Before starting these armed response teams, what was your experience with firearms? Did that influence your feelings about the program?
I’m not even a gun person. When I first did this in 2013, the most I ever shot was a BB gun. I’m not a member of the NRA or anything like that. This all started with just sitting down with our sheriff and talking about the needs. We watched some film of some active shooter situations and I thought to myself, “My goodness gracious. We have to do something different than what we’re doing.”
So I went through the training, and I felt very good about it. I’m much more comfortable with handling a gun, and with what a gun can do and what a gun can’t do.
What has the reception been like from your staff and broader community? How have you tried to calm any fears and concerns?
We’ve had some pushback. There’s some in favor and some opposed in the ranks of the teachers, but the parents overwhelmingly have supported the armed response team, so we feel pretty confident that the community in general is supportive of having a trained and qualified armed response team to back up our school resource officers and the police. That doesn’t mean it’s 100 percent support.
We had a big community forum, where we had people stand up and give their opinions in terms of what we were proposing to do, and probably 75 percent were in favor and 25 percent were opposed. Some of those opposed were teachers in the district who were very concerned about the fact that teachers are taught to teach, not to be policemen.
I understand that, but what I go back to is no one is being forced to do this, and every one of these people are very, very committed to protecting their fellow teachers and students in the unlikely event of an active shooter.
The best strategic move that I feel that I have made as superintendent is that I had the employees who volunteered to be part of the armed response team, they talked to the teachers’ union and said, “Look, this is something that we want to do. We feel committed about protecting our fellow teachers and our students, so please don’t interfere on our behalf because this is something we’re very, very passionate about doing.”
Some of the pushback to programs like these is the argument that having more firearms on campus increases the chances of accidental discharges or a gun ending up in the wrong hands. Is that something you worry about?
Those are very real concerns, and, yes, I’ve given much thought to that. There’s no way to really 100 percent eliminate that. That is a concern any time you have an armed presence in the building, if something could go astray. But the flip side of that is if you don’t have any plan, and that shooter comes in and just kills innocent kids that are hiding under tables with no way of putting out that threat, how much sense does that make?
— Caitlynn Peetz in ‘I’m Not Even a Gun Person’: A Superintendent’s Decision to Arm Teachers
Finally, the adults in the room are making smart decisions in some areas. We need more critical thinkers like this superintendent.
The adults are talking here dacian, so don’t waste your fricking brain cell or magnetic ink.
Also jsled, Albert the slimy limey, MinorIrritation, et al.
… but mostly goofy-face lil ‘d
More critical than you think. dacian was doxxed here. He lived in Canton Ohio. All the schools in Ohio need guns.
dacian is the type to try a school massacre to advance gun control.
ESP is telling me that superintendent is going to be targeted for dismissal for *daring* to allow armed, trained security, unless that area is solidly conservative in their politics…
It is an officially sanctioned program in Ohio that schools can opt in or out of, and has been for years. He is fine.
all the schools need guns.
Neat, now to see who bitches about something useful.
But the flip side of that is if you don’t have any plan, and that shooter comes in and just kills innocent kids that are hiding under tables with no way of putting out that threat, how much sense does that make?
But they do have a plan. A very well thought out multi-faceted plan:
-Magical decree all the guns go away
-Mandatory Coexist stickers will make everyone get along
-Ignoring mentally deranged people being mentally deranged will make their mental derangement go away
-Punish people who had absolutely nothing to do with anything because they’re the low-hanging fruit
-If all that should fail suing random people and giving money to already wealthy politically connected groups will make your kids come back to life
Shire-man,
Well said. Very sadly, well said.
For pretty much my entire life I attributed such a mindset to lack of knowledge or poorly-conceived conclusions and solutions. And while I still believe that is quite often the case, I have recently concluded that a very large number of such people actually want to cause massive chaos, suffering, and loss.
Being a “gun person” isn’t required but that might be the end result. You don’t need to know how to rebuild engines to understand that the vehicle you drive will have to have it’s oil changed on a regular basis.
The problem here is the existence of ‘gun free school zones’. Articles like this exist because of that and the fact that so many people go nuts over the mere sight of a gun. Some go nuts over poptarts in the shape of one. This is a clear sign of emotional/mental problems.
“Some of those opposed were teachers in the district who were very concerned about the fact that teachers are taught to teach, not to be policemen.”
that attitude “not to be policemen”… thats not what they are trying for. these idiots don’t understand the concept of ‘defense of self and others’ being an inherent natural unalienable right which is exactly the concept the left wing anti-gun don’t want them to understand.
