Until society as a whole is willing to study and acknowledge the underlying causes (yes there are multiple causes), the best we can do is deter and defend.

Utah was early to allowing lawful guns on any school campus, including armed parents and staff. It has proven the validity of deterrence via the probability of armed adults being nearby and ready to defend.

There's always the chance a good guy with a gun makes errors and harms bystanders. That would be a PR nightmare, but on a statistical basis it appears easily provable that the balance is strongly in favor of allowing lawful firearms on campus without additional training requirements.

When the gun ban crowd and woke lefties are ready to have honest investigation and honest discussions about the root causes, we might get to where armed deterrence and defense are not so important.

Removing the prohibition is not about filling schools with gun toting yahoos.

It’s about changing the perception of schools as automatically defenseless targets.

Probably a poor analogy, but it’s the officer I can’t see that deters me from speeding. The guy in the unmarked Camry, not the guy that hides his Explorer PIU in the same place every day.

I don’t know how much deterrence registers in the crazy person’s mind though.

On another note, one of our local high schools had false threats called in three days in a row a few weeks ago. Sheriff’s deputies arrived swiftly en masse each time.

quote:

but I spent enough time in the schools to see how admin felt about us security guys and the police officers assigned to the high schools.

100% correct... Shortly after Uverde I was in a middle school, two of us. I was roving the other was on door duty. The last hallway, closest to the woods had it's door propped open, the kids were out side practicing graduation. Nobody told us and someone with a 10/22 could have done some real damage. Plus the door, I could not believe it, one of the teachers said they always do that, I asked her if she read the news...When my partner told the principal there was little reaction, he did not walk down there, just said something like he would address it later...No amount of money is going to fix things like that.
I finished the semester and went on another assignment, no more schools for me...

60

quote:

Originally posted by Cookster:
Had this been in PA, where a law abiding with an LTCF cannot be on school property with a concealed weapon, a much larger tragedy would have happened.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. I suspect that had Kaylub been in PA in the same situation he would have acted in exactly the same manner. There was an emergency and he responded to that emergency appropriately (well, in an exemplary fashion, but entirely appropriately). The same response would be equally appropriate regardless of any laws. Were any DA to attempt to press charges against a father defending his child and others, I suspect that DA would fare poorly at trial and likely find himself looking for new employment after the next election if not sooner. Coming to the aid of innocent children does not become wrong because some collection of morons in the state legislature pass a law.

^^^^^^
Good point, slosig.

It’s fun and satisfying to engage in mental … (something) and imagine that an unjust law would be applied in an even more unjust manner such as charging the man who followed a killer into a “prohibited” area to stop him from committing more murders. In general, though, there are usually legally-recognized exceptions to certain laws, and the reasonable need to save lives is a common one.

I could cite any number of examples in which someone might need to do something that would normally be considered a crime if not for that need, but how about just one: Would it be legal to break down the door of a house that was on fire if I heard a child screaming inside? Why? Wouldn’t that be some sort of burglary? Sometimes “good Samaritan” acts such as providing first aid are protected by law, sometimes not, but most prosecutors would not be so incredibly foolish as to charge the rescuer in this type of situation.

Would it be reasonable to confront and shoot a man walking down a public street carrying a shotgun? Probably not. Would it be unreasonable to enter a restricted area and shoot a man who was fighting with a teacher after seeing him threaten and shoot at a person outside and then hear gunshots inside the area and possibly see gunshot victims? Although it may often not seem so, there are sometimes limits to how stupid even fanatics can be.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Removing the prohibition is not about filling schools with gun toting yahoos.

It’s about changing the perception of schools as automatically defenseless targets.

Probably a poor analogy, but it’s the officer I can’t see that deters me from speeding. The guy in the unmarked Camry, not the guy that hides his Explorer PIU in the same place every day.

I don’t know how much deterrence registers in the crazy person’s mind though.

On another note, one of our local high schools had false threats called in three days in a row a few weeks ago. Sheriff’s deputies arrived swiftly en masse each time.

All of which would be valid if you were dealing with reasonable logical people. Pretending that you are is illogical at best. Most shooters either die by the hands of first responders or by their own hands when cornered. Occasionally, they try to blend in and escape with the rest of the students. Statistics show us that they lose courage or commitment after the killing and they choose flight over fight. No amount of deterrence, real or imagined, affects them.

