Yes people kill people, but do we really need easy access

My father was in school admin for close to 30 years and a principal/superintendent. He got attacked by a drug addict aunt once with a pair of scissors protecting a teacher when, as you say, he didn't have to. But, my guess is that any principal/administrator who truly cares about their kids (or staff) would throw themselves in harm's way to stop them and not think twice about it. It's just their nature.

 

I saw on the news last night that Jefferson County or Birmingham City or both were going to have law enforcement of some sort on campuses until Christmas break at least.

 

Oh yeah, I actually like Norris' idea more than my own.

 

I absolutely agree. I am not advocating that an armed anything move toward danger. I am, however, saying that nobody should be expected to do so, except law enforcement. If they call in backup and evac those around them immediately, I would say they have done their job well. If they happen upon the shooter, I'm not saying they should act to draw fire. And if the situation does not dictate such, I'm not even saying they should engage the shooter.

I'm just saying that they are the only ones that should be, to a certain degree, expected to respond to the threat. An off duty police officer, in, say, a movie theater, has no more requirement to engage an active shooter than anyone else, and would be justified in providing for as much protection of themselves, their family, and other, as the situation allows.

An on duty police officer has no requirement to respond directly to the incident, immediately, either. But there will be a public perception that they should at least make an attempt. Using their best judgment, their response can be correct, even if they never draw or make an attempt to find the shooter.

 

Float, protocol varies, but the elimination of the threat is the immediate response. Its not first aid, its not evacuation, it is elimination.

 

I agree that many will try to take charge of the situation. They are leaders of their campus. But we should not advocate that they be pressured into making a response, simply for the sake of making a response. You put a firearm in the principal's office, and train them how to use it, and everyone, parents included, are aware that they are armed... you have subconsciously told them that you expect them to respond with that weapon. And I think most would take it that they must respond.

I am all for giving them a fair chance to respond somewhat equally. Better they are armed against a shooter than not armed. But give them that option, don't try to force that option upon them. And you give them that option by allowing them to be armed, not requiring anyone, even a volunteer, to be armed, or have access to a weapon.

 

I understand that, fully. And I have full confidence that protocol would be followed, if that were the case. I think that is the case on our campus. But there is still no protection requirement, according to the Supreme Court, I believe.

That said, I fully expect the first responder to do exactly that, however, they will do so using their best judgment and training, whether it breaks protocol or not.

 

well the elementary school I passed this morning had two cops guarding the front door

 

My wife is a 3rd grade teacher and said that they will now have a cop guarding the front door. Kind of sad really. I was just getting out of HS when it ended, but I miss the 20th century.

(The thing is, every kid in the school knows the code for all of the other doors.)

 

Typical response, whether or not it is standard will be the question.

 

My roommate's BF is loading up on assault rifles

 

why?

 

Wouldnt be surprised to see a in name only gun ban bill with limited funding for community resource officers .

 

This is the same fear that fueled the increase when Obama was first elected.

 

People are idiots.

 

The clinton days people lived in fear of door to door gun checks.

I had redneck friends and their family talking about burrying their arms in pvc pipe in the ground so metal detectors would not find them.

 

I saw an interview last night with the school nurse. She locked herself in a closet and would not come out until law enforcement found her and escorted her out 4 hours after the shooting stopped (she heard it).

Not judging her because people respond differently but wouldn’t you think she would have come out on her own long before 4 hours. She is a nurse, wouldn’t you think her instinct is to administer care?

 

Fear is powerful, each persons survival instinct is different.

 

I thought this too. I found it interesting because she didn't seem to have any shame about it either.

 

What is interesting?

The lack of will to act?