At yesterday's District 31 crackerbarrel, GOP Rep. Tim Johns explained his vote against House Bill 1087, the school gunslinger bill, in part by saying that no one offered testimony that South Dakota's schools are unsafe.
Quite the contrary, the House Education Committee heard evidence that we teachers and students face less danger from deranged school shooters than we do from God Almighty:
Rob Munson, executive director of the School Administrators Association, said people become teachers and administrators because they want to educate children, not serve as armed guards. He said his military service in the Middle East taught him the importance of knowing when to pull the trigger and when to hold fire. Teachers are not trained or prepared to make those decisions, he said.
A person has a one in a million chance of being struck by lightning on any given day, but there's only a one in 3 million chance a school will be attacked on that day, Munson said.
"Schools are safe environments. Introducing weapons into that school environment changes that whole factor," Munson said [emphasis mine; "SD House Panel Approves Bill on Arming Teachers," AP via Black Hills Pioneer, 2013.01.25].
Funny: I haven't heard any legislator propose funding a refit of all public school buildings to replace metal pipes with non-conductive PVC.
Lightning's bad enough; God's also packing asteroids. Time for some anti-meteor missiles on our schools.
Is Rob Munson saying that 7,000 people per day are struck by lightning? That cannot be true.
No, he's not saying that. He's saying there's more danger of being hit by lightning than of being caught in a school shooting. But feel free to elaborate on your numbers.
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
I'm more "nervous" to get in my car and/or motorcycle and head out on the roadways! And I consider the roadways pretty darn safe, and am glad we as a state/country agree to proactively make the roadways safer...doing things such as driving laws, seat belt useage, driver training, can't drive when you are under the influence, (and more in the hopper - texting while driving, speeding, etc)
this looking for the "boogeyman" (thank you for that Cory, very appropriate) is JUST a reason to promote gun slinging. It is just irresponsible, reckless and silly - not based on facts. People and their fetish-ism of guns, is very tunnel visioned and not looking at the big picture.
And before Steve S. gets all heated that I want to destroy the Second Amendment....let me head that one off. I own guns, I believe in the Second Amendment (in how it was written and that it should evolve based on current time), and I've seen what guns do to people (retired law enforcement). I believe in proactive solutions (problem solving, de-escalation, conflict management, etc). Guns should be the last solution - especially in a school setting.
I have a problem with simplistic risk comparisons. They are usually used to pooh-pooh environmental regulation, or reasonable regulation of guns.
Risk assessment should be more rigorous. Who is taking the risk and who is accepting the consequences for the risk taken is a critical factor to consider. Most people are fine taking risks for themselves that they wouldn't take if their children were involved. That's why schools generally error on the side of increased security and decreased risk as provided by risk assessment experts. As a result we have single door access, resource personnel, gun free zones, etc. These are the state of the art in addressing risks.
In most risk assessment you get to the point of assessing various levels of risk coming from different directions. In many instances risks tradeoff. For example, is the risk of introducing guns into schools to increase security more than the risk of someone coming into the school with guns for evil intent? What is the risk that a gun from an armed guard or a 5'2" teacher might be swiped and used by a student intent on doing harm?
Then there is the idea of risks not averted by placing too much emphasis on averting infinitesimal risks. For example, if putting armed guards in schools means we reduce Medicaid, we probably actually increase risk of death to the population.
So the cost effective solution is to put lightning rods on the schools rather than to put guns into schools.
Even if simplistic, Rob Munson appears to be the only person in the room doing a risk comparison. I would love to see a deep cost comparison like you propose, Donald. We don't even have to reach out to look at trade-offs with Medicaid or highway funding. I'd be happy just to look at the trade-off between guns, metal detectors, heavy doors, etc. with educational resources, employee benefits, course offerings, counseling services, and conflict resolution training.
(Speaking of heavy doors, I've never been in a school shooting or fire, but I did get whacked in the head once by an automatically closing door. Hurt like a son of a gun, and probably kept me from paying attention to in-service training, at least for a few minutes.)
At the Sioux Falls cracker barrel Senator Mark Johnston spoke in favor of doing a risk assessment. He's one of the more thoughtful and less dogmatic of them in Pierre.
Apparently more Americans are getting shot, but fewer are dying because our hospitals are getting better at treating gunshot wounds. I'd rather not give them more practice with the impacts of HB 1087.
