Do We Really Want Safe Schools?

[Charles L. Cotton]

The only other realistic alternative is to allow teachers and staff that have a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in school. If the school opts to do so, it could provide additional training to teachers and staff wishing to carry handguns in school, so long as the school provides this training at no expense to its personnel. It is quite likely that local police departments and sheriff departments will be more than happy to create training programs for such persons and provide the training at little or no cost to the school district.

This is really the only way I would be comfortable with any teachers or staff carrying in a school. There are a lot of factors to consider in a school active shooter situation that are not covered by the CHL course. I would be very happy if they provided a few days of active shooter and intermediate pistol training in order to allow faculty or staff to carry.

While I would like to see LEO agencies offer specialized training, I would not support it being mandatory. (I might be forced to accept it to pass legislation.) I respectfully disagree that "there are a lot of factors to consider . . ." It's actually quite simple, an armed teacher locks the door to her classroom and shoots anyone who enters and tries to kill her students. Now clearing the building is a different matter, but that the LEOs' job, not teachers and staff.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I just published an article on http://www.TexasCHLblog.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; regarding two alternatives for increasing campus security. A copy is below.

Chas.

Do We Really Want Safe Schools?

In the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre of 20 innocent first grade children and six adults, as a society we have to ask ourselves “do we really want safe schools?” The obvious answer is yes, but if we really mean it, then we must be ready to pass the necessary legislation and provide funding.
There are basically two ways to make our schools safer and each takes a dramatically different approach. One amounts to the “gold standard” but it is incredibly expensive, while the other is less effective, but it is virtually cost-free. If either of these methods are implemented, our precious children have a realistic chance of surviving the rampage of a would-be mass murderer.

Secured limited-access to school buildings

The first method involves truly securing school buildings such that unauthorized entry is virtually impossible. To do this, every entry into a school building must be through double access doors. These doors must contain bullet resistant glass that will withstand all 30 caliber rifle rounds with minimal damage and offering no opportunity to enter the building even when shattered. These doors must also have high security locking mechanisms that are electrically controlled from a position inside the second door. Standard commercial grade locks are not sufficient for this purpose.

The distance between the outer secured door in the inner secured or must be large enough to house metal detectors that everyone entering the building will have to pass through before being allowed to pass through the inner secured door. Armed police officers must be stationed inside both the outer and the inner secure doors and the officer inside the innermost a secured door should also be armed with a 30 caliber semiautomatic rifle in the event the assailant is wearing body armor.

The procedure for entering the school would require that students, faculty and staff present their school identification cards to pass through the outer secured door. Once within the secure buffer zone, each person would then go through metal detectors and their backpacks, briefcases, and any other packages would pass through an x-ray machine. Once cleared, the officer manning the inner secured door can open the inner door to allow entry. A faster alternative for larger schools would require the use of large revolving doors for the inner buffer zone that would allow more students to enter each segment. The doors would have to be constructed from the same bullet resistant glass and the officer guarding this door must be able to lock electronically by pressing a button.

The purpose of the two secure doors is to create an enclosed area that would serve both as a security buffer zone and as a deterrent to anyone who would attempt to enter the school with weapons. If a would-be murderer were to gain access to the outer door by the use of a fake ID, or by following an authorized person and forcing his way in, he would be trapped in the security buffer zone. The officer stationed within the security buffer zone should be able to neutralize the threat either by making an arrest or by engaging the armed intruder. In a worst case scenario, if the officer is wounded or killed the armed intruder would be trapped and no escape would be possible. While there could be innocent students, faculty or staffed also trapped, the number of potential victims would be greatly limited. The close proximity of the potential victims to the assailant could also provide the opportunity for the assailant to be overwhelmed and disarmed, but this would hinge on the age and number of people within the buffer zone.

Double entry doors and a secure buffer zone are not the only changes that would be required. Interior classroom doors need to be made of steel and they must be self-locking that can be opened from inside the classroom simply by pushing on a bar. Entry from the outside will require a key or “smart card.” The same bullet resistant glass must be in a window in the door, but it should be no more than 3 to 4 inches wide so that even if it were broken, the gap would be too small for an assailant to gain entry into the classroom. Bullet resistant glass would also have to be used in all classroom windows and those windows could only be opened from inside the classroom.

At this point, you’re probably thinking that the above-described proposal is going to be shockingly expensive. You are right, it will be incredibly expensive. However, if the tragedy in Newtown is going to be the catalyst for discussion of school safety, then we need to discuss methods that can truly render our schools safe, not placebos such as gun control or mental health bogeymen.

