How to stop school shootings, a letter to Mary Fallin

[Poke78]

Are you just wanting to sit back and allow our children to be slaughtered?

Nope, look two posts above yours where I acknowledge a need for a simple, straight-forward approach.

Harrold TX is a 200-student K-12 district in the middle of nowhere that has a lesson for us about the silliness of "gun-free zones", aka criminal empowerment zones. Actually, this is an excellent and simple model where the basic premise of our basic human right to self-defense is put into practice without overthinking the approach. I guess that's what I'm trying to say when asking you about funding, taxes, program costs, etc. I believe your complex proposal only lends credence to the anti-gun crew that would have us believe the use of tools for self-defense may only be allowed to those they've deemed special in some way.

The point I was making was that complexity does not add to the security equation and merely introduces unnecessary costs while encouraging the thinking that self-defense tools must be left to those deemed special in our society rather than being a basic human right. Simplicity will generally conquer complexity nearly everytime and usually do it while complexity is still tying its shoes.

 

[electriccowboy]

This just fits in here.
http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...ol-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

 

[osy79]

Poke, an active shooter in a school environment can be THE most complex scenario for a defensive gun use.

You have an unknown level of chaos
More stress than an untrained responder has ever handled
Innocent bystanders screaming running in all directions
You're completely caught off guard
You may not be starting in the best position strategically
You may not have any clue whats going on
You won't know how many attackers there actually are

You can really go on and on with this, but the bottom line is your everyday joe with a conceal carry permit will be woefully unprepared. A simple 8 hour course, or 2 day course, or 4 day course could add incalculable knowledge & skill for a scenario like this.

Who funded your conceal carry training? You did. Who's going to fund this? Right now I am.

We're creating an Emergency Action Plan at our church that includes training for an Emergency Response Team. Since OKCPD does not currently have a public class for this, we will be hiring an officer from the tac team to come to our church & provide a course. This is an investment we are willing to make because there is too much at stake and so much more we can learn & prepare for.

Additionally there is this (awesome step in the direction I've been talking about): http://www.koco.com/news/politics/L.../17803048/-/2wuqo3/-/index.html?absolute=true

 

[Poke78]

You say you are going to fund this but I'm assuming that relates to your church planning since you haven't told us that you are Boone Pickens IRL with the associated deep pockets. In the larger scale program you plan for all schools, you (still) have not responded to repeated requests for programs to be de-funded or new taxes to support this large-scale training of indeterminate length.

I agree that the active shooter scenario is a most complex tactical problem that is fraught with danger and chaos multiplied by the surprise factor. When your OCPD tac team consultant/trainer starts your ERT training, you be sure to ask him how much the tac team trains on an annual basis and how much ammo they expend. Then ask him what that means for your ERT in that specific context and what he specifically recommends. Then ask yourself if you are ready to spend that time and those dollars just for your church on an on-going basis. Then ask yourself how that is done on the larger scale you proposed in your initial post in the thread.

If we had the luxury of backing up time to tell one of those teachers last Thursday that there would be an armed intruder in their classroom the next day and there was no way to stop that from happening or to stop the teacher from being there, what tool do you think they would they choose to personally handle security the next day? They have no time for training, no money has been appropriated to put a cop in every school and it's totally on them to protect themselves and their students. Let's don't make it "special" for some to be able to respond, let's make it normal for all who choose to do so to be able to respond. Sure, offer training but don't make it a pre-requisite for the basic human right to self-defense.

I am truly not trying to minimize the need or to deny your sense that something should be done. I just want to inject some political and fiscal realities into the discussion along with a consideration for simplicity rather than complexity as a better path to success. I also want to back away from the creation of another "special" group when the right to life and self-defense is universal.

 

[VladdDImpaler]

This just fits in here.
http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...ol-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

Good read.

 

[prather]

sign me up.i would do this gladly.

 

[prather]

I would pay for my training myself. i think its a good idea...

 

[osy79]

You raise some interesting question Poke. I'll do my best to address them:

You say you are going to fund this but I'm assuming that relates to your church planning

Yes, I was referring to the program that I am directly involved in at my church. I believe the model they have in Lubbock (which is entirely funded by the county) is a very wise investment made by their government. Not only protect the people, but save countless dollars resulting from an active shooter. Until we see this offered by our local government (or state), I think the wise choice would be to seek our own training at our own expense from off duty members of the Tactical Teams.

you (still) have not responded to repeated requests for programs to be de-funded or new taxes to support this large-scale training of indeterminate length.

I am not involved enough with our government to know what programs would best be "de-funded" (maybe the money saved from State Question 1092 "Repeals sections of the Constitution relating to the Department of Public Welfare, its commission and director; grants the Legislature the authority to create and direct the administration of a department to provide for public welfare").

I am however, against the idea of any new taxation for the protection of our children. There is currently more of our tax monies directed to our schools than any other source. I do not believe that the school system is in any way wise & efficient with its funding. When 7-11 gets robbed, it doesn't raise the price of chips. It takes the necessary actions to protect itself from within its budgeted operation. Giving the government ANY opportunity for open ended taxation is a big mistake in my opinion. We're not talking about the government providing firearms, and ammunition. We're talking about City employee's training City employee's (not for profit) with the same training regiment that already exists.

you be sure to ask him how much the tac team trains on an annual basis and how much ammo they expend. Then ask him what that means for your ERT in that specific context and what he specifically recommends. Then ask yourself if you are ready to spend that time and those dollars just for your church on an on-going basis. Then ask yourself how that is done on the larger scale you proposed in your initial post in the thread.