.40 cal Booger,
As is often the case, there is a tiny kernel of truth at the base of Pr0gre$$ive arguments. Unfortunately they almost always quickly spiral off into the weeds after starting with that tiny kernel of truth.
In this case, for example, it is absolutely true that some percentage of the population does not have the mentality nor the physical ability to act (in any immediate meaningful way) in defense of self or others. And those people–rightly–should not be armed in society. So far, so good: teachers who oppose arming themselves for righteous self-defense (because they know that they themselves lack the mentality and physical ability) should NOT be armed. Where those teachers immediately run off into the weeds, though, is where they PROJECT their inability onto everyone else and therefore demand that everyone else be unarmed as well. Of course it continues to just spiral out of control (and ever farther away from truth) from there.
There are some other subtle psychological dynamics at play as well (akin to toddler “magical thinking”) which I choose not to discuss at this time. At any rate, the end result WHICH IS A POSITIVE RESULT is that only the teachers or staff who have the mentality and physical ability to act (immediately and in a meaningful way in defense of self and others) should have the OPTION of training and being armed in school. And as I stated, that training and arming-up is for righteous defense of self and others, NOT for being law enforcement officers.
Add in the responsibility aspect. Some simply refuse that they are responsible for their own safety, let alone for the safety of those under their “care.” This too is subject to projection and spiraling.
As suggested in the article, the teachers’ union perpetuates fear-mongering, deflection, and finger pointing.
hawkeye,
Your statement is correct and starts to touch upon some of those other subtle psychological dynamics at play that I hinted at. Explaining those dynamics would take several paragraphs, though, and I chose not to include those thinking that most readers would skip over them.
uncommon, Excuse me, but what “kernel of truth” do the anti-gunners have?
Here, I’ll quote it for you.
“In this case, for example, it is absolutely true that some percentage of the population does not have the mentality nor the physical ability to act (in any immediate meaningful way) in defense of self or others.”
Walter E Beverly III,
Please take a deep breath, exhale slowly, and read my comment again. And read it slowly this time, assuming the best before you start reading it.
It would appear, based on your reaction, that you read one thing and immediately overreacted emotionally to that one sentence–and then spiraled out of control from there. That is EXACTLY what many supporters of civilian disarmament do–and what I stated in that comment.
This is the root problem in almost every aspect of our lives: people catch a snippet of something, they immediately overreact emotionally, and then spiral out of control from there.
uncommon, I read it as you wrote it. You see, I’m the kind of guy who sees things as they are without the rose colored glasses that some have. If you don’t like what I wrote or disagree, that is your problem. Now, if you don’t mind, try to answer the question.
“teachers are taught to teach, not to be policemen”
What a crock, then why do they police hallways, play grounds, lunch rooms etc?
Uhh, afraid teachers don’t do that any more. Teachers’ unions fought against it. Teachers’ ‘aides do that sort of thing now. Teachers sit in the teachers’ lounge and bitch about terrible working conditions. Which, I will admit in some cases is totally justified. Teachers should not be attacked in the classroom. Where there is a real conflict with a student, a teacher should be able to kick that student out of the class and the student be reassigned to a more regimented regime in class where the emphasis is on discipline until the student is once again able to rejoin peaceful society.
…and police are not mandated to protect people. Hint: Marjorie Stoneman Douglas and Uvalde.
From the article:
“… trained and qualified armed response team to back up our school resource officers and the police.”
I will argue that police for certain and very likely even the school resources officers are the backup to the school’s armed staff. Why? Because the school’s armed staff are MUCH more likely to encounter a spree killer before police and probably even before a school resource officer.
It really helps if we build an accurate and truthful framework before we analyze the pieces and parts inside.
Of course Far Left Pr0gre$$ive True Believers routinely frame controversies in whatever way is necessary to achieve their predetermined outcomes because they do not care about accuracy and truth–they only care about getting their way.
Or another method like they used up here in Mn….pass ambiguous laws about what the SROs are ALLOWED to do while interacting with ANY student problems so that the local PDs and Sheriff’s Deptments pull the officers out of the schools for very real fear of lawsuits.
The insane are truly running the asylums.
When my son’s(this pair-I have 2 son’s in their late 40’s) were in high school over 10 years ago they had an armed very mean RSO with a gat. I saw him knocking the crap out of a young punk at the school’s entrance. Yeah this woman has something lacking nowadaze>common sense🙄
“Some of those opposed were teachers in the district who were very concerned about the fact that teachers are taught to teach, not to be policemen.”
1. Fact: There is not one injured or killed victim of a mentally ill mass shooter (which includes school shooters, a school shooter is basically just a mass shooter in a school) that was ever saved by police.
