TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:

NOMW wrote:They have posted signs that sends a message..."Not on My Watch"

Serious question...

Should we expect this sign to have any effect on the kind of people who would do harm to our kids?
Is this going to dissuade a mentally ill person from shooting?
or... does it simply provide warning to those who are planning harm?

I certainly like the sentiment, but I find myself wondering whether the net results are a plus or minus.

An Interesting question. One could also pose the question if the "gun free zone" signs have had any effect. I suggest that they have had the opposite effect

I'm currently lobbying our local district to take a similar approach to Argyle. I don't know whether it would be more effect or not. For the mass killers, there is clear evidence that confronting some of them accelerates the suicide that they probably had in mind all along. For others, like the Norfolk Navy yard, permanently disabling them seems to be the only way to deal with them.

I take my cue from the interviews with prison inmates who reported being more afraid of homeowners with guns than they are of the police. The Argyle sign suggests that the school employees who might be armed would share the homeowner approach to a confrontation. The police should have a responsibility to try to take a suspect alive so that the suspect can face the criminal justice system and LE has a variety of ways and hopefully superior force with them in that attempt. The homeowner, and hopefully the armed school employee, is more concerned about protecting their own life and the lives of those around them than in making sure that the prep survives the incident. I would like to have potential killers connect the dots that way.

The foundation of most of our laws is that telling citizens what the rules are gains their compliance. The gun free zone sign fits into that line of thinking. The evidence suggests that much of the public ignores the rules and that there is less compliance with them today than there was 20 years ago. For those situations, enforcement of the rules is added to notification. There isn't just a speed limit sign, there is an LEO with a radar gun to remind me how fast that I can drive. The flaw of the gun free zone sign is that it is widely understood by everyone that there is extremely limited enforcement. Sure, there are resource officers and even some security officers in some schools. But everyone knows that they have a much better chance of an encounter with a speed enforcement officer than with a school security officer. Anything that happens is going to be after the fact, when the mass shooting suspect has probably already taken their own life. Like a suicide bomber, if there isn't effective prevention, the results are disastrous.

That's why I'm glad to see the sign changed at the Argyle schools. Like the alarm system sign outside of a house, it is only likely to have a limited effect on some potential BGs and it needs the advertized armed school personnel to back it up.

I thought that one of the ideas behind the Argyle plan was to use some existing school personnel as marshals as opposed to hiring external ones. If that is the case, I'm assuming and hoping that the background checks and evaluations that are already done for district employees could be used toward confirming suitability. I'd hate to think that it is necessary to start over completely when considering someone to carry in a school. I do understand and accept that additional training is needed and should be required. My point is if a completely new analysis is needed for them to carry a gun in a school, maybe they shouldn't have been a school employee to begin with. Please don't jump on me because an LEO has to deal with life or death situations. I just don't believe that we should have people who would fail a psych evaluation working around kids. And I'm not suggesting that we do have that situation today.

NOMW wrote:I am the owner of the program "Not on My Watch" that Argyle ISD implemented. I conducted interviews with some of the DFW news channels and thought CH 8 had the best report.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Argyle-s ... 65731.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Keep in mind, this is not the "Marshall" program but a process that I developed some time ago and is now being implemented. I wrote the standards, employee interview, recommended a psych eval, and conduct the firearms training. The firearms training consist of 3 Days, 30 hours, 900 rounds, must pass the standards shooting test, and conduct force on force training with Air Soft in a school setting. This program is ongoing for the personnel that meet the standards and the Superintendent will manage their program. I recommend continued education, shooting every quarter and recommend that the students shoot the standards semi-annually. My intent for this program is to keep our children and faculty safe. Armed faculty is a contingency, if implemented correctly with signs and media, the bad guys pass on by.

Thank you for joining the forum. I believe that your last statement is one of the more important aspects of your program. I'd be interesting in trying to sell this concept to a neighboring school district and have an opportunity to meet with their newly hired security consultant. Is there someplace I can get more information? I'd be happy to send you a Private Message on this forum with my email address.

Thanks.

jbarn wrote: While I would not offer a determination on your specific church and the status of your ushers without the opportunity to review the written policies and procedures, it IS entirely possible that you could carry as an usher.

Thank you for the information. I agree with you that a lot depends on the what is written in the policies and procedures. I may ask to read that this coming week and see how clear any elements which would easily be interpreted as security related are.

I do many things for our church. I doubt that I would ever add to that list being a part of the permanent usher rotation but they do need substitutes from time to time and I've always been inhibited by my understanding of the restrictions on carrying to take up one of the temporary positions. It would be my luck that something bad happened on that day, just as it would be my luck that I was detected with my firearm inside of a place with an invalid 30.06 sign. Perhaps one could say that I have a better chance of being struck by lightning but I've already had that happen, too, and I've learned not to overexpect on matters of random probability.

jbarn wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

If a law is every passed to allow us to carry in church AND serve in an official capacity (user, etc) in that church, I would want and welcome additional training. If nothing else, I would not want several of us to try to respond to a threat and get into one another's way. That is something that I worry about today
.

Can you clarify? One can carry in church now. I assume you meant "usher" when you referred to a position of official capacity?

Yes, "user" was supposed to be "usher" but my spell check helped me and I didn't catch it. I'm lousy at proof-reading my own writing.

There have been numerous threads here about not being part of any recognized function in the church while carrying. I do carry in church all the time (choir rehearsals, etc in addition to the services). I haven't volunteered to be on the usher committee because of the the duties of that group is to check the hallways during services. It looks a lot like a security function and it is my understanding that anything that looks like organized security under the current statutes is prohibited for CHL. It is another case where an industry lobby is too powerful.

texanjoker wrote:Excellant. I think the key factor is the exta training, qualifications and psych test for this authrization, something the chl community doesnt want. Given the proper training more areas could open up.

I'm not sure that all of the CHL community opposes extra training, qualification, etc. for specific circumstances. The NRA started an effort to identify people to volunteer in schools and I asked to have my name included. I expected and would have welcomed additional training if that program had materialized. Defending oneself in public is one thing but being in a school environment for the purpose of defending kids is another matter.

If a law is every passed to allow us to carry in church AND serve in an official capacity (user, etc) in that church, I would want and welcome additional training. If nothing else, I would not want several of us to try to respond to a threat and get into one another's way. That is something that I worry about today.

I'm very pleased to see this approach in Argyle. I would like to see the surrounding districts do the same thing. For me, one of the most important elements is removing the "gun free zone" signs and replacing them with warnings that the staff is armed. I do understand that things like alarm system signs on house that don't have them has a negligible impact on crime but I think that letting a potential creep know that he or she could get shot before they have any time to do their foul deeds may act as a deterrent in schools.