Highly Trained Armed Security In Schools - Reallocate IRS Funds to Do It

Quote by Dani

And now these guards will be armed. LOL.

They can rest their hands on their gun belt while kindly offering a 13 year old a ride home to keep them safe from predators.

Quote by Magical_felix

The only stories I ever read about guards at schools is when they have inappropriate relationships with the kids. Never a story about a guard heroically taking down an active shooter.

No, but there are a disturbing number of stories of "resource officers" leaving their weapons about the school, usually in a restroom or on a school bus.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/

Quote by Magical_felix

They can rest their hands on their gun belt while kindly offering a 13 year old a ride home to keep them safe from predators.

Makes me wonder who's gonna keep these kids safe from armed guards that mean them harm.

Quote by Dani

Makes me wonder who's gonna keep these kids safe from armed guards that mean them harm.

A backup armed guard, for the first one. Sniper tower for the backup armed guard. Maybe a drone that can be quickly deployed to blow up the school if all else fails.

Quote by Magical_felix

A backup armed guard, for the first one. Sniper tower for the backup armed guard. Maybe a drone that can be quickly deployed to blow up the school if all else fails.

Or maybe we should arm the kids too? More guns in schools means less school shootings, right?

Not sure I trust these guys 100%

https://www.wyff4.com/amp/article/south-carolina-deputy-voyeriusm-newberry-county/44301367

This proposal is lunacy. First and most notable point, on page 21 of an FBI report on active shooters pretty clearly says "good guy with a gun" resolved active shooters less than 4% of the time.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

Second, consider how many school shooters end up turning the gun on themselves. That report says 40% end up killing themselves. Numerous people smarter than me have argued that in these cases, the shooting is secondary to the suicide. Should that be accurate (which I have no doubt in some cases it is) having an armed security guard makes it easier for the shooter to get the ultimate goal of suicide.

See also

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/as-study-quick-reference-guide-updated1.pdf

https://www.wired.com/2012/12/why-spree-killers-kill-themselves/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/suicide-prevention-could-prevent-mass-shootings/

Best case scenario? Shooter is stopped. Worst case scenario? New target, shooter can retrieve additional weapon and ammunition, response is delayed because shooter uses radio to call in an all clear, and other responses are delayed because on site police 'have it covered.'

Utter lunacy.

Quote by Chryses

I replied to your inquiry here

Having posted my approval that Texas had recently taken action with HB 3 to protect the children in its public schools, you asked me if what had happened in the past was what I thought of as serious. What prompted you to ask such a question? You know that approval of a future event is not necessarily approval of a past event.

I danced around nothing, for your question, “So, Uvalde isn’t actually in Texas?” related to nothing I had posted. That is why I replied, “Did I suggest that? If not, why did you ask?”

If you wish not to converse with me, stop.

i most graciously accept your heartfelt apology. thank you.

Nah..

https://abc30.com/joe-smith-fresno-county-sheriffs-office-immanuel-schools/13417311/

Quote by Magical_felix

Nah..

https://abc30.com/joe-smith-fresno-county-sheriffs-office-immanuel-schools/13417311/

Just demoted!? He should've been fired.

Obviously, law enforcement officers active in school security duties need additional special training for the job. And be properly vetted.

Quote by ElCoco

So now you know more than you did.

You're welcome.

Thanks! Let me return the favour.

If there's only one quote ("…" as opposed to "…" "…"), then there's only one source. And so any conversation within that one quote is that one source speaking to themselves.

There you go, now you know more than you did.

You're welcome.

Yeah no.

https://6abc.com/patrick-heron-arrested-philadelphia-police-officer-sex-abuse-assault-da-larry-krasner/13434485/

Ex-Parkland resource officer found not guilty on all counts for failing to confront school shooter that left 17 people dead.

The former Parkland, Florida, resource officer accused of failing to confront the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter who killed 14 students and three staff members in 2018 has been found not guilty on all counts.

Scot Peterson, 60, was charged in 2019 with multiple counts of child neglect after an internal investigation found that he retreated while students were under attack. Prosecutors accused Peterson, a 30-year veteran of the Broward Sheriff's Office, of making a false statement, claiming that he did not hear gunshots.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parkland-school-cop-scot-peterson-allegedly-fled-shooting/story?id=100392688&cid=social_twitter_abcn

Quote by Chryses

They did.

