New Study: From 2000 to 2018, No shootings at schools that allow teachers and staff to carry guns

Poper said:

This is true. However, it is equally true that every school shooting has occurred in/at a school that was/is a gun free zone.

Click to expand...

No, this is not true. There were shootings at schools before there where gun free zones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._the_United_States_(before_2000)#19th_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._the_United_States_(before_2000)#20th_century

Kendahl said:

How many schools allow teachers and staff to carry? I suspect it's very few. In that case, there aren't a statistically significant number of examples. More likely, this just proves that school shootings, as bad as they are when they occur, are actually very rare.

Click to expand...

^^^This.

Arm every teacher in America and I can guarantee you that there will be a school shooting somewhere at some point. Now, having armed teachers may reduce the carnage once the shooting starts and it may discourage some shooters that are already on the fence about whether they will or won't, but it won't stop all. Most school shooters are students in the school they shoot up. They know where and when their targets are most vulnerable. They know the back way in and what doors don't always shut or which ones can be fixed to open. They know when random kids are leaving the building(doctors appointments, going home sick) that those doors are vulnerable. I work in a High School and the kids know more about the building than I do. The biggest violators of locked doors policies are the teachers.......just sayin'.

What I believe needs to be done along with arming teachers and what really needs to be done in schools that do not allow armed staff, is to train staff, to be able to stop/control arterial bleeding. Most school shooting deaths are not instantaneous. The majority of kids and staff die because they bled out after three to four minutes while waiting for help to get there. Even if the cops are there within 2-3 minutes, they step over those folks bleeding to death in pursuit of the shooter. The paramedics won't go in till the area is secured. Teachers and staff, already in the building, are the ones that may be able to keep victims from bleeding out before real medical attention gets there. Training all staff in the proper use of tourniquets and pressure points will save as many lives as arming them.

ford8nr said:

Wisconsin DOESN'T allow teachers to carry weapons and I don't believe we have had any either.

Click to expand...

I live in Wisconsin and there was a school shooting at our Junior High, back in November of 1969. The Principle was shot twice and killed by a student. I was in High School that day(4 blocks away) but my sister was in the building when her principle was killed.

LiveLife said:

Had the principle been armed and trained, the outcome could have been different.

And had teachers/staff been armed and trained, outcome could have been different in terns of lives saved.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid with the scenario as it occurred back in '69, with the open and unlocked door policies, no security cameras or no one even observing the entrance doors, where the office was located relative to the entrance doors and the fact it was not unusual back then for kids to take gun to school, the principle, even if armed and trained, would've still been taken by surprise and died trying to cover his secretary. You can wish or want nuttin' but rainbows and unicorns, but that ain't how it was. Some say he did save a life that day, even without a gun.

LiveLife said:

To me, arming teachers/staff is one "Do something" about school shootings.

Click to expand...

I too am all for the arming of responsible teachers and staff. I'm just realistic and know that teachers and staff are not always going to be between a shooter and a large number of soft targets. Even then, will those folks be armed or will they choose to run/shelter instead of choosing to fight. We have aggressive intruder training every month, I can honestly tell you that not every staff member cares more about someone else's kid, than getting home to their kids. Some of us do, but even out of those that do, many still do not and would not carry. Even when armed, teachers and staff have no legal responsibilities to put themselves in danger. Consider that resource officer at Parkland. Again, I agree schools should allow certain staff members to carry concealed. But in a building that covers an acre or more of land and contains 1200 students or more, being protected by what, 4-5 armed staff members? Again, I can see lives being saved, but I have to concede to myself that some, unfortunately, are still going to be injured or die.

I’ve seen schools that now have bleed kits and evac chairs in the halls.

The shooter that is motivated against the target isn’t likely to be deterred and will plan around the measures and responses. The best is to have reasonably trained folks.

LiveLife said:

Perhaps it's high time to bring back archery/target/trap shooting as school sports? I am serious.

Active shooter drill will go like:

• Archery/shooting coaches and team members "voluntarily" report to the "armory"
• Everyone don bulletproof vests, and grab "weapons" along with bulletproof shields and radio
• Once teams take position behind cover/shields, members commence fire on active shooter

Much better than ducking and hiding behind backpack full of books.