I believe this is an extension of personal responsibility, much in the same line as your ongoing training for the Oklahoma SDA. I imagine a CLEET certified teacher would have some ongoing testing to remain certified (just like an officer does). However, since the teacher would be providing his/her own firearms & ammo all they would have to do is show up & go through the drill.

Let's don't make it "special" for some to be able to respond, let's make it normal for all who choose to do so to be able to respond. Sure, offer training but don't make it a pre-requisite for the basic human right to self-defense.

I agree with your point, but not the application. "Self-defense" is a basic human right, assuming the defense of others is an entirely different responsibility. Considering how difficult a school active shooting scenario is, I absolutely want training to be available for anyone who wants to take on such a responsibility. As it is I have a hard enough time just getting people to obey the four rules, what we're talking about here is one of the highest levels of complexity.

I am truly not trying to minimize the need or to deny your sense that something should be done. I just want to inject some political and fiscal realities into the discussion along with a consideration for simplicity rather than complexity as a better path to success. I also want to back away from the creation of another "special" group when the right to life and self-defense is universal.

You raise good points Poke, I appreciate that. Here's another good point, in the last 50+ years not a single child has died in a school fire. How much are we spending on fire hydrants, extinguishers, fire alarms, sprinklers, drills, visits from the fire dept, visits TO the fire dept, etc (don't forget those cute plastic firehats the kids get).

How much would it cost for a school to watch this 8 min video, and begin to implement it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=9zBuFQMv-Go

 

[Poke78]

First off, thanks for your effort to make a well-constructed response to my post. I will now attempt to emulate your example...

I am not involved enough with our government to know what programs would best be "de-funded" (maybe the money saved from State Question 1092 "Repeals sections of the Constitution relating to the Department of Public Welfare, its commission and director; grants the Legislature the authority to create and direct the administration of a department to provide for public welfare").

I am however, against the idea of any new taxation for the protection of our children. There is currently more of our tax monies directed to our schools than any other source. I do not believe that the school system is in any way wise & efficient with its funding. When 7-11 gets robbed, it doesn't raise the price of chips. It takes the necessary actions to protect itself from within its budgeted operation. Giving the government ANY opportunity for open ended taxation is a big mistake in my opinion. We're not talking about the government providing firearms, and ammunition. We're talking about City employee's training City employee's (not for profit) with the same training regiment that already exists.

I see we are in agreement on NOT raising taxes so that means the money or methods need to be found elsewhere. I'm also not an expert on which programs should be de-funded (it's a given that somebody's ox will be gored) but that remains the only choice if government funds are to be used without a rise in taxes. I just want to acknowledge that reality and make sure it's on the table while we're counting costs.

As to the price of chips at a convenience store, I think you are stretching to make a point. The price must cover all costs plus a profit so if costs rise in some way (and security and shrinkage are places where costs rise) then the price must increase to achieve the goals of the business.

Also, you need to gain a better understanding of the various elements of our government. School employees are just that -- they are not employed by the city. These are two different political entities with their own tax base and budgets. Nothing is done between the two without a monetary exchange...trust me on this.

See below for my response about providing firearms, ammo, etc.

I believe this is an extension of personal responsibility, much in the same line as your ongoing training for the Oklahoma SDA. I imagine a CLEET certified teacher would have some ongoing testing to remain certified (just like an officer does). However, since the teacher would be providing his/her own firearms & ammo all they would have to do is show up & go through the drill.

Sorry, making the law and policy you propose for teachers puts it in the realm of a job responsibility, IMO. Then you have to tap the public treasury for the salaries, range/instructor time, firearm, ammo, etc.

I agree with your point, but not the application. "Self-defense" is a basic human right, assuming the defense of others is an entirely different responsibility. Considering how difficult a school active shooting scenario is, I absolutely want training to be available for anyone who wants to take on such a responsibility. As it is I have a hard enough time just getting people to obey the four rules, what we're talking about here is one of the highest levels of complexity.

Exactly, it is a different responsibility and reflects my point in the previous ^^^ paragraph above about how your proposal would make it an official job requirement and all that entails. My argument for simplicity is that we realize the teacher has a right to self-defense and the class would be an extra beneficiary of not taking the teacher's rights away by creating a criminal empowerment zone, aka the "gun-free school".

You raise good points Poke, I appreciate that. Here's another good point, in the last 50+ years not a single child has died in a school fire. How much are we spending on fire hydrants, extinguishers, fire alarms, sprinklers, drills, visits from the fire dept, visits TO the fire dept, etc (don't forget those cute plastic firehats the kids get).

How much would it cost for a school to watch this 8 min video, and begin to implement it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=9zBuFQMv-Go

And you have made equally good and valid points that are worthy of discussion. Your point as regards fire safety is good; I've heard similar points made in Dave Grossman presentations. I would note that the approach to fire safety is both pro-active and reactive with tools for both provided to those most exposed to the risk. The alarms, sprinklers, building and materials codes are pro-active, designed with prevention or minimalization in mind. However, the fire extinguisher is the reactive tool for when the other approaches fail in some way and occupants need something to protect themselves and directly take on the threat. Creation of criminal empowerment zones have effectively taken away that last resort, reactive tool.

I could only make it to the 4:00 point in that video. It has some validity in some settings but I don't see the application to the recent incident, given the ages in the classroom. I had to quit as my ears were bleeding from listening to the presenter.

 

[okiebryan]

I think arming public school teachers & staff is a good idea.
My kids went/go to a private school, they can arm it they choose to.

No sir, not in Oklahoma.

TITLE 21 § 1280.1 POSSESSION OF FIREARM ON SCHOOL PROPERTY
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his or her possession on any public or private school property or while in any school bus or vehicle used by any school for transportation of students or teachers any firearm or weapon designated in Section 1272 of this title...[snip]