Arming teachers

100k per officer? There are a number of things in that article that don't seem that accurate or thought out though the general concept is interesting.

100 K per officer?

I may have rounded up a bit, but that's about right for the real yearly cost.

From looking online, places like here:
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Police_or_Sheriff's_Patrol_Officer/Salary

the median salary for a US police officer is about $49,000 a year. However ... that's just salary. Benefits and payroll taxes from the formulas I know are at least +60%. Add in the training cost of a police officer, equipment, etc. ... I don't think $100K total cost is far off.

For an urban area such as I live in, I think that number would be a bit low.

Israel already does this and it works.

anytime someone says "this is unarguably the best choice," they're completely wrong. it's a fnord.

I'd have to say Steve is Wright...as with the New Life Church shooting here, where the police had just left after deciding that nothing was going to happen, three armed volunteer church members held the gunman at bay, and the lady ex-cop broke the stalemate and brought the gunman down before he could stroll into the sanctuary and use it for a shooting gallery. True he killed himself after she shot him, and he had already killed a couple of other innocent teenage girls on the parking lot, but he had multiple guns and a thousand rounds of ammo, heading for a room with at least several hundred potential victims in it. A few trained, armed volunteers can be there when the police can't or won't, and make all the difference in the world.

Would it be acceptable if the state allowed concealed carry on school campus for teachers, parents, and students that already have a concealed weapons permit and a “school endorsement”? In other words, your regular permit would have a small box with an S in it to certify that you have taken extra courses and training above and beyond what the state’s laws (if any) require for the permit. Would we accept this as a reasonable compromise? Since most of the states currently will not allow any carry by anyone other than police officers, would this be better than the current status quo?

nope. that's what the DC law looks like. they just stopped giving out "endorsements."

Several thoughts:

1) Guns in schools only work if the student population isn't hostile. Prison guards in the yard are usually unarmed, relying on martial arts skills and tower backup to support them. In SOME schools, introducing guns is asking to get jumped by a mob. The solution there is to close the school or significantly reduce the number of students who don't want to be there. Enforcing the concept that public education is a privilege not a right is a necessary pre-condition. Removing unmotivated students should be done in conjuntion with or before arming teachers. Most schools are probably OK, but many middle/high schools are just warehousing juvenile delinquients who haven't graduated to felonies yet.

2) The reason school administrators and other elitists want sworn police officers is because THEY WILL DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD TO DO. Before police officers are trained to maintain public order, they are trained to recognize authority and follow orders. You and I are just some rabble who think we're as good as / our opinions are equal to the elitists who want to be in control. If you're a control-freak, that's a significant handicap and means anyone who doesn't agree with them is part of the problem.

Great stuff, Steve! The other 5 articles were also interesting, but mostly for how ridiculous they were, all "What if X?" and "I wonder if Y?" rather than reasoned, logical discourse ('cause y'know, that's hard). My favorites were the arguments that you'd already addressed in your appendix. Well done!

Best quote from one of the sheep, coincidentally, in the last paragraph of the last article:
However, in situations such as school shootings, we should not put ourselves in a position to fight back by the same cruel means used against us.
No, by all means, let's give up any pretense of being able to defend anyone against any attacks at all, 'cause you know, that never works *cough*Warsaw Ghetto Uprising*cough*.

2) The reason school administrators and other elitists want sworn police officers is because THEY WILL DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD TO DO. Before police officers are trained to maintain public order, they are trained to recognize authority and follow orders. You and I are just some rabble who think we're as good as / our opinions are equal to the elitists who want to be in control. If you're a control-freak, that's a significant handicap and means anyone who doesn't agree with them is part of the problem.

Posted by: Jim D. at May 2, 2008 10:52 AM

You got it nailed, Jim D. Its just part of the larger agenda of the social engineers. They don't want self reliance in any way shape or form. They would do away with homeschooling if they could. Thats the 'socialization' they want to train our children with

Thanks for all the great comments! It looks like there have been a lot of hits from this site.

I do apologize for using the word "unarguably," BTW, but I don't think there's any one word that can dismiss an entire article as being wrong.

I find it interesting all the concern to make schools safe from this attack type thing like that one that happened in Colorado. What about all the kids shot on the streets on their way to or from school?

A worthwhile article, but may I suggest a few improvements?

A nationwide gun ban? Mr. Wright suggests that only a complete ban
would be effective, but this is far from accurate. Even if it could
be done, only the law abiding would comply. Criminals--the very
people we are trying to deter and stop--would not. England and
Australia are good examples. Islands with more or less total bans,
their violent crime rates have gone through the roof since their bans
went into effect. In fact, it has taken many years for academics in
those nations to even begin to report the obvious, utter failure that
total bans are, even as their governments continue to report the great
success of their bans and plot even stricter bans on top of total bans!