Click to expand...

Not really a case of bringing back anything in our School District.

Archery is taught in Gym class at our High School(Mission, just down the road, donates the bows). Every kid that takes gym class learns how to shoot a bow. Bows are kept in locked storage when not in use.

Our School Sporting Clays team has taken second in the state two years running. As per state statute, their trap guns, like any others besides those on LEOs are prohibited from being in the school.

Your drill does not take into consideration, the location of the armory. Which of course any student from that school would know where it is and would probably plan around it. Again, High Schools comprise of huge buildings, many times, they are the size of a shopping mall, with many separate wings, large shop areas and many times outside learning areas like Greenhouses. Many times kids are outside on athletic areas for gym class. Hard for the coach/teacher to get back to the armory in time to stop the shooter before he starts. Especially when the shooter many times desires to be killed after he has made his carnage.

Kids are not taught to hide behind their backpacks. Those old Active Shooter drills are now being replaced by Hostile/Violent Intruder drills that teach kids how to run, fight or hide, depending on the scenario. Systems are in place at many schools now to monitor exactly where the intruder may be at, and what parts of the building are safe for kids to run for the doors and exit the building. The kids and their teachers are taught what items they have in their rooms that can be used to fight against, distract and maybe even disarm the intruder. They are given items which are legal to have in their rooms to maybe help. We have come a long way since Columbine, but we still have a long way to go. While arming responsible and willing staff members, IMHO, can and will help, it's not the magic key. We still need proper security measures to prevent the intruder from entering the building during school hours in the first place and we really need to train staff how to deal with traumatic injuries like gunshot wounds. I took a voluntary "Stop the Bleed" course this summer which was very much like the First Aid training I was given in Boy Scouts. I have gone to administration in an attempt to make it mandatory or at minimum, offered at our in-service and/or security meetings. I've gotten mixed feedback, but the positive responses have me encouraged. There are some progressive schools in the area that offer to pay for staff members to go to para-medic/First Responder training so that they have in house para-medics on hand in case of a situation where traumatic injuries might occur(not just shooptings, but tornadoes, severe storms, fires and explosions). These folks have to maker a three year commitment to stay within the district or pay back any cost to the district. I like that idea.

The other thing needed to teach/train is awareness. How to recognize a threat. How to separate the abnormal behavior from the normal. Having a gun on you does nuttin' if you let the shooter walk up behind you. How and where to report suspicious behavior and what constitutes suspicious behavior. Otherwise all the rest of the precautions are moot.

My biggest fear is those times when, after the school day is done and schools become "public buildings". Basketball games draw as many folks as the schools student population at a time when entrance doors are unlocked and anyone can walk in. How about the Homecoming football game, when the bleachers are packed, and a shooter with multiple high capacity weapons could injure countless victims, along with creating a stampede that would probably hurt even more. How about the School Musical when the dark Auditorium is packed and most all the exits are on one end. Since the doors must open outward due to fire codes, they can be blocked shut so folks cant get out.

Just sayin'.......

GEM said:

Some pro gun 'researchers' overemphasize suspect correlations for the cause. Of course, anti folks do the same. A well known pro gun scholar was presented a paper that mandatory gun locks increased rape as a state or two that passed such had an increase. I was talking to Don Kates, a now passed great gun advocate, and said to him that's BS. There was no attempt to actually see if the rapes occurred in incidents where there were gun locks. Most rapes are acquaintances or date rapes - nothing to do with running for the locked gun and not making it in time. Don agreed and we just sighed about such.

One problem with the econometric regression approach is that they don't get down to the actual incidents to see what happened. On the other side, an increase in CCW and an increase in crimes was found in some states. OH MY - question - where the crimes committed by folks with permits? Oops, not looked at, just some numbers and then an implied causality - which you can't show by simple regression.

Click to expand...

Connecting one thing with another is the basic goal of any good investigation. I remember people back in the early 70's saying this or that didn't happen before they brought the moon rocks back to Earth. You make a very good point that coincidental events are often completely unconnected to one another.

Politically and ideologically oriented research is a bane in the gun debate.