Armed Teachers and Staff

The only other realistic alternative is to allow teachers and staff that have a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in school. If the school opts to do so, it could provide additional training to teachers and staff wishing to carry handguns in school, so long as the school provides this training at no expense to its personnel. It is quite likely that local police departments and sheriff departments will be more than happy to create training programs for such persons and provide the training at little or no cost to the school district.

Armed teachers and staff should be the last line of defense for the children, therefore reasonable steps should also be taken to secure the campus against unauthorized entry and the self-locking steel doors should be installed on each classroom.

Campus-Police Are Not Enough

Some will argue that it is not necessary to spend the millions of dollars required to create truly secure campuses as set out in the first alternative, or to authorize teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as set out in the second alternative. The solution that will be offered is to simply require police officers to be present in all schools.

While having police officers present is desirable, this alone is insufficient. Schools that do have police officers on campus typically have only one or two officers available to respond to threats. This is insufficient even in a small school that has more than one entrance to the building and it is grossly inadequate in large schools that resemble junior colleges in their size and breadth.

Assuming the police officer is not killed attempting to protect students, it is quite likely that the presence of one or two officers will merely reduce the body count. When we’re talking about our children, there is no such thing as an acceptable casualty rate. If the lone officer is killed or incapacitated by the assailant, the students are defenseless and the tragedy at Newtown will be repeated.

Conclusion

We have a choice that must be made and it should be made during the 2013 Texas legislative Session. We can accept the fact that school shootings are quite rare and do nothing. Unfortunately, attacks on our schools may not remain rare in view of the extensive media coverage that actually encourages other would-be mass murderers to commit these atrocities to gain their a “15 minutes of fame.” Regardless of the frequency however, to many Texans (this writer included) crossing our collective fingers and hoping for the best is unacceptable.

As noted previously, there are only two alternate methods of providing a reasonable level of security for our children. The gold standard is to create a truly secure campus, but the cost of doing so will be staggering and beyond the financial capability of most school districts unless federal assistance is available. Allowing licensed teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as they do everywhere outside of the school building, combined with self-locking classroom doors will establish a viable last line of defense for our children.

None of us like the idea of having to turn our schools into buildings that resemble a federal reserve bank or arming teachers and staff so they can prevent our sons and daughters from being butchered. Sadly, for reasons not relevant to this article, this is the reality of the world in which we live.

Chas.

Copy to Facebook?

Good idea. I'll do that. Feel free to copy it if you like.

Chas.

[2firfun50]

While I agree with most of the article, I was somewhat put off by the use of the phrase "mental health bogeymen". I suspect many on the forum know or are familar with people who who maybe should not have firearms. If we continue to take the same old positions, we'll see the same results as the last election.

We really need to be ready to address the mental health situation and the wholely inadequate system we have now. It may be the only dog we'll have in the upcoming witch hunt.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I really do not like your first proposal. Apart from the cost, it will lead to all the losses of freedom and abuses that the TSA has brought to airports since 9/11.
We do not need this kind of "police state".

Your second proposal is right on! Restrict access to one point. Put bullet proof doors on the classrooms and most importantly and the single thing that will be most effective, let teachers and school staff who have CHLs carry at school!

If we don't offer solutions, then you'll lose a lot more than the right to enter a public school without a search.

Chas.

[Beiruty]

Class rooms should have an secure emergency exit that can be activated from inside. Most schools are 1 level.

[JALLEN]

A parrent with a CHLshould be allowed to carry .

I agree, but passing that is more difficult. I already drafted a bill that would put CHL's on the same footing as LEO's except for carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated. It's in the hands of a Texas Senator who is deciding if he will file it. I would hope that the Newtown tragedy would greatly improve the changes that it will be filed.

Chas.

The Governor is on your side!

(CNN) – Amid calls for tighter restrictions on guns following last week's deadly rampage in Connecticut, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry said at a tea party event Monday that anyone with a concealed handgun license in the Lone Star State should be able to take guns on public property – including schools.

"In the state of Texas, with our concealed handgun license, if you have been duly backgrounded and trained and you are a concealed handgun license carrying individual, you should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state," said Perry, who later added a person has the right to prohibit guns on their private property.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... -anywhere/

[Charles L. Cotton]

While I agree with most of the article, I was somewhat put off by the use of the phrase "mental health bogeymen". I suspect many on the forum know or are familar with people who who maybe should not have firearms. If we continue to take the same old positions, we'll see the same results as the last election.