As to your speeding example, that doesn’t even hold water. I can go check out a patrol vehicle any day or time of the week and prove it wrong. I can go up on the interstate, get in the right lane at the speed limit and stop 25+ mph over quicker than I can write tickets. Recently, we put 6 units up there and they wrote 125 citations of 20+ in 2 hours.

Mental illness is likely the largest threat to our communities. We could fix it as a society. And we don’t largely because of the cost of accountability versus just giving them pills they may or may not take.

As much as we want “good guys with guns” to be the answer, it isn’t. This reality spurs comments like “so you’re against the 2A” when in fact guns are just taking an aspirin for cancer.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
In general, though, there are usually legally-recognized exceptions to certain laws, and the reasonable need to save lives is a common one.

Thanks for sharing the legal background that I didn’t have.

The closest analogy I am familiar with is FAR 91.3:

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

FAR 91.3(b) essentially says “The PIC may break any rule in part 91 (the rules governing general aviation) to meet an emergency.

I didn’t realize that our criminal codes had something similar, but should have. It only makes sense.

The general legal term is “Defense of Necessity,” and there are numerous online discussions such as HERE.

Like the question of any criminal defense, of course, a prosecutor or court could always argue or rule about what was “necessary.” A prosecutor might say, “Well, just because the defendant saw a young man fire a gun at a bystander and then take the gun into a school where his young children were located did not mean it was necessary for him to take the law into his own hands and become involved. He should have just been a good witness and let the police handle the matter.”

And for all I know, there might be some authorities who would agree with that argument: “Yeah, some fudd with a gun is more likely to kill three or four times as many innocent victims by accident as the guy who’s got 150 rounds and a room full of six-year-olds at his mercy.”

Would such an outrageously bizarre argument be made anywhere in this country? Well, considering that I suspect it could easily be made in the UK today, it’s not impossible that we could hear of it here one day. In an incident like this, though, that seems unlikely for the near future.

We hope. And since I must admit that hope is not a strategy or method, I could be proved wrong at some point.

Jones -Mental illness is likely the largest threat to our communities. We could fix it as a society. And we don’t largely because of the cost of accountability versus just giving them pills they may or may not take."

I really want to agree with you, but I do not understand how to identify those with homicidal mental illness. Please expand and explain an approach.

Tillman

Don't most shooters leave behind manifestos and diaries or other writings detailing their planning? They think about how to have the biggest casualty count, which means how to access the building and where to find victims.

Though there are going to be a few spur-of-the-moment absolutely batshit crazy people who can barely put a plan together, most are going to be aware of possible tough obstacles which includes armed response.

So I don't buy the idea that lawful firearms in the hands of on-site LEO, parents, or teachers is not a factor in deterring or altering the plans of many school shooters.

Obviously prevention is ideal, which means addressing the mental health issues, media coverage, social media, etc. But I wouldn't call having armed presence in schools a band-aid on cancer, I'd call it chemotherapy which has a good chance of greatly reducing the harm that otherwise is inflicted.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:


So I don't buy the idea that lawful firearms in the hands of on-site LEO, parents, or teachers is not a factor in deterring or altering the plans of many school shooters.

Obviously prevention is ideal, which means addressing the mental health issues, media coverage, social media, etc. But I wouldn't call having armed presence in schools a band-aid on cancer, I'd call it chemotherapy which has a good chance of greatly reducing the harm that otherwise is inflicted.

Then you are refusing to learn from history. If it was a deterrence Parkland would have never happened. Uvalde would have never happened. Hell at Uvalde, the shooter met armed resistance in the parking lot. And we know the results.

This is a topic that is near and dear to me. But I can analyze it without emotion. I have been to two school shootings. Actual active shooter events. One had armed deterrence in the parking lot and one did not. Believing that armed deterrence plays a factor is not understanding the enemy. It is the same pipe dream that school administration falls for in believing that any armed police officer serves as a deterrent. That an overweight officer that looks like slept in his uniform with years of Cheeto dust on his equipment that took the job as a retirement gig or was transferred due to incompetence is “good enough”.

We dishonor the fallen by being doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Please do not take my comments as a personal attack, you are just saying things that 20 years of data (and actual experience) doesn’t support.

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
Jones -Mental illness is likely the largest threat to our communities. We could fix it as a society. And we don’t largely because of the cost of accountability versus just giving them pills they may or may not take."

I really want to agree with you, but I do not understand how to identify those with homicidal mental illness. Please expand and explain an approach.