Click to expand...

The problem is that all of the reasearch is funded or done at the instigation of one side or the other.

Not really, there are some honest researchers out there. I know them. However, journal editors and reviewers can clearly have ideological biases.

Connecting one thing with another is the basic goal of any good investigation

Click to expand...

However, the next step after seeing a correlation is to determine causality. This may be difficult in population wide social issues but good researchers understand this. That's the end goal. Start with an observation. Systematic observation. Try to determine causality.

Research Design 101

Again, I am all for arming responsible and trained staff. I do not think that the arming of students themselves, in a high school or below setting, is appropriate. I also do not agree at all with.....

... if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."

Click to expand...

That is only something that would come from someone who knows little or nuttin' about self defense.

If I was a student, I would hope to be equipped at the least with a backpack with AR500 armor plating to protect against gunfire. This is also "Do something" that we can do for our children/grandchildren.

Click to expand...

Have you tried to lift the backpack of most elementary to High School students? It's already heavier than I think most kids want to carry.......I can't think that adding the weight of steel plating is going to make them want to wear that backpack. Besides, the books/laptop and other things already in the backpack will probably stop or impeded most small arms fire. You have to realize also that many schools prohibit the use of backpacks once the school day has begun. This is in an attempt to keep a shooter from bringing in guns in one. Most schools while allowing a small "book bag" have policies in place so kids must keep their backpacks in their locker, once school has started and until the end of the day.

I would suggest to you and everyone else to actually know what your school district is doing to protect your children and grandchildren. I see quite a bit of misinformation and assumptions made everytime this type of subject comes up. School and their administrators are not sticking their head in the sand. They are doing most everything they can with the budgets they have and the available knowledge out there......and believe me, their knowledge is up to date more so than most folks here. I think these types of discussions are a good thing as long as folks glean the truth and appropriate information from them. I just hope that folks want to hear what is the truth and want to relay what the truth is and not want to push misinformation and/or slanted information, like the title of this thread.

So if we are going to arm teachers to protect our children, are we also going to pay them as professional security guards on top of their teaching wages given that they would be performing two jobs? Asking for a teacher friend who isn't on the forum. She doesn't make very much money teaching as it is.

Oh he suggested it? I see he has done NOTHING to fund it. That he suggested it is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

LiveLife said:

I disagree.

I bet you that most school administrators and teachers are for gun control and are anti gun as indicated by these and see for yourself:

National Education Association: Arming Teachers is Not the Answer - http://neatoday.org/2018/03/05/arming-teachers/

American Federation of Teachers - https://www.aft.org/our-community/its-time-end-gun-violence

NPR: Poll - Most U.S. Teachers Want Gun Control - https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/201...s-teachers-want-gun-control-not-guns-to-carry

http://protectourschools.com/

https://act.everytown.org/signup/educators_signup

Click to expand...

As per the link you provided....it's just not the teachers.

Most law enforcement experts agree that school staff should not carry guns because they lack the tactical knowledge of handling weapons that trained law enforcement personnel receive on a regular basis. Even if the funding for the weapons and training were to be available after massive cuts to education budgets, educators carrying concealed weapons pose too high a risk to school safety.

Click to expand...

Still, I am in agreement with you that responsible and trained staff should be able to CWC on school property. Again, one can find an article somewhere to argue their case, regardless of which side you are on. The High School Principle in my town along with many on the police force, are in favor of arming responsible and trained staff. These are folks that are familiar with firearms and most of their experience is with responsible folks. Areas where crime and the use of guns in violence is high, you'll probably see a different opinion. Much of those surveys are responses from folks who have never shot a gun and are scared and misinformed. Maybe our efforts would be better to inform and educate them, instead of belittling, dissing and the posting of misinformation.