Here's a hopeful story from a blue state:
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_22453233
Grrrrr. Who can’t you get this right, folks? A teacher is the very very last possible defense between a rampaging, half crazed, person with the intent on killing and my daughter. If a situation escalates to this point, that the teacher is face to face with this person, there is no room de-escalation, negotiations, or any other way out. Someone is going to get shot, you get to choose who, the teacher (and my daughter) or the other person, who is on a murderous rampage.
I going to be honest, I would prefer these types of situations are resolved long before the first round is even chambered. Before they get to the school, talk them down; get them professional help, whatever it takes. Do not let them in the school with a gun; do not let them fire one round. Once that first round is fired, the time for talk is over.
We need better mental health facilities. We need better parenting. We need to recognize the police as our partner, not just someone who hand out tickets. We need to look at the media coverage, and video games. We need better firearm education and training. There is so much more that we should be focusing on and yet the only thing that people see is a gun in the classroom.
Is your daughter unacceptably unsafe in school right now without teachers packing (and if so, why do you send her)? Do you let your daughter go out on the playground where any shooter could get her from the road without coming on school property? Do and/or your spouse constantly carry a weapon to protect your daughter whenever one of you is with her? Do you only send her to her friends' homes where the parents are armed?
South Dakota is not Syria, Sudan or Somalia where being killed is a daily concern, is it? Must we militarize or die? Just how serious is this threat?
MC, good to hear from you again. I have a little girl, too. I face the same question about her daily safety that you do.
Let me reformulate R's question: Suppose you moved out here to Spearfish, and your daughter signed up for my French class. You come up to my classroom before school starts and ask me to ensure your daughter's safety by carrying a firearm in my classroom. I decline, citing my belief that you overestimate the danger of a crazed gunman attacking our school and underestimate the danger of accidental discharge, firearm misuse, and creation of an atmosphere of fear.
How do you respond to me, your daughter's teacher, declining to perform what you think is a vital duty? Do you pull your daughter from my French class? Do you report me to the principal and push the school board to fire me for endangering children? What concrete action do you take against a teacher like me?
First, if you believe that you carrying a firearm will cause undue distraction, or if you feel unsafe carrying a firearm; Then don’t. I really don’t want to force you to do something that you are that uncomfortable doing. Teaching French is your first job. Being my daughter protector is a secondary function. Do your first job first, and if you have time, skill and training, the second.
Second I checked, Spearfish has a resource officer (not all schools in South Dakota has one) I hope they would take action against such an aggressor. If there wasn’t one, I hope someone in the school would be trained and armed.
When it comes to my daughter’s safety, I am extremely vigilant (to put it lightly). Do I carry a gun where she goes? No, only because many of the places she wants to go don’t allow open carry , Otherwise, there is a firearm close by, and a few other toys ;)
I'll try to explain what I don't get.
First, I hope and pray that if an armed intruder comes into the classroom, I will be able to react quickly enough to do something to protect the kids. Only someone with divine omniscience knows how anyone will react in those situations. Further, last September, in New York City, trained police officers shot a man who had murdered another person near the Empire State Building. They also wounded a number of bystanders. Increasing the number of guns being shot increases the risk of innocents being hurt. I don’t have divine omniscience, and I don’t want to accidentally shoot a student.
Having teachers carry concealed weapons will do little to stop those who meticulously plan their attacks with the intention of killing themselves; Columbine would have been a far more deadly event if the murderers’ bombs had detonated. Concealed weapons won’t protect students from bombs. The shooters in Arkansas in the late 1990s emptied the school by pulling a fire alarm and shooting students and teachers from a distance. I doubt that handguns would have changed the outcome of that situation.
I turn my back on students every class period. I write on the board. I stand by students’ desks to help with daily work. Any student wearing a hooded sweatshirt can take a gun from the pocket and shoot me as my back is turned. They can then turn the weapon on their classmates. Those who have the patience and planning skills of the Columbine and Arkansas shooters will certainly be willing to wait for that opportunity. They will be also be careful enough to shoot those they believe most likely to be carrying concealed weapons first. I still plan to turn my back on students tomorrow even though many of them will be wearing hoodies.
In addition, I also don’t see how a group of armed teachers are going to be able to stop someone willing to act as a suicide bomber. If the military can’t do it, I doubt civilians can.
