20 Stabbed at Pittsburgh area high school

[armywife13]

So what if the armed guard at school isn't "right nearby" to stop a shooter. Armed guards and combat evasion training for every kid in school?

Lots of veterans are returning from military service and need jobs. Employ them as school guards.

With the high rate of PTSD and the crappy metal health care they get?

Um. HELL NO. I can't think of a worse combination.

Wow. Just....wow.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, and this is a perfect example of why the issue of random acts of violence deserves so much more than a discussion about gun control…. People use guns, knives, bombs, even air planes to cause harm and yet the main focus has been gun control and/or banning guns. Sadly, It's a crazy world we live in and stories like these are terribly upsetting

You are so right, momhappy. This was my exact thought upon hearing about this... I hope everyone survives. What is wrong with people these days??!!

Haven't read all the posts, but I agree because this ALL is the same problem as all the other horrible episodes...

it is a MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS and not about weapons!!!!! Normal people who carry pocket knives (or have knives in their kitchen) or enjoy target shooting as a hobby don't go around killing people!!!! Gosh!!!

 

[Maria D]

So what if the armed guard at school isn't "right nearby" to stop a shooter. Armed guards and combat evasion training for every kid in school?

Lots of veterans are returning from military service and need jobs. Employ them as school guards.

With the high rate of PTSD and the crappy metal health care they get?

Um. HELL NO. I can't think of a worse combination.

Wow. Just....wow.

I just want to clarify my thoughts when I wrote earlier that the last thing I wanted at the school I work at is to have armed guards. My school has a School Resource Officer (SRO) who wears a bullet-proof vest and carries a gun. I am very happy we have an SRO and believe it does very much add to the safety of the school - but not just because there's a highly trained armed person in the building. Our SRO gives us extra eyes and ears and in many cases, extra heart. He's not teaching class (like teachers) or dealing with discipline and logistics (like administrators). This frees him up to get to know students both individually and in groups. He's out and about in the building but he's also in his office listening to kids. It's the relationships he's able to form, and not just the gun in his holster, that makes me feel safer in our building. If the stereotypical young white mentally ill male with a gun were to gain entry into our building, there's an excellent chance someone would get hurt before the SRO could get to it. But - there's a much better chance that our SRO would know something about a dangerous kid BEFORE anything happened and could be proactive about it. In fact, this happens often at my school. I'm not saying things on the scale of Newtown are routinely prevented. I'm talking about the less sensational issues like personal vendettas among students that could lead to violence.

When I hear "armed guards" I picture uniformed people standing at attention at entry points giving the place a police-state vibe. That's what I would not want. Now if we could hire military vets to perform the same role as our SRO - I'd be all for it!

 

[ksinger]

So what if the armed guard at school isn't "right nearby" to stop a shooter. Armed guards and combat evasion training for every kid in school?

Lots of veterans are returning from military service and need jobs. Employ them as school guards.

With the high rate of PTSD and the crappy metal health care they get?

Um. HELL NO. I can't think of a worse combination.

Wow. Just....wow.

I just want to clarify my thoughts when I wrote earlier that the last thing I wanted at the school I work at is to have armed guards. My school has a School Resource Officer (SRO) who wears a bullet-proof vest and carries a gun. I am very happy we have an SRO and believe it does very much add to the safety of the school - but not just because there's a highly trained armed person in the building. Our SRO gives us extra eyes and ears and in many cases, extra heart. He's not teaching class (like teachers) or dealing with discipline and logistics (like administrators). This frees him up to get to know students both individually and in groups. He's out and about in the building but he's also in his office listening to kids. It's the relationships he's able to form, and not just the gun in his holster, that makes me feel safer in our building. If the stereotypical young white mentally ill male with a gun were to gain entry into our building, there's an excellent chance someone would get hurt before the SRO could get to it. But - there's a much better chance that our SRO would know something about a dangerous kid BEFORE anything happened and could be proactive about it. In fact, this happens often at my school. I'm not saying things on the scale of Newtown are routinely prevented. I'm talking about the less sensational issues like personal vendettas among students that could lead to violence.

When I hear "armed guards" I picture uniformed people standing at attention at entry points giving the place a police-state vibe. That's what I would not want. Now if we could hire military vets to perform the same role as our SRO - I'd be all for it!