1. Are we getting hung up on whether they're teachers or staff ?

2. IMHO Teachers and staff should be trained and paid for carrying on a voluntary basis.

3. Other measures should also be taken if they are effective. No boxes of rocks or mini baseball bats please.

I'm just posting these to illustrate the lengths to which anti-gunners will go to avoid the sensible answer:

The Blue Mountain School District in Pennsylvania has introduced five-gallon buckets of rocks into every classroom as a way for kids to fight off any potential shooter:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5892335/us-school-chiefs-rocks-classroom-kids-fight-back-guns/

Superintendent stocks classrooms with mini-baseball bats to fight off school shooters as 'last resort':
https://abcnews.go.com/US/superinte...ini-baseball-bats-fight-off/story?id=54388423

SharpDog said:

1. Are we getting hung up on whether they're teachers or staff ?

2. IMHO Teachers and staff should be trained and paid for carrying on a voluntary basis.

3. Other measures should also be taken if they are effective. No boxes of rocks or mini baseball bats please.

Click to expand...

While I agree with most of what you posted, the part about rocks and bats needs clarification. The idea behind rocks is the distraction. Most shooters in these scenarios are looking for the easiest target. Most of these shooters have little or no training and are easily distracted. Take a untrained 17 year old with a handgun and have 28 kids throw rocks at him while he trying to aim and shoot. Maybe he'll move on or turn his head while he shoots blindly? Could be the little bit of time that it takes for someone better armed to get there. Or maybe after shooting blindly, he'll have to change mags and while he is trying someone hits him in the arm with a bat knocking the gun away. Maybe one of the kids will get lucky and hit him in the head. A box of rocks is better than nuttin' if you know how to use it. One of the training sessions we had was by a former SWAT member. He showed how, as a gunman entered a room with the firearm ahead of him, how to use a bat, a stick, a chair or anything else to knock the gun out of their hand, or at least distract them enough to give another person in the room time to help grapple the gun away. A bat, when thrown can be an accurate and nasty weapon. An untrained person will instinctively flinch or move when something is thrown at them. Missing with just one round may mean one less dead body. Part of the training we have is making people think. Think about what you have to work with, think about if you have time to flee or if you need to hide. If you hide you may also need to fight unless you want to die on your knees. While rocks and baseball bats may sound stupid.....they are still better than what most elementary kids are given to fight back with.

buck460XVR said:

While I agree with most of what you posted, the part about rocks and bats needs clarification. The idea behind rocks is the distraction. Most shooters in these scenarios are looking for the easiest target. Most of these shooters have little or no training and are easily distracted. Take a untrained 17 year old with a handgun and have 28 kids throw rocks at him while he trying to aim and shoot. Maybe he'll move on or turn his head while he shoots blindly? Could be the little bit of time that it takes for someone better armed to get there. Or maybe after shooting blindly, he'll have to change mags and while he is trying someone hits him in the arm with a bat knocking the gun away. Maybe one of the kids will get lucky and hit him in the head. A box of rocks is better than nuttin' if you know how to use it. One of the training sessions we had was by a former SWAT member. He showed how, as a gunman entered a room with the firearm ahead of him, how to use a bat, a stick, a chair or anything else to knock the gun out of their hand, or at least distract them enough to give another person in the room time to help grapple the gun away. A bat, when thrown can be an accurate and nasty weapon. An untrained person will instinctively flinch or move when something is thrown at them. Missing with just one round may mean one less dead body. Part of the training we have is making people think. Think about what you have to work with, think about if you have time to flee or if you need to hide. If you hide you may also need to fight unless you want to die on your knees. While rocks and baseball bats may sound stupid.....they are still better than what most elementary kids are given to fight back with.

Click to expand...

So the kids are being used for cannon fodder in the hopes that it might do some good ?

If you have been trained, honestly, do you think this is a viable tactic to protect the kids and is preferable to having an armed and trained teacher or staff member present ?

SharpDog said:

So the kids are being used for cannon fodder in the hopes that it might do some good ?

If you have been trained, honestly, do you think this is a viable tactic to protect the kids and is preferable to having an armed and trained teacher or staff member present ?

Click to expand...