2. Fact: There have been numerous victims of mentally ill mass shooters that have been saved from injury or death by and ordinary armed law abiding citizens from all walks of life, even school teachers, because they were there on scene when it started and police weren’t.
3. Fact: You can call 911 as much as you want, but when that mass shooter or any violent threat is imminent right there in front of you it does not matter what your profession is and it does not matter if police are on the way or not – its time for you to do something then to definitively stop that threat and I seriously doubt you screaming “teachers are taught to teach, not to be policemen!” is going to dissuade that threat.
So considering the mentally ill mass shooter, when such incidents happen, is 99.9% of the time immiment-right-there-right-now when they target victims, is it really such a good idea to decry arming school staff with firearms with the ignorant excuse of “teachers are taught to teach, not to be policemen” ?
Seriously, you people are suppose to be educated but you have zero common sense and you choose to let others be endangered rather than have the firearms means of defense. You are part of the problem and that very attitude ‘forced’ upon others or used as policy has resulted in hundreds of kids being killed – you (your stupid attitude) killed those kids that could have been defended.
.40 cal Booger,
As I hinted in my comments above, there is somewhat subtle Psychology which explains how people such as those teachers run off into the proverbial weeds.
Some of the underlying psychological dynamics:
— It is too frightening and painful to accept the fact that there are dangerous people in the world and the world is NOT a safe place. It is therefore “better” to deny this fact and therefore reject the notion that schools need armed defenders.
— Accepting that your long and deeply held mindset is wrong is extremely painful in terms of your self-esteem. It is therefore “better” to cling to your mindset than face facts.
— Extremely deep need for significant affirmation from and affiliation with your fellow anti-self-defense peers is more important than facing facts.
— Extremely low self-esteem / self-worth drives some to a fatalistic mindset that they are not worthy of protection (and arguably even life itself) and therefore deserve whatever comes their way.
Those are the four (off the top of my head) primary psychological dynamics which drive people to reject facts and reality and spiral-off into the proverbial weeds when it comes to arming up for righteous self-defense. Unfortunately, there is no simple way to win-over such people. (Unraveling their self-destructive behaviors would entail months of intensive psychotherapy. Who would willingly agree to that? And who would pay for it?)
Several years ago, one kid shot another at a smallish rural school down the road from us. We work on the car of one of the teachers that was present that day, and we know her pretty well. She was one of the Special Ed. teachers (now retired), and is super sensitive and altruistic, and went through a real rough patch as a result of what happened. No way ever would she approve of arming teachers, training and facts notwithstanding, because she just couldn’t fathom being armed herself. She’s a good example of the kind of person who doesn’t want to acknowledge the facts and deal with the reality of such situations.
Of course there is always the preordained school of thought. Everything that happens is preordained to happen either by a mysterious force called by a variety of names or else guided by the hand of a supreme being who has an individual interest in each and every single human being and animal on the planet. So, no sense in being armed, either you are preordained to be shot by some nut job by a supreme being who decides who gets shot and who doesn’t or you can go merrily through life until you drop dead of preordained “natural causes” again already decided by forces beyond your control.
Gun shy Teachers just stfu and get over it…
That little girl is badass!
That dad will never have to worry about her when she starts dating… 🙂
All normal dads worry when their daughters start dating. That’s because normal dads tend to acknowledge the reality there are some real creeps out there.
Basically;
When my sister started dating (which wasn’t until high school), my dad insisted on meeting and talking with every one of them. It horrified my sister because not many ever dated her again after that. The basics of that meet and talk went something like this:
Dad: “Nice to meet you. Where are you going with MY daughter?” (emphasis on MY)
Possible date: “Uh, sir, I thought we would go .” (as guy eyes shotgun).
Dad: “You be nice to MY daughter, be a perfect gentleman. Have her home by 10 PM, do not be a second late. Understand?” (dad racks shotgun at this point). (emphasis on MY)
Possible date: At this point some of them just got up and left and never asked her out again. Me and my brother would be laughing about it in the other room, sis would be crying her eyes out and screaming at dad as she ran off to her room, and my mom would be chewing out my dad some and go in to console my sister. The ones that did get through that and did take her out, the date didn’t last long and they bought her home really early but most never asked her out again.
Then there was this one guy that had the ‘meet and talk’ with my dad. He too got up and high tailed it out the door, but something was different about this guy. My dad watched him scurry down the walk way then suddenly stop, turn around, and stand there for about 30 seconds, then walk back to the front door. When he knocked, my sister was crying her eyes out in her room. Dad opens the door and the guy says he’s here to pick up my sister for their date. My dad asked him if he was sure it was worth it, and the guy said “Yes sir, shes worth it.” Then dad called to my sister “Brenda, your date is here to pick you up.” and my mom smiled and we boys couldn’t believe it.
