cowboycwr said:
90sBear said:
cowboycwr said:
90sBear said:
cowboycwr said:
90sBear said:
cowboycwr said:
redfish961 said:
To me, the big question is how do you mitigate these instances and can it realistically be done?
While I think gun regulation could be better, I don't see a ban on particular weapons being of much use. Better regulations would be preferred, in my opinion, rather than any ineffective ban.
Criminals are going to be criminals and they will find a way to circumvent any laws, which they don't care about anyways.
All that being said, as I have stated before, I think the answer is hardening the target. Perhaps figure out ways to enable defense of a school that would discourage an individual from selecting that target.
That's a hard nut to crack because costs and ability may be limited and probably will.
For every reason I can think of a solution, I can think of 2 that would decrease quality of life or take away freedoms.
Do we just consider this type of incident collateral damage or is there something that can truly be done about it?
I wish I could think of the answer, but I'm afraid heartbreak may just be part of the program.
I don't accept that notion.
The answer is simple and cost effective..... Arm the staff. Gun training is cheap. Getting Concealed licenses is cheap. Even safes to put in the offices for admin, secretary, etc. are cheap. Then post signs all over that the staff is armed. Even this shooter avoided other targets with more security/armed staff.
I don't know that it's quite that simple. Many teachers don't want to have that responsibility. As for cost, how much would insurance go up for school districts? How cheap would it be to train every teacher or even some teachers? How much to supply the guns or would the teachers have to do that themselves?
There are many school districts that probably really don't have the funds for this unless it was supported directly by the state but even then you have to have enough teachers interested in doing it as well as continued training. Would be interesting to know how many teachers would be interested. There might be many, I honestly don't know.
Yes it is that simple.
The ones that don't want it don't have to do it. I think the insurance claim is a bad argument. Do districts have to pay more in insurance for having police officers? They should not have to pay more for someone carrying out their Constitutional right. I think it is a bad argument to NOT even try something simply because of cost and a cost that should not go up IMO.
It is cheap to train even just 10% of the teachers/staff. Guns would be supplied by the teacher that wants to carry their gun with them.
There are already plenty of districts in TX that do this with the school marshall/guardian program.
It would be a lot cheaper than the standards the state (TEA) is discussing putting in place or the legislature that talk about covering glass in forced resistant film, fencing, etc. that are floating around and will likely get passed.
As for how many want to be armed I know a lot that would not mind being able to, even more that would be fine with other staff being armed and very few totally against it but all the "surveys" I have seen done on it seem to come from anti gun groups that just seem to happen to find the results of their survey that no one wants to do it.....
https://www.ue.org/risk-management/enterprise-risk-management/increased-risks-and-costs-of-arming-educators/
Factors to weigh when considering whether to arm K-12 educators
Protecting schools from shootings is an ongoing focus in the K-12 sphere, and the conversation often includes whether to arm educators. Some schools already arm teachers pursuant to state, county, or school board authorization. Others are weighing benefits and dangers. Arming teachers or other staff can disrupt the educational atmosphere, even when the intention is to improve safety. When deciding whether to arm staff, schools should consider the following heightened costs, risks, and liability.
Costs of Arming Employees
Costs of arming educators include safety and training expenses beyond purchasing firearms. Specifically, schools may need to purchase:
- Biometric gun safes, which require fingerprints to unlock, so the guns are inaccessible to students and other unauthorized individuals
- Bulletproof vests for use by the armed staff
- Background checks and mental health screenings for all armed staff (at the time of initial selection and on a routine basis thereafter) to be sure they are qualified to hold the given position and to be carrying a firearm (Read United Educators' (UE's) article on background check fundamentalsfor more guidance.)
- Firearm licensing
- Insurance and other liability-related products and services (see below)
- Regular training for armed staff that covers weapons proficiency and concealed carry, including maintaining weapon security; firing accurately in high-stress situations, through regular target practice at gun ranges and active shooter scenario drills; use of force and legal considerations; and first aid. Annual or periodic re-training also may be necessary.
In addition to paying for training, schools may need to give armed staff members time off for training sessions or provide stipends or additional pay for their training hours.
Risks Associated With Arming School Staff
In active shooter situations, there are significant concerns about the ability of even well-trained marksmen to survey the scene and shoot accurately. Law enforcement personnel receive countless hours of emergency response preparation, but educators don't have time to undergo such extensive training. As a result, there is increased risk of an educator misidentifying the shooter or accidentally shooting a bystander or plainclothes first responder. Many fear that minority students may be at heightened risk of such misidentification due to implicit bias or racial stereotyping.