There’s little doubt that all school shooters are prompted to act by demons that we cannot fathom, but not all of them act with the rage and irrationality that Lanza did. Cases like Sandy Hook make bad law because rational people attempt to stop the irrational and unpredictable. No one has been able to do that successfully throughout human history.
LK, There is no way to stop every incident. You don't have to make it easy for them.
Mike, I'm not sure you answered my question. If your daughter's safety is such a moral imperative (and I agree it is, just like my daughter's), then how can you let me off the hook for not taking the action you say is essential for protecting her from the threat you see in school shooters? How can you let me say, "Don't worry: if a bad guy comes, I'll lock the door, talk him down, or just rush him"? Are my security plans as effective or at least as acceptable as carrying a gun? If so, then why incur the added risk of a firearm in my classroom?
I really like LK's analysis: a firearm gives us very little advantage against the kinds of school shootings we fear. That diminishing advantage does not balance the clear increased risks of this security measure.
Cory, let me see if I can make sense here. Whatever defense you use, it has to work in concert with the rest of the school as well local law enforcement. Each school is different, and has different security needs. I have to evaluate the entire situation. then make a decision what action to take if any.
If after being trained you believe you can not carry a gun safely, then don't.
Permit me to ask, then, MC: despite your security concerns, if my fellow educators and I all tell you that we don't want to have guns in our school for any reason, will you accept that professional judgment and feel comfortable sending your daughter to our school, or will you move your daughter to another school where she will enjoy armed protection from the threats you see?
Also, consider this twist on your statement: I have handled firearms safely in the past (although that one duck and a couple pheasants would contend otherwise). I would handle firearms with extreme caution around children in any setting. Training would help be do that even better. However, what if I told you that, even if I passed police- or military-quality firearms training with flying colors, even if I believed I could carry a gun more safely than anyone else on my school staff, I would still refuse on ethical and practical grounds to carry a gun in school?
(I know, MC, it probably sounds like I'm trying to box you in. No games, I promise: I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what other parents might expect me to do as the professional in charge of their children each day. I need to know if being a responsible teacher, in the eyes of parents, means I should carry a gun to work.)
If there is a confirmed (by law enforcement) creditable threat to my daughter's safety. If the school board, working with law enforcement come up with a plan to protect all the students that included arming, you as a French teacher, and you refused based on ethical grounds, then yes, I would pull my daughter out of school and either enroll her in another school that either a less of a threat or increased security or even home schooling.
To me the largest part of this is the school board working with the police or the sheriff to identify a specific threat and come up with a workable plan should that threat to the school becomes real. The second is a gun in the classroom is a small part of a much larger plan, that includes pepper spray, locked down, etc.
What happens when an armed teacher has a bad day and loses control?
If someone has a beef with a school or a church where life-altering abuse took place, little will deter a sociopath seeking retribution.
Drones are the future because they offer solutions to alerting soft targets of an impending attack long before a band teacher can pull up against a threat.
If the US military can teach hardened killers to embrace diversity in their ranks perhaps schools could end the fear-based bullying that fosters pathological thoughts in young men.
"“If there is somebody there with a gun that is not identified as a police officer, they’re at a high risk of being shot,” said Pete Blair, director of research for the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center. “That’s just the reality of the situation and danger of the scenario that the police officers are in.”"
http://kut.org/2013/01/expert-arming-teachers-could-make-them-targets-2/
Colorado did the right thing today.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/school-employees-could-carry-concealed-weapons-on-campus-under-colorado-senate-bill
So MC, back to your original fear: is there a confirmed, creditable threat? I mean, if you show me your daughter has a violent ex-boyfriend (sorry, projecting to high school age) or a stalker who's made threats against her, that's one thing... though even there, I might question whether we allow an armed, uniformed police officer to follow her around in my classroom or if we just station him at the only open entrance point of the school (there is only one unlocked door at Spearfish HS during most of the school day).
But where is the confirmed, creditable threat that motivates HB 1087?
Each School, each threat, each situation is different. In South Dakota, we are exceptionally safe. Our police are not picking up bodies off the playground every other day. We can generally walk (or slide) down the street at night without worry that we will be assulted. I know most of my nighbors, I know who has a firearm (almost everyone) and who doesn't (one person, but she does have a bow and is pretty good with it) The only 'gang' problem we have is a flock of guinea hens running around. There isn't that much of a threat, thus a techer carrying a handgun into a school is kind of silly.