Tillman

Identifying them is usually not the problem. The USSS actually takes the lead on keeping pretty accurate records on all things active shooter response. I looked it up earlier today and by their record keeping over 4/5 events there was prior knowledge or warning signs of an attack.

In some instances, government dropped the ball. I’m some instances, government (local LE, FBI, or school districts) responded and were aware but there wasn’t anything actionable ant that time. Some instances weren’t reported until after the fact. And about 15 percent or so there were no warning signs.

The tough part of the problem costs money in actually dealing with the mentally ill, antiquated juvenile Justice systems and “it won’t happen here”.

The FBI cyber division does pick up online chatter and does immediately inform local LE. And you will get a call from an agent in the local field division to follow up nowadays.

A lengthy article.

“The hero dad who saved the lives of many children during an Oregon school shooting recalled the horrific moment minute-by-minute in his first interview since his courageous act. …”

https://mol.im/a/16234013

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by Cookster:
Had this been in PA, where a law abiding with an LTCF cannot be on school property with a concealed weapon, a much larger tragedy would have happened.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. I suspect that had Kaylub been in PA in the same situation he would have acted in exactly the same manner. There was an emergency and he responded to that emergency appropriately (well, in an exemplary fashion, but entirely appropriately). The same response would be equally appropriate regardless of any laws. Were any DA to attempt to press charges against a father defending his child and others, I suspect that DA would fare poorly at trial and likely find himself looking for new employment after the next election if not sooner. Coming to the aid of innocent children does not become wrong because some collection of morons in the state legislature pass a law.

Yes that DA would stir it up and get replaced, but, stooges for the machine get their reward with cushy “jobs” at places like the charity referenced early.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:


So I don't buy the idea that lawful firearms in the hands of on-site LEO, parents, or teachers is not a factor in deterring or altering the plans of many school shooters.

Obviously prevention is ideal, which means addressing the mental health issues, media coverage, social media, etc. But I wouldn't call having armed presence in schools a band-aid on cancer, I'd call it chemotherapy which has a good chance of greatly reducing the harm that otherwise is inflicted.

Then you are refusing to learn from history. If it was a deterrence Parkland would have never happened. Uvalde would have never happened. Hell at Uvalde, the shooter met armed resistance in the parking lot. And we know the results.

This is a topic that is near and dear to me. But I can analyze it without emotion. I have been to two school shootings. Actual active shooter events. One had armed deterrence in the parking lot and one did not. Believing that armed deterrence plays a factor is not understanding the enemy. It is the same pipe dream that school administration falls for in believing that any armed police officer serves as a deterrent. That an overweight officer that looks like slept in his uniform with years of Cheeto dust on his equipment that took the job as a retirement gig or was transferred due to incompetence is “good enough”.

We dishonor the fallen by being doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Please do not take my comments as a personal attack, you are just saying things that 20 years of data (and actual experience) doesn’t support.

Jljones:

I wholeheartedly agree with you that addressing mental illness is almost the entire ballgame. Treat or confine the mentally ill and this problem stops.

I want to ask you if you feel that having someone on site able to shoot back isn't better than waiting for a police response to arrive. I have a hard time believing that you don't so I must be misunderstanding.
Is there any benefit to an in-house armed responder?

Bruce

Of course there is an undeniable benefit to having a trained someone to shoot back. That is a must. But it’s a last resort for when all the other measures fail.

The solution here is not contained within a bumper sticker. And until we stop with the “good guy with a gun” nonsense as THE answer we are destined to repeat the same results.

We treat school security in this nation like it’s a hobby.

I categorize the armed response at school is the backstop to when all other methods have failed. Of course it’s best to get ahead of any event, but as we know, people have slipped through.

In the vast majority of instances, someone should have had attention on the matter. Some make it sound like anyone wants to put a gun in the hands of someone unqualified or not interested. That’s usually the argument against armed individuals.

Maybe schools need an annex off to the side, a police substation of sorts.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Of course there is an undeniable benefit to having a trained someone to shoot back. That is a must. But it’s a last resort for when all the other measures fail.

The solution here is not contained within a bumper sticker. And until we stop with the “good guy with a gun” nonsense as THE answer we are destined to repeat the same results.

We treat school security in this nation like it’s a hobby.

Thank you for clarifying. I agree that lots of things are going wrong if a teacher/guard/cop has to put holes in someone to stop the killing.

And yes, we do need to stop treating school security like an afterthought. My kid's school has 2 armed guards. I think I will ask them if they would like to go train.

Bruce