Yes! This is EXACTLY what my husband says! He says the one of the best school cops they ever had was a 6' 4" black officer who could almost blend into the woodwork when he wanted to, and yet could get the kids - especially the girls - to tell him all the stuff that was going down. His network of relationships with student helped him avert many incidents. His strength was not his gun, it was his eyes and his information. And my husband's response to the suggestion of military-trained guards in the schools was also pretty much, uh, NO. Their training is too different. Just because they know how to carry and wield a gun does not mean they are suitable candidates for a school setting. They are not trained in dealing with civilians, or especially, kids. They are not crime-prevention people, they are trained as enforcers. They don't have training in domestic intelligence collection and they don't have access to the police intelligence network or info about gangs. In fact, by having that local police officer in the school taking pictures of gang graffiti, the local police were able to solve 25 outstanding complaints of gang break-ins and thefts, not to mention the other "personal vendettas" he averted. No hired gun-carrier is going to be able to do that.

 

[momhappy]

Well, we really ARE worried about a tornado coming through and killing us all, but then consider where I live.

And you say that tongue in cheek, but seriously, teacher as an aggregate don't really have the mental make-up to carry, and most of them don't WANT to. My husband shudders at the thought. I remember when the buzz to arm teachers hit the airwaves, my husband's comment on that, I found amusing. He was responding to the topic in a forum he frequents. He said given his experience in both gun culture and education, that was the stupidest idea since abstinence only.

Ksinger, I was precisely thinking of you as I wrote about tornado threats! Also, that young woman who defended herself and her baby was from Oklahoma. Oklahomans are amazingly tough and resilient.

Momhappy, we could very well be reading the articles that interest us and come away with different takes on the situation. However, a study done by an organization that uses facts, not anecdotes, concludes “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

Imagine if more people died in the process of making buildings earthquake proof than died in earthquakes. Or more children died/were injured from the implementation of carseats than were saved by them. As I see it, that's what having guns in the home for self-protection is analogous to.

I honestly think we, as a society, accept that gun accidents will happen in the same way society used to accept that driving while intoxicated accidents would happen. If twenty children are killed or injured in separate gun accidents next month (and they most certainly will) we accept that as the price to pay for "freedom" and the second amendment.

I'm not reading only the articles that interest me - the whole topic is of interest to me, so I don't pick and choose only those articles/stories that support my personal beliefs. I have read plenty of articles on gun control/gun violence/gun deaths, just as I have read plenty of articles on responsible gun ownership/gun use/CC, etc. What I meant was that people can pick and choose what they post. If you want to post an article on gun control, those articles are redly available. Likewise, if I want to post an article on how a responsible citizen with a CCP successfully protected themselves (and/or others) with a firearm, those types of stories are readily available too.

 

[TC1987]

Yes! This is EXACTLY what my husband says! He says the one of the best school cops they ever had was a 6' 4" black officer who could almost blend into the woodwork when he wanted to, and yet could get the kids - especially the girls - to tell him all the stuff that was going down. His network of relationships with student helped him avert many incidents. His strength was not his gun, it was his eyes and his information. And my husband's response to the suggestion of military-trained guards in the schools was also pretty much, uh, NO. Their training is too different. Just because they know how to carry and wield a gun does not mean they are suitable candidates for a school setting. They are not trained in dealing with civilians, or especially, kids. They are not crime-prevention people, they are trained as enforcers. They don't have training in domestic intelligence collection and they don't have access to the police intelligence network or info about gangs. In fact, by having that local police officer in the school taking pictures of gang graffiti, the local police were able to solve 25 outstanding complaints of gang break-ins and thefts, not to mention the other "personal vendettas" he averted. No hired gun-carrier is going to be able to do that.

Oh, so the veterans can never, ever be additionally trained to do a different job, ever? They should be forever kept away from police work, civilians, children, crime-prevention? There are no military personnel who ever did anything other than kill the enemy, and all veterans are all alike and thus unfit for any civilian job, especially involving (gasp) children. Just asking.

I'll say what I meant in the first place: If your precious little snowflake kid goes around killing people, then I think that kid ought to just be planted in the ground right then and there, because hey, life is full of disappointments and people will treat you ways that you don't want to be treated, and sometimes it's very unfair. BUT IT'S NEVER ACCEPTABLE OR NORMAL OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN ____DEVIATE AND WEAK____ TO GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE.

eta: I may have said it earlier, but the Pittsburgh area schools seem to have a huge amount of kids physically fighting kids. I am not sure why. I grew up in a more rural community north of Pittsburgh, and went to the college-track high school, and I can count on one hand w/ fingers left over the number of fights I saw in 12 years. But Pittsburgh men have told me countless times about the fist fights they got into at school. And how, if they won one round, "then everyone wanted to fight me." I don't know what their problem is down there, but there seems to be a tendency to escalate schoolyard conflicts into something physical. There are threads on other boards discussing this and shooter and beatings incidents, and lots of people affiliated with the schools have said the "fight club" stuff goes on all the time, and that kids are busted all the time from videos they post on Facebook and YouTube. Apparently these kids just lack the maturity to walk away from a taunt or insult?