Nowhere have I said anything about a box of rocks being preferred over having armed and trained staff present. Folks seem to want and read between the lines where there is not a space. In every post, I have said I am all for armed and trained staff. My point is, that there is more to it than that. No matter what you do, you will never have an armed staff/teacher in every room and/or present wherever there are kids present. Even if there were, the odds that the armed staff/teacher could take out the gunman before he did any carnage, is slim to none. That is why we need to have policies in force and followed to keep folks out of the school unless and until we consider them safe to be there. We also need to give training to folks so they can protect themselves without a gun. The SWAT trainer compared to finding something in your room for a weapon as "MacGyvering". Part of surviving is having hope. This doesn't matter if it's surviving an armed intruder or surviving for a week in the wilderness alone. You have to make do with what you have and you have to have faith, real or imagined that you can survive. Thinking you are doomed is why folks were shot, on their knees, cowering behind desks, when there was a door to safety just a few feet away at Columbine. Kids are not being "used as cannon fodder" but maybe giving them a way to survive. Who cares if it's a rock that distracts a shooter long enough for their kid to slip out the door?

buck460XVR said:

Nowhere have I said anything about a box of rocks being preferred over having armed and trained staff present. Folks seem to want and read between the lines where there is not a space. In every post, I have said I am all for armed and trained staff. My point is, that there is more to it than that. No matter what you do, you will never have an armed staff/teacher in every room and/or present wherever there are kids present. Even if there were, the odds that the armed staff/teacher could take out the gunman before he did any carnage, is slim to none. That is why we need to have policies in force and followed to keep folks out of the school unless and until we consider them safe to be there. We also need to give training to folks so they can protect themselves without a gun. The SWAT trainer compared to finding something in your room for a weapon as "MacGyvering". Part of surviving is having hope. This doesn't matter if it's surviving an armed intruder or surviving for a week in the wilderness alone. You have to make do with what you have and you have to have faith, real or imagined that you can survive. Thinking you are doomed is why folks were shot, on their knees, cowering behind desks, when there was a door to safety just a few feet away at Columbine. Kids are not being "used as cannon fodder" but maybe giving them a way to survive. Who cares if it's a rock that distracts a shooter long enough for their kid to slip out the door?

Click to expand...

IMHO: The armed and trained teacher or staff member has a hell of a better chance that a group of nintendo couch potato students with rocks in their hands.

let alone mini baseball bats.

If the teachers are armed and trained voluntarily and they are getting extra pay, why do you think it's a low probability that there would not be a trained and armed teacher or staff member in any given room where students were hiding ?

I would think that any training with rocks could be supplanted with training to congregate in particular rooms ... with armed and trained teachers or staff present.

I would venture to saye the odds are getting better, at least in Texas:

After Santa Fe, 54 percent of Texas parents support arming teachers, poll says:
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/31/santa-fe-texas-voters-gun-control-armed-teachers/:

In Texas, 172 school districts allow teachers, staff to carry guns in schools:
https://www.caller.com/story/news/e...stricts-allow-teachers-staff-armed/364677002/

TEXAS BILL TO ALLOW MORE ARMED TEACHERS SIGNED INTO LAW:
https://www.guns.com/news/2019/06/11/texas-bill-to-allow-more-armed-teachers-signed-into-law

SharpDog said:

If the teachers are armed and trained voluntarily and they are getting extra pay, why do you think it's a low probability that there would not be a trained and armed teacher or staff member in any given room where students were hiding ?

Click to expand...

I dunno.....maybe because I work in a school everyday? Maybe because I go to training sessions with said teachers and know that only a small percentage want the responsibility of being armed, even with extra pay? Again, one can make all kinds of assumptions from afar, but that's all they are. One can also have insight on what really happens within school buildings. There's a big difference. There is also a big difference in what we would like reality to be and what is reality. LiveLife posted links showing how the majority of teachers from a certain study do not want to be armed, nor do they want armed staff in their school. That is the reality. That is what we are fighting against. So until things change, we have to do some things, regardless of how desperate and senseless they may appear. Still better than nuttin', IMHO.

SharpDog said:

I would think that any training with rocks could be supplanted with training to congregate in particular rooms ... with armed and trained teachers or staff present.

Click to expand...