As there is no law that requires a police officer to put themselves in the line of fire, or risk their lives during a shooting, the prosecution argued he was a caregiver for hundreds of students.

That's nonsense, and the jury said so in its verdict.

So, what was the idea about this armed security guard in schools again? It just adds another gun in the mix.

Quote by noll

So, what was the idea about this armed security guard in schools again? It just adds another gun in the mix.

Just leave it status quo, with the kiddies being defenseless sitting ducks for the next mass killer shooting up the campus.

Quote by ElCoco

Or maybe try to do something about it.

tried that route. people in America value their freedom to own a gun more than they do the lives of children so, eventually i just gave up,

Quote by ElCoco
Texas is trying to do something about it - at least as they see it.

and yet... Beginning September 1, 2021, HB1927 made it legal in Texas for most people 21 or over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit both openly and/or concealed. This law modified the previous open carry law from 2016 by eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry.

Texas law does not specifically put restrictions on who can carry a long gun such as a rifle or shotgun. However, some people are prohibited from owning or possessing any firearm by law

Quote by ElCoco

That's got nothing to do with the effort Texas is making to address the school shooting issue. Texas's HB 3, mandating all public schools to have at least one armed security officer or armed school personnel at each public school campus does, even if it's not the way you want it addressed.

you don't think the fact that anyone can legally walk around armed if they feel like it has nothing to do with school shootings? maybe you should think about that. maybe you're part of the problem.

Quote by sprite

and yet... Beginning September 1, 2021, HB1927 made it legal in Texas for most people 21 or over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit both openly and/or concealed. This law modified the previous open carry law from 2016 by eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry.

Texas law does not specifically put restrictions on who can carry a long gun such as a rifle or shotgun. However, some people are prohibited from owning or possessing any firearm by law

This is exactly why the whole "guns are regulated now more than ever" is such a bullshit and disingenuous argument because those who cling to it refuse to acknowledge how the regulations are actually putting fewer restrictions on gun access, or are outright reversing gun restrictions. Even now, SCOTUS is preparing to vote on whether or not to reverse the regulation that restricts gun ownership for domestic violence perpetrators. How do you think that's gonna go?

More regulations on guns doesn't mean more restrictions on guns. Which is why we need more regulations that actually moderate and restrict gun access.

Quote by ElCoco

And maybe absolutists are ignoring the efforts being taken, especially if the efforts don't involve removing guns from citizens. Whether you like it or not, the no-guns approach isn't on the table, so you might want to come to terms with that reality.

Think about it. And maybe you'll recognize the role absolutist posturing has in trying to address the problem.

as i said ealier. i have come to terms with the reality. doesn't mean i have to like it or wish that people weren't so fucking stupid, but there it is.

Quote by Dani

Even now, SCOTUS is preparing to vote on whether or not to reverse the regulation that restricts gun ownership for domestic violence perpetrators. How do you think that's gonna go?

and this is why i am now a gun owner, sadly. can't wait until some asshole walks into my place and starts shooting people.

Quote by Ironic

Those regulations will need to be built carefully enough to avoid being struck down. This court takes the 2nd amendment seriously.

and people think you don't have a sense of humor.

Quote by ElCoco

Well, with your opinion about guns, that's understandable. But the reality of gun ownership doesn't take anything away from Texas's efforts to address the school shooting issue.

I wonder if anyone in Texas has ever heard of the definition of insanity.

Quote by ElCoco

That's got nothing to do with the effort Texas is making to address the school shooting issue. Texas's HB 3, mandating all public schools to have at least one armed security officer or armed school personnel at each public school campus does, even if it's not the way you want it addressed.

Will those armed security officers in Texas, unlike in Florida, be required to confront school shooters? Or will they just be part of the propaganda to expose youngsters to guns every school day?

Quote by ElCoco

If you're really interested in the confrontation details, why not check the bill out and let everybody know what you've discovered?

You made the claim that Texas is making an effort to address the school shooting issue by mandating armed security officers in every school. The Florida case shows that armed security officers alone won't help. So unless Texas actually requires those officers to confront school shooters, Texas is not making an effort at all, and your claim is invalid.

Back to you.