Additionally, engaging in a confrontation with an active shooter puts an armed educator at greater risk of death. For example, a shooter may have higher skills and more firepower, such as an assault weapon, than the educator, or a first responder may mistake the educator for the active shooter.
Aside from risks an active shooter situation presents, gun accidents are common nationwide, and firearms in a classroom pose a hazard. Studies have found that gun accidents arise primarily from weapons kept for self-defense, and children are often the victim of these accidents. If educators are armed, then curious, careless, or ill-intentioned students could accidentally or intentionally gain access to the firearms at school and cause serious harm to themselves or others.
Liability and Insurance Considerations
The potential liability for injuries or deaths resulting from an educator's firearm is complicated. Depending on the situation (especially if the employee was not acting within the scope of employment), the educator may be personally liable in a lawsuit. In some cases, the school, school district, or school board may be responsible for claims brought against the educator.
Arming employees, especially security staff, may create a position of them being considered "police," which could result in excessive force claims. Consult withlegal counsel to determinehow arming these employees will affect their status under state law. For additional information, read UE's Excessive Force by Campus Securityresource.
However, some states have broad immunity laws that restrict lawsuits against public employees, including teachers. Schools in those states may be more willing to accept the risk of injury or death that comes with arming school staff.
Insurance coverage of any legal fees and monetary damages or settlements will vary depending on the policy and circumstances. Arming educators is an emerging risk, and some insurance carriers will not insure armed educators, so schools should seek advice from their licensed insurance broker regarding liability coverage. UE members contemplating arming educators also should contact their UE underwriter to determine if coverage is available and other underwriting criteria is needed. Overall, if the practice of arming educators becomes common and more injuries result, it may significantly increase the cost of insuring schools.
Since local laws differ, before taking any steps to arm employees, consult legal counsel to understand the liability landscape and ensure compliance with state laws and local ordinances, including those mandating gun-free school zones. Counsel can also help schools update policies to address key issues, including:
- Requirements for when teachers are to leave the classroom or confront a shooter
- Whether employees may be armed at all school events or only during class time
- Protocols regarding the school's use of force continuum
- Recordkeeping and responsibility for regular firearm inspections
School employees will need to meet all state licensing requirements for carrying a firearm, including any concealed carry licensing requirements in their state. The school will need to periodically reviews those licensing requirements to ensure the employees are properly licensed each year.
Schools also should carefully review, with input from legal counsel, any memorandum of understanding with the local police department with the eye toward how the agreement handles risk transfer for the actions of a police officer while on campus. Agreements between the school and any armed contractor on campus also should be carefully negotiated for appropriate risk transfer. UE's Checklist: A Guide for Reviewing Contracts can provide a good starting point when supplemented with legal counsel's input.
Guidance from legal counsel and a licensed insurance broker, along with a careful review of all the risks and costs involved, will help schools make informed decisions about arming its educators.
May need to purchase. Not HAVE to.
Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out.
I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right.
Shall not be infringed and the above article has a lot of infringements in it.
"Again I ask what other Constitutional right does any other American have to do all these steps to then be able to carry out."
Again, this is not a realistic answer when talking about the liability of schools having armed teachers.
"I get it that my argument is a losing one because of gun grabbers like you who want to require people to jump through hoops to do something that is a protected right."
Point to one "gun grabber" argument I have made. One.
The reality is the Second Amendment is already restricted, in many ways, every day.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Antonin Scalia
It is a realistic answer. Sorry you do not like it but it is.
So name one.
This argument is VERY much a gun grabber argument. You are wanting to limit thousands of Americans rights to protect themselves.
Yes the reality is the 2nd amendment is already UNCONSTITUTIONALLY restricted every day. Shall not be infringed.
Cool a supreme court justice said that. They also once said people were property.
Saying that your proposed solution is more difficult than you make it out to be is not necessarily a "gun grabber" argument. I own plenty of guns and have my LTC.
There are already in place numerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Automatic weapons require a license, you are not allowed to take a firearm to an establishment where more than 50% of sales are for liquor, you cannot own a military grade fighter jet, you can lose your right with certain convictions, and many many more.
This whole conversation started with me saying, "Uhhhh, I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be."
All I've done is post one article, which you refuse to completely respond to, and you just moved over to a second amendment argument. I'm not debating the second amendment here, I'm saying arming school teachers is a lot more complicated and costly solution than you seem to think is.