My sister ended up marrying him after both of them graduated college and have beautiful children, two boys and a girl. Have been married for over 25 years now.
One thanks giving after dinner we were all sitting around talking and my sister brings up the ’12 gauge dating filter’ (she jokingly called it, meaning the shotgun across my dads lap as he did his meet-n-talk for her dates). My brother in law jokingly asked my dad if he could borrow that shotgun when his daughter started dating. My dad left it to him in his will.
Fabulous little book:
https://www.amazon.com/Interviewing-Your-Daughters-Dennis-Rainey/dp/1572299762
I actually had my daughter read it also, so she would know what may be coming up and why. YMMV
You don’t have to be a “gun person” to understand the difference between “prepared” and “defenseless”. To be very honest, I’m not really a “gun person”. I haven’t memorized the Shooter’s Bible, for instance. Long ago, I could recite some ballistics for rounds that I really liked, but no more. I don’t keep up with the latest tech, don’t have a collection of 50 firearms. Not really a “gun person”. But, I gots what I thinks I needs for emergencies!
Paul,
It sounds like you have a healthy mindset.
As for the naysayers who reject armed self-defense because the average person is not a trained “police officer”, would they also reject keeping a fire extinguisher because they are not trained firefighters? Would they also reject keeping a toothbrush and dental floss because they are not trained dental hygienists?
Just keep my underlying psychological dynamics (that I mentioned above) in mind if you ever engage in a “discussion” with a civilian disarmament advocate. Their mindset is almost always based on self-destructive mental principles and they simply vomit words in a desperate attempt to avoid facing facts and their own shortcomings. That being the case, sharing your thoughts and facts are quite often a waste of time.
@Paul, thanks for the comments. I had not considered the prepared vs defenseless come back and plan to use it in a letter to some state congress people.
Be prepared 24/7
So think about this, these are the people who teach our kids. They don’t grasp the concept that there are violent psychopathic people in the world that don’t care about the “Gun free zone” sticker on the school door. They think some Unicorn idea will save them. Remember these people are teaching your kids!
Wally 1, some teachers do grasp the concept. Some don’t. It takes all kinds of people to make up a world. Don’t put all the “eggs” in one basket.
The superintendent should do one more thing.
He should place signs at every entrance stating that multiple members of the school staff are armed and trained .
Absolutely the wrong thing to do. Much like open carry. Never advertise your defensive ability to any potential criminal. No one outside of the school, except LE should have any idea as to who is carry a firearm. Including parents. As well as every teacher and employee should be made to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement to not divulge that information. To anyone, including their spouses and children.
Disagree…we know that Florida has CC. When it started, and the perps realized the pickings were better elsewhere. Same with a school. Perps know they may be shot before they gain their glory, they will go elsewhere; movie theatre, etc.
I am not a mechanic, but when I taught Driver’s Ed one of the things I taught my students was how to change a tire. Of course I got the tired argument that they (particularly the girls) would “just call Dad” or perhaps their auto club.
So I gave them the situation: Stranded on a desolate highway, out of town, and recently crossed paths with an obnoxious group of unsavories. They have a flat. Phone doesn’t work. They can fix it themselves (if they know how.) Or wait “until Daddy drives in to look for them … after the “unsavories” have done with them.
It could also have been a good opportunity to discuss pesonal carry options, but they were underage and in a “unicorn school”.
GOD BLESS BIG 10-4
We’re still working on convincing the local school board to allow teachers who wish to do so be trained and carry weapons. At least they did do some things to harden the schools to prevent someone just shooting their way in and when the new buildings were built put in bullet resistant doors and windows with automatic closers and alarms. The chubby cop is required to walk the building and check doors every hour. Not the things many of us would like to see, but the world has changed from when we were young.
Same in Israel.
https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2023/10/10/25-year-old-israeli-woman-kills-terrorists-leads-team-to-save-kibbutz-from-hamas/
The very fact that you have even to DISCUSS having ARMED GUARDS on Infant Schools is a travesty of any idea of FREEDOM or Civilised behaviour. Have you any idea how the rest of the world sees this kind of thing??
Then we have the very recent example of ISRAEL wher practically everybody has access to firearms and they and know how to use them. especially those on more remote places like farms. It has NOT stopped upwards of 1500 people being shot or kidnapped by HAMAS has it?