Mr. Wright also suggests that teachers carrying concealed should be
certified as reserve police officers and would have, as a result,
badges and police radios. This would, in fact, be a terrible way to
proceed. State law governs the certification of police officers and
reserve officers, commonly requiring expensive and time consuming
training, recertification and other requirements that would make this
route impractical at best, and likely impossible. It would also
subject police agencies to much higher insurance and equipment costs,
and would give them no daily public service benefit. Police radios
are one of the most expensive pieces of equipment issued to officers.
It is highly unlikely that police agencies could afford the extra
expense. And most agencies have stringent rules governing handguns,
to the point that teachers could find themselves constrained to carry
the kinds of handguns that work reasonably well for large men carrying
them in exposed holsters on a patrol belt, but are singularly unsuited
to concealed carry by women and smaller men.

Teachers carrying concealed need, at minimum, a concealed carry
permit. Certainly they should obtain more advanced training of the
type often known as Close Quarters Battle (CQB) in the industry. In
other words, training that will produce consistent handgun accuracy at
the distances and in the kind of indoor setting they are likely to
encounter. The potential danger is governmental over-reaction of the
kind that mandates useless and counter productive training, weapon,
ammunition and holster types, and storage requirements. Weapons in an
armory or lock box are of no more use to teachers than would be fire
extinguishers in an armory or lockbox.

Wearing a police uniform confers no shooting magic. Many civilians
exceed the shooting ability of the average policeman. Those who teach
are also commonly experts in learning. They can learn to shoot and
more importantly, when to shoot. God protect us from the kind of
government represented by the TSA which mandates costly and silly
training for pilots as a means of limiting their numbers. And
mandates putting a padlock(?!) though the trigger guard of their one-
size-fits-all handguns and holsters. This practice would justly
horrify any NRA shooting instructor discovering it in any class, and
recently caused an accidental discharge in the cockpit of an in-flight
airliner by the poor pilot trying to follow a rule that was, from its
inception, utterly stupid and dangerous. Ronald Reagan was right.
The most horrifying sentence in the English language is "I'm from the
government and I'm here to help."

Guns and children don't mix? Mr. Wright believes that to be a
truism. The reality is that guns and children have mixed very well
indeed since long before the founding of our nation. Firearm
accidents are at an all time low, and in any given year, the number of
children (actual children, not 18 year old gang bangers shooting each
other over drugs) dying of gunshot wounds from all causes is greatly
exceeded by those dying from drowning, car accidents, and a variety of
other common causes.
Children should, of course, not have unsupervised access to guns. I
would hope that is what Mr. Wright meant.

Finally, Mr. Wright observed that it would be better for children to
be traumatized by witnessing a teacher shoot a killer than be
themselves killed, even if he had to pay for 18 years of counseling.
This is indeed correct, as far as it goes. But children are
individuals, and they tend to take their cues about appropriate
behavior from adults. Some may be traumatized to the point of
requiring years of expensive therapy, but I'd be willing to bet that
would be a small number. If we rush "grief counselors" to a school
after a shooting and subject every child to counseling that strongly
suggests that they must be horribly traumatized and that it will take
a very long time to recover, many will believe that. Left to the
natural process of dealing with such situations, and the care of their
parents and teachers, most kids will do just fine, and much sooner
than some would like or prefer. I'm not minimizing the potential
seriousness of such situations, merely pointing out that the Pygmalion
Effect applies here as well.

A coupla' comments, just to make sure everyone understands my POV ...

I'm a strong believer in the 2nd amendment, civilian gun ownership of all types, and the right of law abiding citizens to carry guns.

So why did I mention that a total gun ban might help with these kinds of mass assaults (something that has brought flames on many bulletin boards)?

Because I was trying to do something that anti-gun types never do. Trying to honestly look at every side. So while I actually do believe that a total gun ban (and I'm talking no guns of any kind for anybody -- everything confiscated) would help deter these mass shooters, there are too many negatives to make it a viable option. So I mentioned it, said it was moot, and moved on.

The reason why such a ban might help for this particular kind of situation (and NOT the robbery/murder rate in general) is that the people who generally commit mass murders are NOT criminals. They tend to be historically law abiding citizens (or at least not felons) and caucasian and middle class. These people don't have the courage to face up to their own lives, so I don't believe they'll have the courage to drive into the bad parts of big cities trying to get a scary looking guy to sell them a black market gun. Not that there aren't many more ways to do mass murders (Bath Mi 1928, Timothy McVeigh, the 9/11 hijackers and their boxcutters, etc.) but most of the easy ways are not as dramatic as gunfire.

The comment on making these specially certified teachers reserve officers is something I hadn't taken into account. The reserve officers I've known (rural sheriff's offices) have NOT been to the academy and gotten only minimal training. I mostly brought this up to be more palletable to anti-gun people, because this is something I truly would like to see implemented. Or at the very least discussed.

And if that means spending the money to get a few staff members at each school properly certified, it's still a fraction of the cost of full time police officers. And it could save lives. Possibly (God forbid) my own children's lives.

I also know that Utah allows civilian CCW holders, including teachers, to carry at schools right now without special training. And it's caused no problems. But I also know that's not going to happen in most states, not even Colorado.

So taking it one step at a time, properly certified teachers would be a great first step.

We already have the best system in place, we just have to take advantage of it. It's called the Concealed Carry Permit.