While I wholeheartedly agree with the rocks being supplanted with trained and responsible armed staff, the idea to congregate in particular rooms boils down to, if it's safe to go from your room to another room, odds are it's safe to head for the exit and get the 'ell out of there. If the whole student body knows where to head for protection, will not the armed intruder from that same school know the path there too? Isn't that what happened in Parkland when the shooter pulled the fire alarm? Part of the discussion we have been having lately is where is it the kids should go if and when they exit the building for safety. Do we tell them to go to a regrouping area so we can take a head count as to who has escaped and endanger them to the shooter's partner than is waiting there in hiding? How about when the bell rings for lunch and you have an open campus? How about the shooter that waits in the boys locker room where the female gym teacher cannot go in first? There are a ton of variables when it comes to securing the buildings. Elementary schools are much easier to secure than High Schools due to changes in class rooms and the amount of classrooms involved. Many times in large buildings it's better to spread the targets around and make the shooter hunt for them as opposed to having them all run to one area so they can be picked off as they attempt to get there.

SharpDog said:

I would venture to saye the odds are getting better, at least in Texas:

Click to expand...

Good for Texas....I truly hope all school districts will follow suit. Problem is, as of right now, most aren't, regardless of how much you and I would like them too. So, in the meantime we need to find alternatives to at least give our kids a fighting chance and teach them how to fight, with what they have. Even when all schools have armed staff, a kid throwing a rock to distract the shooter is still going to be a plus for that staff member with the gun.

I've been tryin to keep this thread civil from my side, as I would like to see it left open for discussion so others can give insights, and so folks that don't know what's being done can know what and why.

buck460XVR said:

I dunno.....maybe because I work in a school everyday? Maybe because I go to training sessions with said teachers and know that only a small percentage want the responsibility of being armed, even with extra pay? Again, one can make all kinds of assumptions from afar, but that's all they are. One can also have insight on what really happens within school buildings. There's a big difference. There is also a big difference in what we would like reality to be and what is reality. LiveLife posted links showing how the majority of teachers from a certain study do not want to be armed, nor do they want armed staff in their school. That is the reality. That is what we are fighting against. So until things change, we have to do some things, regardless of how desperate and senseless they may appear. Still better than nuttin', IMHO.



While I wholeheartedly agree with the rocks being supplanted with trained and responsible armed staff, the idea to congregate in particular rooms boils down to, if it's safe to go from your room to another room, odds are it's safe to head for the exit and get the 'ell out of there. If the whole student body knows where to head for protection, will not the armed intruder from that same school know the path there too? Isn't that what happened in Parkland when the shooter pulled the fire alarm? Part of the discussion we have been having lately is where is it the kids should go if and when they exit the building for safety. Do we tell them to go to a regrouping area so we can take a head count as to who has escaped and endanger them to the shooter's partner than is waiting there in hiding? How about when the bell rings for lunch and you have an open campus? How about the shooter that waits in the boys locker room where the female gym teacher cannot go in first? There are a ton of variables when it comes to securing the buildings. Elementary schools are much easier to secure than High Schools due to changes in class rooms and the amount of classrooms involved. Many times in large buildings it's better to spread the targets around and make the shooter hunt for them as opposed to having them all run to one area so they can be picked off as they attempt to get there.



Good for Texas....I truly hope all school districts will follow suit. Problem is, as of right now, most aren't, regardless of how much you and I would like them too. So, in the meantime we need to find alternatives to at least give our kids a fighting chance and teach them how to fight, with what they have. Even when all schools have armed staff, a kid throwing a rock to distract the shooter is still going to be a plus for that staff member with the gun.

I've been tryin to keep this thread civil from my side, as I would like to see it left open for discussion so others can give insights, and so folks that don't know what's being done can know what and why.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure we can argue individual tactics all day. for example, if you are near an exit then head to it, otherwise head to the nearest room X (cafeteria, homeroom, gym, whatever) and have the armed staff do likewise.

I don't believe arguing tactics is a means to disavow the strategy of having teachers and staff armed.

btw, congrats on your overwhelming authority and experience on the subject. The very fact you are arguing for rocks and mini baseball bats to be wielded by students shows me the truth of that arrogance.

Again, you have repeatedly said you were for arming, training and paying teachers and staff but have offered ZERO reason as to why it should not be done other than there are a lot of details to be considered that we lay people cannot comprehend.