 

[Indylady]

Yes! This is EXACTLY what my husband says! He says the one of the best school cops they ever had was a 6' 4" black officer who could almost blend into the woodwork when he wanted to, and yet could get the kids - especially the girls - to tell him all the stuff that was going down. His network of relationships with student helped him avert many incidents. His strength was not his gun, it was his eyes and his information. And my husband's response to the suggestion of military-trained guards in the schools was also pretty much, uh, NO. Their training is too different. Just because they know how to carry and wield a gun does not mean they are suitable candidates for a school setting. They are not trained in dealing with civilians, or especially, kids. They are not crime-prevention people, they are trained as enforcers. They don't have training in domestic intelligence collection and they don't have access to the police intelligence network or info about gangs. In fact, by having that local police officer in the school taking pictures of gang graffiti, the local police were able to solve 25 outstanding complaints of gang break-ins and thefts, not to mention the other "personal vendettas" he averted. No hired gun-carrier is going to be able to do that.

Oh, so the veterans can never, ever be additionally trained to do a different job, ever? They should be forever kept away from police work, civilians, children, crime-prevention? There are no military personnel who ever did anything other than kill the enemy, and all veterans are all alike and thus unfit for any civilian job, especially involving (gasp) children. Just asking.

I'll say what I meant in the first place: If your precious little snowflake kid goes around killing people, then I think that kid ought to just be planted in the ground right then and there, because hey, life is full of disappointments and people will treat you ways that you don't want to be treated, and sometimes it's very unfair. BUT IT'S NEVER ACCEPTABLE OR NORMAL OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN ____DEVIATE AND WEAK____ TO GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE.

eta: I may have said it earlier, but the Pittsburgh area schools seem to have a huge amount of kids physically fighting kids. I am not sure why. I grew up in a more rural community north of Pittsburgh, and went to the college-track high school, and I can count on one hand w/ fingers left over the number of fights I saw in 12 years. But Pittsburgh men have told me countless times about the fist fights they got into at school. And how, if they won one round, "then everyone wanted to fight me." I don't know what their problem is down there, but there seems to be a tendency to escalate schoolyard conflicts into something physical. There are threads on other boards discussing this and shooter and beatings incidents, and lots of people affiliated with the schools have said the "fight club" stuff goes on all the time, and that kids are busted all the time from videos they post on Facebook and YouTube. Apparently these kids just lack the maturity to walk away from a taunt or insult?

No one said that. Maria only said that military trained guards should not be used as an armed school guard; the argument is that the two jobs should not be deemed inter-changable, because the purpose and training behind militaristic uses of force and guarding a school are quite different. I generally tend to agree with Maria; I would not give school guard training to the troops, and I wouldn't give military training to a school guard.

 

[ksinger]

Yes! This is EXACTLY what my husband says! He says the one of the best school cops they ever had was a 6' 4" black officer who could almost blend into the woodwork when he wanted to, and yet could get the kids - especially the girls - to tell him all the stuff that was going down. His network of relationships with student helped him avert many incidents. His strength was not his gun, it was his eyes and his information. And my husband's response to the suggestion of military-trained guards in the schools was also pretty much, uh, NO. Their training is too different. Just because they know how to carry and wield a gun does not mean they are suitable candidates for a school setting. They are not trained in dealing with civilians, or especially, kids. They are not crime-prevention people, they are trained as enforcers. They don't have training in domestic intelligence collection and they don't have access to the police intelligence network or info about gangs. In fact, by having that local police officer in the school taking pictures of gang graffiti, the local police were able to solve 25 outstanding complaints of gang break-ins and thefts, not to mention the other "personal vendettas" he averted. No hired gun-carrier is going to be able to do that.

Oh, so the veterans can never, ever be additionally trained to do a different job, ever? They should be forever kept away from police work, civilians, children, crime-prevention? There are no military personnel who ever did anything other than kill the enemy, and all veterans are all alike and thus unfit for any civilian job, especially involving (gasp) children. Just asking.

