep up with these kinds of things.

With regard to the negligent discharge (ND) article I have a couple of observations. The authors certainly have a bias with regards to their opinion on having concealed carry on campuses. Not withstanding that bias, and agreeing with the firearms instructor that was quoted as saying there are are two kinds of shooters, those that have had a ND and those that will, what is the actual likelihood of the ND occurring while the firearm is being carried on campus? The answer is not significantly higher than it is that it will occur anywhere else the weapon is carried.

And yes, when the likelihood of a ND is effectively zero because campuses are "gun free zones", the introduction of firearms to the campus is going to result in a "substantial" increase to that figure.

As for myself, I've been handling guns for over 40 years now and I'm still in the category of shooters who will have a ND. Granted, I don't carry one daily so that "significantly" reduces my odds of becoming one who has had a ND, but one can remain a member of the non-ND class for years, decades even, even when they do carry a firearm on their person every single day. That appears to be something the authors of the piece wish to gloss over or ignore entirely during the course of their essay.

Thanks, SC. This is characteristic of some of the larger school districts. When more rural schools are considered, the dynamic changes significantly, and that's just one of the many reasons why planning for safer schools isn't a "one size fits all" effort.

My feeling on how rural schools, and even some urban and suburban schools, need to look at this is to begin with the end in mind, to coin a cliche.

First step would be to recognize and accept they have a professional responsibility to do this (legal responsibility and legislative mandate notwithstanding).

Second step is to do a viable risk/threat assessment. That will help them approach the hazards they may face alongside their vulnerabilities to those hazards.

Third step is to realistically evaluate what resources they have available to address the risks/threats they face.

Fourth step is to get to work on it. Our website ( Guidance ) has a step by step approach any school can use.

Problem is too many schools, especially in the more rural areas, generally don't want to do this. The reasons vary, but it is a pervasive reality. So, community groups like those we advocate for would be a viable alternative to at least get the ball rolling in that direction.

The process is free (no budgeted items to allocate funding). Time, effort, and community involvement are the three things required. Get it going and the schools will eventually get on board by hook or by crook.

Sticking one's head in the sand, as so many schools are wont to do, is no longer an option.

John-Michael and Ellen Keyes are working extremely hard to make their Standard Response Protocols the "universal language" sought after by people like the author of this PBS article:

What I learned when a lockdown drill at our school went wrong

The I Love U Guys Foundation's Standard Response Protocols are direct, easy to understand, and, most importantly, effective.