We really need to be ready to address the mental health situation and the wholely inadequate system we have now. It may be the only dog we'll have in the upcoming witch hunt.

Mental health arguments in this context are a bogyman. I'm not saying our mental health facilities and policies are sufficient to deal with people in need, but it's not the answer to mass murderers. There was nothing in Adam Lanza's medical records that would or should be used to involuntarily commit him, at least not that I have seen reported. Look at the other school shooters and to my recollection, none had been diagnosed with a mental illness that would have supported involuntary commitment.

So-called civil commitment is already being discussed and it scares the snot out of me! Declaring someone insane or incompetent was a favored tactic of Hitler, the Soviet Union, North Korea and numerous other oppressive regimes. When the government, rather than psychiatrists, gets to decide who's mentally incompetent, we're in trouble.

On a more practical note, there are people in Washington who support a mandatory psychological exam before being able to own a gun, much less carry it. Focusing on mental health issues in response to Newtown is a mistake, in my view.

Chas.

[JALLEN]

On a more practical note, there are people in Washington who support a mandatory psychological exam before being able to own a gun, much less carry it. Focusing on mental health issues in response to Newtown is a mistake, in my view.

Chas.

There are already signs of this, like doctors asking about guns in the home, marking a box on a form, and the next thing you know, that patient can't buy firearms. There have been several warnings about this, especially involving the VA.

[Kythas]

Very good article. Would it be possible to craft legislation that would grant immunity to those that are involved in defending the kids during such an incident? Maybe extend this to the trainers as well?

Wouldn't the current Castle Doctine law cover this? After all, a person is already immune from civil liability if he uses force to defend himself in any place he has a legal right to be, as long as he didn't initiate the confrontation.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Very good article. Would it be possible to craft legislation that would grant immunity to those that are involved in defending the kids during such an incident? Maybe extend this to the trainers as well?

Wouldn't the current Castle Doctine law cover this? After all, a person is already immune from civil liability if he uses force to defend himself in any place he has a legal right to be, as long as he didn't initiate the confrontation.

The immunity from civil liability applies only against claims made by the bad guy, not any innocent persons injured or killed while engaging the bad guy.

Chas.

[stroo]

by Charles L. Cotton » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:32 pm

stroo wrote:
I really do not like your first proposal. Apart from the cost, it will lead to all the losses of freedom and abuses that the TSA has brought to airports since 9/11.
We do not need this kind of "police state".

Your second proposal is right on! Restrict access to one point. Put bullet proof doors on the classrooms and most importantly and the single thing that will be most effective, let teachers and school staff who have CHLs carry at school!

If we don't offer solutions, then you'll lose a lot more than the right to enter a public school without a search.

Chas.

Charles,
I couldn't agree more that we need to offer solutions and I applaud your attempt to do so. Further gun control and mental health proposals really won't solve this problem. Doing something to harden the schools will.

At the same time, a solution that leads to TSA type results is not a solution that I want to see any more than the gun control solutions. And I do appreciate that you pointed out the cost of your first solution to suggest that it really isn't feasible.

The solution I want to pitch is your second one. It is one that will reduce mass killings in schools and should not lead to TSA type results.

So I think we agree much more than disagree.

[Moby]

Campus-Police Are Not Enough
Some will argue that it is not necessary to spend the millions of dollars required to create truly secure campuses as set out in the first alternative, or to authorize teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as set out in the second alternative. The solution that will be offered is to simply require police officers to be present in all schools.

While having police officers present is desirable, this alone is insufficient. Schools that do have police officers on campus typically have only one or two officers available to respond to threats. This is insufficient even in a small school that has more than one entrance to the building and it is grossly inadequate in large schools that resemble junior colleges in their size and breadth.

Assuming the police officer is not killed attempting to protect students, it is quite likely that the presence of one or two officers will merely reduce the body count. When we’re talking about our children, there is no such thing as an acceptable casualty rate. If the lone officer is killed or incapacitated by the assailant, the students are defenseless and the tragedy at Newtown will be repeated.

I am always leary of absolute statements.
Sometimes police presence IS all that is needed. Something not shown on liberal TV news channels was that the Colorado shooter (Aurora) went to three other theators first and when he saw no anti gun signs he went to the next theator. The fourth theator had Colorado's version of 30.06. He knew CHL holders would abide by the law so that was his target.