If we lived in a urban area, Where playgrounds become battle grounds for gang wars at night. Where walking at night, could be dangerous. When you have no idea who your nieghbors are, because they change more often than you do your socks. Where gangs are better manned and armed than the police, then yes I expect you will carry a handgun, even into the school.
The response must be balanced to the threat.
Mr. Black asked what is to prevent a teacher who is having a bad day from going on a shooting spree? What is preventing a human, underpaid, police officer (who is armed) and faced with awesome responsbility from doing the same?
Sorry Cory, I was typing when you posted.
HB 1087 just gives a school board the ability to train and arm teachers or staff should the need arise. That's it. I expect if passed very few teachers will be allowed to arm themselves.
If a uniformed armed guard at the front door, or even armed front office person is all it take to address the threat, great. The response must match the threat.
If we are exceptionally safe, if our response should be balanced to what you admit is such a miniscule threat, then why should we take the extraoirdinary measure of allowing any school board in this exceptionally safe place to put guns in their classrooms?
MC, I'm telling you this: an armed guard at the front door is more than enough to address the threat... and I'm queasy about even that much deadly force in our schools. Putting guns in our schools is like putting on a suit of armor or full football pads and helmet to drive your car. Sure, it reduces the chance of harm from certain accidents, but it also makes it unworkably difficult to get in and out of the car, and it makes it harder to move and look around for hazards while behind the wheel. The one-in-a-million protection is outweighed by the daily hindrance and harm.
We just can't live in this much fear.
Red state nut race intensifies:
http://helenavigilante.com/archives/9059
Today, your school is safe. Can you say that about tomorrow, next week, next month? We know that your current situation can change, and can change very quickly. This would give your school board one more tool they can use to meet that situation.
I don't like the idea of guns in the school either, or even closing and locking the doors. any parent, any vistor should be able to stop in sit in through one of your lessons at any time. However, we live in the real world. There are people who want to kill children, kill teachers, or just plain kill.
Are you prepare to deal with that?
mc, you ask if we're prepared to deal with that?
Guessing you are missing the point being made nationwide for more extensive background checks, limiting the amount of lead a crazy person can spray at one time on a battlefield of their choosing that just happens to include little children, and of course, getting rid of assault weapons.
Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but isn't that "dealing" with it?
Did I mention that trained police officers only hit their target 17% of the time in live fire situations? Now I'm no math teacher, but that means 83% of those shots are hitting kids or going through walls. You know, hitting the kids and teachers hiding from the bad guy.
If the bad guy, exercising his 2nd Amendment rights is going to bring an assault weapon into school, shouldn't we at least have him out gunned? Fully automatic? 200 shot clips? Hollow point 50 caliber?
Wait, maybe bullet proof vests or full body armor for all the kids. We could have them made in school colors and have bake sales to pay for them. (Under Armor?...added bonus is that could even be a fashion statement normally reserved for jocks with rich parents.)
That way none of the people who heckled the father of a slain Newtown child would have their "rights infringed."
After reading the bill I couldn't tell if there was any requirements of marksmanship, mental stability etc. that a "local control" entity would have to possess in order to protect the kids under their new state rules. So if the NRA wanted to buy a school board election, could just anyone with a membership card qualify? Nice.
But I'm willing to listen if you think arming up Mrs. Johnson in her 1st grade class is a good plan for the kids.
An old neighbor of ours used to tell the kids that he had a tiger whistle that would keep tigers away. Every time he blew it he would say..."see, no tigers." He was very passionate about keeping his right to that whistle.
You're right, MC. We can't predict the future. Danger exists, and it usually catches us by surprise.
But I face that danger every day, and I don't feel compelled to bring a gun to address that danger. So I must ask again: am I an irresponsible teacher for not facing that danger with a firearm?
I like Jana's point: if we accept that this danger is real, we shouldn't stop at the token presence of some Second Amendment devoté who gets to get his rocks off by walking around the school with a pistol playing "sentinel" (and deep down, this is what these gun advocates want, to walk around feeling really important with their guns). If the threat is as grave as HB 1087's proponents want us to believe (and it's not, not, not!), then I don't want just another tool on the table. I want the biggest damn gun that I can shoulder and fire. I want everyone in my classroom armed. I want three people with their big rifles shouldered and aimed at the access points to my room (one door, two windows) at all times. If we're arming for the worst attack possible, shouldn't we be serious about it?