School Distirct Allows Teachers to Carry Weapons

In a move that garnered surprisingly little national attention a school district is allowing its’ teachers to carry guns; provided they possess a valid Concealed Carry Weapons permit.
http://map.schoolsafetynews.com/eventdetail.php?ID=893

In an interview published in several articles the Superintendent makes his case based on three points:

1. The District’s school is located 30 minutes from the nearest law enforcement office.
2. The proximity to a busy highway.
3. The creation of gun-free zones to blame for the increase in school shootings.

Let’s look at each of these points to see of they have merit.

Issue #1

Does a slow law enforcement response create a need for an armed presence at a school? Absolutely. A rapid armed response is the only way to stop a committed attacker. Remember, a school lockdown is designed to slow down an active shooter; creating time for Calvary to arrive. If left unchallenged, a shooter (or shooters) will certainly defeat locked doors. How much time do you have? That is a tough call. I remember at Jump School, during a final briefing before our first jump an instructor was asked “If our main shoot fails, how long do we have to pull our reserve?” Without missing a beat the sergeant said “Airborne, you go the rest of your life.” Suffice to say that if there is a shooter in your school, the Calvary cannot get there fast enough.

Issue #2

Does proximity to a busy roadway increase a school’s risk? This one isn’t so clear. What type of risk are we talking about? If the concern is peer to peer or custody related violence, the location is irrelevant. If the concern is from an external threat (such as Bailey, CO or Nickel Mines, PA ) then this location may be a risk enhancer.

Issue #3

Did the creation of gun-free school zones lead to an increase of school shootings? Not a chance. In its Safe School Initiative, the Secret Service conducted an exhaustive study to determine the causal factors of targeted school violence. Gun free zones weren’t in the ballpark – heck they weren’t even in the same sport.
For me the concern isn’t teacher’s having access to guns. It is identifying a risk to students and implementing an undertrained solution. In Texas (like most states) to obtain a CCW, you must take a 10-15 hour class and fire a total of 50 rounds with a score of 70 to pass. Shots are fired from 3, 7 and 15 yards and there is no recertification process. Is this adequate for personal protection? Sure. Does this prepare a teacher to respond to a shooting in a school environment? Not even close.

Most law enforcement agencies require officers to complete over 100 hours of weapons training (to include weapon retention) and qualify twice a year. The average “hit rate” for law enforcement in shooting varies between only 17% and 22%. Remember, police are wearing body armor and receive far more training. You would have to assume that a “hit rate” for CCW teachers would be far less and absent weapon retention training, the risk of a teacher being disarmed in a struggle is considerable.
Bottom line; are the students in this school safer after this new policy? I’d have to say they are. But before implementing this type of policy, I’d strongly encourage district administrators to work with their local law enforcement to assign law enforcement to improve security at their schools. I realize this is not without cost, but when you factor in training/range time for training teachers and the added value of having a School Resource Officer, the cost is well justified.

This post is provided by SafePlans (www.safeplans.com), an all-hazards preparedness solution including emergency plans, staff training, and detailed site mapping.

Click here to learn more about the author

Be Sociable, Share!

•