Quote by ElCoco

I first noticed that you're saying I made a claim about what Texas is doing. Texas enacted a law to address the school shooting problem by improving its public schools' security. https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2023/06/15/gov-greg-abbott-signs-new-law-mandating-armed-security-at-all-texas-schools/

Here's a link to the Bill: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB3

I think that’s pretty obvious if you read the piece at the links I've provided. If you don’t agree, then explain what you’ve read that’s ambiguous. It’s pretty straightforward, in my opinion, so I reject your “You made the claim” bit. Let’s leave that disagreement and move on to the rest of your post.

.

I went into some detail about why I think you’re wrong when you said, “The Florida case shows that armed security officers alone won't help.” First, there was only one guard at that school, not 2, 3, 4, or more, so your plural is wrong. Even if you correct yourself back down to 1, nothing I’ve read about the bill says all the Texas schools would be limited to one security officer or armed school personnel at each school. The law mandates all public schools to have at least one. You’ll need a better example if you’re going to project the results onto Texas.

.

Your next sentence goes, “So unless Texas actually requires those officers to confront school shooters, Texas is not making an effort at all, and your claim is invalid.”

I’ve got a couple of issues with that. You’re conditioning “making an effort” on “requires those officers to confront school shooters.” If Texas doesn’t require it, then it isn’t trying. But requiring those officers to confront school shooters is what you asked to start this conversation. Since you still don’t know, why haven’t you tried to find out? Are you really interested in finding out the answer?

.

Your assumption that I made a claim that Texas is trying to do something about school shootings is misstating the obvious. Texas passed a law that, if you read the piece I linked to, is intended to increase the safety of Texas public schools. I let everybody here know what Texas did. If you agree Texas is trying, even if you also think its effort will fail, then Texas is trying. Texas would be trying even if I hadn’t posted it and you didn’t know it. So “your claim is invalid” doesn’t mean much at all.

A lot of text, but you still haven't answered the question whether the armed security officers in Texas are required to confront school shooters. I used plural in a general sense btw., both here and in my previous post. And since there's no requirement for schools to have more than one armed security officer, what the effect of multiple security officers will be is not really the result of this bill.

A bill that requires buildings to have emergency exits does not guarantee increased safety if it doesn't also require those emergency exits to be accessible and unlocked (from the inside at least). Requiring armed guards, but not requiring them to confront any shooter, does not guarantee increased safety for the kids either. The case in Florida is prove of that. The fact that that security officer was armed did not stop/deter the shooter.

Police have no obligation anywhere, nationwide, to run towards gunfire. They're trained to do so but they aren't required to do so. This is a SCOTUS ruling from 1985 and reinforced in 2005, so it doesn't matter what this specific law says.

Serve and Protect? It's a slogan, not a promise. So, given this is probably going to be another "resource officer" with less training than the police, with no obligation to run into a dangerous situation and less gun training than the police, it's just introducing another gun in a school. Study after study have found this "solution" as having no to negative effects school safety (the last study shows an increase in fatalities with an armed guard present).

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30832-2/fulltext

https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-476

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515

Quote by ElCoco

Everybody can follow the link to the Texas bill and read what it's got to say if they're interested.

But nobody needs to, to find out if an officer (or anyone else) is obligated to run towards gunfire or otherwise put their life safety at risk. It's a SCOTUS decision, not one designated by each specific law. The answer is no.

Quote by ElCoco

OK. You haven't read the bill either.

I have. Have you?

For example, the part that only requires that the school officer to have active shooter training once every 4 years. Does that seem reasonable, since that's their specific reason for being there? (Section 9, subsection a)

Or how about the part where if the school can't afford to hire an officer, they can use just a district employee? At least it mandates said district employee of the school system has to have completed a gun safety class (I mean, it doesn't say they have to do it more than once, or within any time period of getting this role, or update their training, but whatever, it's just schoolkids). (Section 7, Subsection 2, part A)

However, to make sure it passed, they added some elements as requirements that should have been in place 10 years ago, like an emergency response plan with a clear hierarchy of who make decisions in these situations and training for the students to respond to an active shooter (which is more frequently than the school officer has to demonstrate he can safely use a weapon, but I digress). Requiring mental health care after the fact, making sure handicapped students are accounted for in an active shooter situation, and how this info gets to substitute teachers.

What specific points did you agree and disagree with in this new law, that you definitely read?

However, nowhere in the law is whether a resource officer, a peace officer, or an armed district employee has to run towards gunfire, because that was already decided by SCOTUS almost 20 years ago.