A police car and a cop or two is a pretty powerful deterent. I do in fact believe a single cop at an average school with a well marked car out front would be a very strong deterant. Add a cop or two at larger schools and I think this is a very cost effective way to handle school shootings. To add further "layers" of protection (such as the concern a cop get picked off first) add CHL administrators and teachers. A final layer would be single point entry with monitoring as most schools already have.

A combination of the three options would be cost effective and realistically effective as well. Most schools already have single point entry. Park a police care near this (or other well exposed area) and a roving cop on campus and that is pretty much the total cost other than teacher administrator training which would be a minimal cost of city police did the training.

So how would we fund this? Well we could NOT send those 20 F16's to the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt. And not send them the 150 BILLION Obama is giving them also. I hear on the radio there is something like 120,000 schools in America. That amount of money would easily cover the costs of adding the cops, armed teachers, and perhaps some hardening of entry points. Did you know there WAS funding for additional school security that was taken by politians? I blame them.

The biggest blame I place however is on the irresponsible firearm owner.
HOW did the mentally challenged 20 year old get his hands on the weapons?
And secondly, what kind of fool would allow a child with mental health issues to play visually violent first person shooter games and then seeing how much he loved them, teach him to shoot an AR15 and semi auto pistols?
If I had a mentally challenged child, mario cart and other mentally stimulating non violent games would be where I might point my kid instead.

But most importantly!!! LOCK THEM UP!
YOU OWN THEM, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!

[Vol Texan]

A parent with a CHL should be allowed to carry .

I agree, but passing that is more difficult. I already drafted a bill that would put CHL's on the same footing as LEO's except for carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated. It's in the hands of a Texas Senator who is deciding if he will file it. I would hope that the Newtown tragedy would greatly improve the changes that it will be filed.

Chas.

Yes, I agree it might be hard to pass, but it is a big win.

I just got off the phone with the local administrator of my daughter's Montessori school. During our discussion, I reminded her that the most dangerous thing I do with a weapon each day is because of her school's policies: I take my weapon out of a secure holster, hide it in my truck so I can go inside the building (in a location that has a history of smash-and-grab car theft from the parents' parking lot), and then re-holster only after returning to the truck, sitting down, and closing the door - so that nobody sees me. No matter how safely I handle it, the weapon is infinitely safer while NOT being handled than it is during handling!

[2firfun50]

While I agree with most of the article, I was somewhat put off by the use of the phrase "mental health bogeymen". I suspect many on the forum know or are familar with people who who maybe should not have firearms. If we continue to take the same old positions, we'll see the same results as the last election.

We really need to be ready to address the mental health situation and the wholely inadequate system we have now. It may be the only dog we'll have in the upcoming witch hunt.

Mental health arguments in this context are a bogyman. I'm not saying our mental health facilities and policies are sufficient to deal with people in need, but it's not the answer to mass murderers. There was nothing in Adam Lanza's medical records that would or should be used to involuntarily commit him, at least not that I have seen reported. Look at the other school shooters and to my recollection, none had been diagnosed with a mental illness that would have supported involuntary commitment.

So-called civil commitment is already being discussed and it scares the snot out of me! Declaring someone insane or incompetent was a favored tactic of Hitler, the Soviet Union, North Korea and numerous other oppressive regimes. When the government, rather than psychiatrists, gets to decide who's mentally incompetent, we're in trouble.

On a more practical note, there are people in Washington who support a mandatory psychological exam before being able to own a gun, much less carry it. Focusing on mental health issues in response to Newtown is a mistake, in my view.

Chas.

It has been reported that Adam Lanza had a recognized mental condition, diagnosed by psychiatrists. I would suggest that it would be reasonable to require all mental health providers to report to local law enforcement such conditions with recomendations regarding public safety issues such as violent tendancies, driving restrictions, and firearms ownership. Failure to do so, could result in civil and criminal penalties. Local law enforcement would then visit the individual and other members of the household and report to NCIC as appropriate. This approach would be similar to the current requirements to report bullet wounds, child abuse etc.

Just maybe such an approach would have caused Adam's mother to rethink her actions and saved lives.

[RHenriksen]

So how would we fund this? Well we could NOT send those 20 F16's to the Muslim Brotherhood in Eygpt. And not send them the 150 BILLION Obama is giving them also.

Now that's just crazy talk...