Ill weigh in cautiously on the agree side. Im basing my response on the premise that with rights come responsibilities. This is evident in the language of the 2nd Amendment preface of a well regulated militia. To me that means that we should all be both skilled and safe in exercising this right. Nowhere should this right be more well regulated than working with other peoples children while armed. Consider this: When CCW incidents like Kenneth Gumm, James Ersland and George Zimmerman happen, even pro-gun people groan and wish theyd been better trained or prepared for the situation. Now imagine a negative event where a school employees gun is involved. It would only take one bad scenario to ruin it for everyone.
Based on this information, I think armed school employees should be required to have rigorous training on use of force before carrying. They need classroom training on use of force law, case studies and legal aftermath. They need advanced training on proper carry and safe storage. They need simulated and live fire in dynamic, scenario based skills drills, to go along with minimum qualification standards. Training should cover improvised tactical positions, teamwork and sector management. They also need training on OPSEC and PERSEC. They need training on recognizing combative behaviors, diffusing and mitigating explosive encounters, and managing unknown contacts. Why? Because effective security is far more than the presence of a gun. Its a comprehensive, layered system of defensive posture. The more layered and proactive it is, the more effective it is. It also reduces the likelihood of negative outcomes.
For instance, school children are curious and a gun is an attractive nuisance. Further, why bring a gun to school if you can just get the teachers gun? The threat vector may be an adult or one of the kids in the school. For these reasons, its critical that a gun toters cover be maintained. No one outside the administration and law enforcement should know who is armed. Further, this is a safety measure for the gun toter. They cant be specifically targeted if the threat doesnt know who they are. Additionally, its a sound security practice to never divulge just how many plain clothes security agents you have at any given time. Let the threats imagination take over there. Is it two? Ten? Twenty? When they have no idea, its a psychological force multiplier.
Additional security measures, such as randomized uniformed security patrols, hardened exterior facades, reinforced classroom doors with locking mechanisms, 3M security film on glass to resist breach attempts and manage glass fragmentation from gunfire, explosives and tornados, etc. Each school should undergo an all hazards risk assessment to identify and mitigate specific vulnerabilities. If a layered comprehensive approach is utilized, effective security with minimal risk is possible. Anything less is just window dressing.
Based on this information, I think armed school employees should be required to have rigorous training on use of force before carrying. They need classroom training on use of force law, case studies and legal aftermath. They need advanced training on proper carry and safe storage. They need simulated and live fire in dynamic, scenario based skills drills, to go along with minimum qualification standards. Training should cover improvised tactical positions, teamwork and sector management. They also need training on OPSEC and PERSEC. They need training on recognizing combative behaviors, diffusing and mitigating explosive encounters, and managing unknown contacts. Why? Because effective security is far more than the presence of a gun. Its a comprehensive, layered system of defensive posture. The more layered and proactive it is, the more effective it is. It also reduces the likelihood of negative outcomes.
For instance, school children are curious and a gun is an attractive nuisance. Further, why bring a gun to school if you can just get the teachers gun? The threat vector may be an adult or one of the kids in the school. For these reasons, its critical that a gun toters cover be maintained. No one outside the administration and law enforcement should know who is armed. Further, this is a safety measure for the gun toter. They cant be specifically targeted if the threat doesnt know who they are. Additionally, its a sound security practice to never divulge just how many plain clothes security agents you have at any given time. Let the threats imagination take over there. Is it two? Ten? Twenty? When they have no idea, its a psychological force multiplier.
Additional security measures, such as randomized uniformed security patrols, hardened exterior facades, reinforced classroom doors with locking mechanisms, 3M security film on glass to resist breach attempts and manage glass fragmentation from gunfire, explosives and tornados, etc. Each school should undergo an all hazards risk assessment to identify and mitigate specific vulnerabilities. If a layered comprehensive approach is utilized, effective security with minimal risk is possible. Anything less is just window dressing.