I’m not a GUN PERSON either, or not one that thinks easy access to firearms is a good thing but I AM or WAS a Professional Smallarms Instructor in Her Majesty’s Forces specifically an ARMOURER SERGEANT in the ROYAL AIR FORCE and a MUSKETRY Coach,
As for ,FREEDOM I prefer not to be constanly occupied by the though that somebody is going to shoot me or the kids in the Local School to the FREEDOM to arm myself to the bloody teeth just to go to WAL-MART to fetch bread and Milk
I am now 85 years old and served in the UK Armed Forces for two Decades both in the RAF and the UK Infantry Army Reserves.
The only ILLEGAL Firearms incident in my region as far as I know jn my lifetime is one in HAILSHAM SUSSEX where some idiot was caught making or more correctly trying to make illegal Pistols because his AUTOMATICS based on a 1920’s BROWNING DESIGN was lucky if it actually fired THree people were arrested he topped himself in Prison,
But even I have to admit tnat if I livedf amongthe savagery of present bns day America I might consider arming myself but I assure you that if ever I had to use a handgun to Defend myself I would not bloody well need to shoot off a whole bloody magazine because unless I was sure of a kill it would be HANDS !! UP TAKE THE CAR/WALLET/ROLEX whatever. My overriding instruction to MY students was NEVER think you can out shoot, unless you are a real Professional and they are very,very far and few between. the guy with a gun in hand and ALWAYS, ALWAYS SHOOT TO KILL.
Albert, you’re such a punt. Or something that rhymes with punt, that stupid censoring sites won’t allow to be posted. There was a time when Brits were badassed, conquering wherever they went. Today, you’re just punts. I guess it started in the 1700s when a bunch of colonials kicked your elite fighting forces out of America.
Go back to school, and take some English lessons. Your rambling sounds like a drug addled messyskin from the slums in Los Angeles.
Albert L J Hall. Psst! We don’t have “infant schools”? Where did you get that ditty from? As to your that nonsense we are preoccupied about school shootings, that is utter nonsense. but then you anti-gun control freaks are all about nonsense.
You claim to have been a member of the RAF? Tell me, then why are you so afraid of people owning a firearm?
@Albert L J Hall
“I’m not a GUN PERSON either, or not one that thinks easy access to firearms is a good thing but I AM or WAS a Professional Smallarms Instructor in Her Majesty’s Forces specifically an ARMOURER SERGEANT in the ROYAL AIR FORCE and a MUSKETRY Coach”
1. It has already been proven previously, by using your own words and admissions, that you are not or were not “a Professional Smallarms Instructor in Her Majesty’s Forces specifically an ARMOURER SERGEANT in the ROYAL AIR FORCE” – and not only that you could not answer correctly the most basic of questions about the very firearms you claim to have used and trained others on as a ‘Professional Smallarms Instructor’ and ‘ARMOURER SERGEANT’ – and now its just suddenly “the ROYAL AIR FORCE” but previously from you it was the UK Army in which you were a a ‘Professional Smallarms Instructor’ and ‘ARMOURER SERGEANT’
2. Now along with your growing list of fake accomplishments, you claim to have been a “MUSKETRY Coach”
3. “I am now 85 years old and served in the UK Armed Forces for two Decades both in the RAF and the UK Infantry Army Reserves.” – wow, now its two decades, but previously you said, by indicators you gave in your previously statements, 30 years which is three decades. And along with the previous claim you also claimed to have served in the army ‘cadet’ corp and hinted at doing a stint in the navy also and claimed to have trained recruits on a fire arm that was removed from British military inventory before you were (according to the timing you gave in your statements) 14 years of age and too young to have even enlisted in any branch of the U.K. military. Then, according to statements you made previously and the indicators from that, you claimed to have been a member of a British military special forces group and to have trained them on a firearm that did not enter the U.K military (wasn’t even in manufacture yet) until after you would been ‘mandatory’ (aged out) retired from the U.K. military if you have actually been in the U.K. military.
So, based upon your now including that you were a ‘MUSKETRY Coach’, and taking into account the firearms you have claimed in the past to have been a ‘Professional Smallarms Instructor’ and ‘ARMOURER SERGEANT’ for in the U.K. military, including your past claim of the ‘cadet corp’ – if you were able to have entered the U.K. military at age 14 – this would in this year of 2023 mean you are 108 years old.
And also…. now you are claiming you are 85, but in one of your previous posts less than two years ago you said you were 80 then.
“Then we have the very recent example of ISRAEL wher practically everybody has access to firearms and they and know how to use them.”
Just this comment shows how ignorant you are. The Israelis voluntarily disarmed years ago and only about 2% own firearms. Guess what? They just paid a heavy price for it. The Brits’ turn is coming. You’ve been being infiltrated for many years now. The “rest of the world” will be laughing out of the other side of their torso when that day comes.