I'll say what I meant in the first place: If your precious little snowflake kid goes around killing people, then I think that kid ought to just be planted in the ground right then and there, because hey, life is full of disappointments and people will treat you ways that you don't want to be treated, and sometimes it's very unfair. BUT IT'S NEVER ACCEPTABLE OR NORMAL OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN ____DEVIATE AND WEAK____ TO GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE.

eta: I may have said it earlier, but the Pittsburgh area schools seem to have a huge amount of kids physically fighting kids. I am not sure why. I grew up in a more rural community north of Pittsburgh, and went to the college-track high school, and I can count on one hand w/ fingers left over the number of fights I saw in 12 years. But Pittsburgh men have told me countless times about the fist fights they got into at school. And how, if they won one round, "then everyone wanted to fight me." I don't know what their problem is down there, but there seems to be a tendency to escalate schoolyard conflicts into something physical. There are threads on other boards discussing this and shooter and beatings incidents, and lots of people affiliated with the schools have said the "fight club" stuff goes on all the time, and that kids are busted all the time from videos they post on Facebook and YouTube. Apparently these kids just lack the maturity to walk away from a taunt or insult?

If those former soldiers have been deemed a good fit for the local police department and been hired and trained as full-fledged cops doing all that cops do, not just guarding schools, then I will defer the police department's assessment of their fitness. But hiring former soldiers to guard schools simply BECAUSE they were soldiers is a bad idea. Here is a very reasoned and non-hysterical piece about the differences in military and police mindsets.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/asking-our-soldiers-to-do-police-work-why-it-can-lead-to-disaster/251380/

It's a moot point anyway, many schools and communities are either increasingly unable, or unwilling to pay even ONE cop's salary, let alone the several it would take to man all the doors at all the schools in the district, etc. Which of course, leads us back to grabbing a low-bid contract with Joe Bob's Security, who likely then pays scab wages to the people purporting to be the best at guarding your children.

 

[momhappy]

^Yes, definitely a moot point. Most school budgets are so darn tight as it is, let alone paying for security of some sort. There have been years when my elementary school-age kids don't have spanish class because it's been cut out of the budget for a year, so I can't imagine where funding for guards/security would come from.

 

[Maria D]

^Yes, definitely a moot point. Most school budgets are so darn tight as it is, let alone paying for security of some sort. There have been years when my elementary school-age kids don't have spanish class because it's been cut out of the budget for a year, so I can't imagine where funding for guards/security would come from.

Yeah, the budget is tight tight tight when it comes to spending it on things that directly affect students - but there's always money for yet another administrative position or, increasingly, private consultants to do who-knows-what....

Hmmm, do I sound bitter??

 

[ksinger]

^Yes, definitely a moot point. Most school budgets are so darn tight as it is, let alone paying for security of some sort. There have been years when my elementary school-age kids don't have spanish class because it's been cut out of the budget for a year, so I can't imagine where funding for guards/security would come from.

Yeah, the budget is tight tight tight when it comes to spending it on things that directly affect students - but there's always money for yet another administrative position or, increasingly, private consultants to do who-knows-what....

Hmmm, do I sound bitter??

Ah yes, "instructional facilitators". Those who ran quickly from real classrooms filled with real kids....and yet somehow get a gig telling veteran teachers how to do their jobs "better".

ETA - Remember Maria, go that extra mile on your own time and dime: Do it for the KIDS....

 

[Gypsy]

I just want to clarify my thoughts when I wrote earlier that the last thing I wanted at the school I work at is to have armed guards. My school has a School Resource Officer (SRO) who wears a bullet-proof vest and carries a gun. I am very happy we have an SRO and believe it does very much add to the safety of the school - but not just because there's a highly trained armed person in the building. Our SRO gives us extra eyes and ears and in many cases, extra heart. He's not teaching class (like teachers) or dealing with discipline and logistics (like administrators). This frees him up to get to know students both individually and in groups. He's out and about in the building but he's also in his office listening to kids. It's the relationships he's able to form, and not just the gun in his holster, that makes me feel safer in our building. If the stereotypical young white mentally ill male with a gun were to gain entry into our building, there's an excellent chance someone would get hurt before the SRO could get to it. But - there's a much better chance that our SRO would know something about a dangerous kid BEFORE anything happened and could be proactive about it. In fact, this happens often at my school. I'm not saying things on the scale of Newtown are routinely prevented. I'm talking about the less sensational issues like personal vendettas among students that could lead to violence.

When I hear "armed guards" I picture uniformed people standing at attention at entry points giving the place a police-state vibe. That's what I would not want. Now if we could hire military vets to perform the same role as our SRO - I'd be all for it!

I could get behind an SRO office if they were given good training and were carefully vetted.

This seems like a good solution.