Ohio School Janitors To Carry Handguns

[Thanato]

Well, I don't mean line cooks. Come on, really?

Clerks? truckers? mechanics? there are far more non combat vets than combat vets.

[Yamato]

If Columbine showed anything, it's that one "combat" trained professional wasn't enough. If people feel comfortable carrying firearms and choose to do so, it's likely because they know how to use them. Now we're exploring the assertion that people who aren't "combat trained" can't carry firearms. Where will the limitations end?

[freetoroam]

If people feel comfortable carrying firearms and choose to do so, it's likely because they know how to use them.

yes, but still doesn`t mean they should! i am sure many a gang member out there feels very comfortable with gun in their hands.

[Michelle]

Clerks? truckers? mechanics? there are far more non combat vets than combat vets.

You're specific criteria is not the question here. There are many people that are perfectly capable of handling urgent, dangerous, stressful situations without having seen active duty. Simply because someone has been combat trained does not mean they won't crack under pressure in the field.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Michelle

[Michelle]

You're Your (duh) specific criteria is not the question here. There are many people that are perfectly capable of handling urgent, dangerous, stressful situations without having seen active duty. Simply because someone has been combat trained does not mean they won't crack under pressure in the field.

[Thanato]

If Columbine showed anything, it's that one "combat" trained professional wasn't enough. If people feel comfortable carrying firearms and choose to do so, it's likely because they know how to use them. Now we're exploring the assertion that people who aren't "combat trained" can't carry firearms. Where will the limitations end?

No thats not the assertion. It's that people should not carry firearms as part of there jobs if they do not have special training in there use in high stress situations. A 2 day course is not even close to enough training.

You're specific criteria is not the question here. There are many people that are perfectly capable of handling urgent, dangerous, stressful situations without having seen active duty. Simply because someone has been combat trained does not mean they won't crack under pressure in the field.

Yes but in my experience people who have been trained to handle high stress situations are less likely to Freeze or Flee, where as the majority of the general population would Freeze or Flee.

Now lets say that there are the few who choose to fight who have no training in the split second target IDing that is required in a firefight, odds are that in a chaotic situation that they will injure innocent people or when the time comes hesitate.

~Thanato

Edited January 12, 2013 by Thanato

[Michelle]

Yes but in my experience people who have been trained to handle high stress situations are less likely to Freeze or Flee, where as the majority of the general population would Freeze or Flee.

Now lets say that there are the few who choose to fight who have no training in the split second target IDing that is required in a firefight, odds are that in a chaotic situation that they will injure innocent people or when the time comes hesitate.

~Thanato

You are quite right...the more training the better. I understand you are in the military and I have a bit of advice. If you ever find yourself in an unfriendly country, don't ever underestimate the innocent looking civilians you come across. I, personally, would like to know you made it back home safely.

[Yamato]

No thats not the assertion. It's that people should not carry firearms as part of there jobs if they do not have special training in there use in high stress situations. A 2 day course is not even close to enough training.

~Thanato

You might not agree with two days, and that's fine. I think three is better than two, and two is better than zero. Manufacturing "special training in high stress situations" in however many days you think is enough doesn't even sound plausible let alone affordable. The only market supply to even meet such a criteria might be a veteran who's seen combat or a retired police officer. That's not even a requirement for an armed security guard in most situations so you're looking for your idea here, which is prudent and might be best, but isn't going to be reasonable as a widespread solution. Again, we do the best we can with the budgets that we have. That's the elephant in the room we're avoiding. Schools have budgets, not printing presses.

[rashore]

Is the problem janitors, or arming school staff in general? I may be mistaken, but I've gotten the impression in this thread that there is a problem with janitors. And since a line cook in the military wouldn't have enough training to have a concealed handgun in schools, I'm hazarding a guess that means no arming the lunch lady. So that leaves the staff in in school office and perhaps the school nurse as the other folks on campus who would be considered indirect enough to conceal carry. Are either of those occupations considered worthy enough to be able to have a concealed handgun on campus?

Sorry if I've gotten the wrong impression about the general lackluster attitude to janitorial services.

[questionmark]

Is the problem janitors, or arming school staff in general? I may be mistaken, but I've gotten the impression in this thread that there is a problem with janitors. And since a line cook in the military wouldn't have enough training to have a concealed handgun in schools, I'm hazarding a guess that means no arming the lunch lady. So that leaves the staff in in school office and perhaps the school nurse as the other folks on campus who would be considered indirect enough to conceal carry. Are either of those occupations considered worthy enough to be able to have a concealed handgun on campus?

Sorry if I've gotten the wrong impression about the general lackluster attitude to janitorial services.

On my part it is not a janitor, lunch lady or principal. It is about amateurs toting guns on official duties. A sure recipe to disaster.

[supervike]

Exactly. Teachers, lunch ladies, school secretaries, nurses, and janitors have no business carrying a concealed weapon into a school.

If the school district is so convinced that it is necessary, then they should hire professionals. Something like a security force or a on duty police personnel. Some position where continuous gun training is mandatory.

[AsteroidX]

If the school district is so convinced that it is necessary, then they should hire professionals. Something like a security force or a on duty police personnel. Some position where continuous gun training is mandatory.

Neither of these have continuous mandatory gun training and most LEO's only have basic firearm training for the type of events that are happening in the schools. Even an LEO will tell you it is as likely an innocent will get shot as the crazy in these type of gun exchanges. The goal as revised after the Sandy Hook incident is to engage the crazy immediately to prevent escalated losses of life. Noones kidding themselves that this is a plague on our society and not isolated anymore. On all levels people are trying to ensure the safety of our children (our most precious assett). Accomplishing this without destroying the Constitution or breaking every state budget is important. Well thought out ideas should be given an oppurtunity to be heard and implemented if they fit the right criteria as we dont have a remedy yet.

[aztek]

Neither of these have continuous mandatory gun training and most LEO's only have basic firearm training for the type of events that are happening in the schools. Even an LEO will tell you it is as likely an innocent will get shot as the crazy in these type of gun exchanges.

yea, look at nypd, 4 cops shooting 1 guy (they thought he had a gun, while he had a phone) 45 shots, 11 hits 3 in a hill (the guy was already down). all within 20 feet.

another example, 34st shooting, cops hit 9 bystanders, (who the hell starts shooting on busiest street, in rush hour).

so we see how "professionals" work. nothing else need to be said.

Edited January 13, 2013 by aztek

[Yamato]

All these maximized (expensive) new standards for gun proficiency would first make their debut in the security industry and this is where I'm not talking about janitors packing heat, but dedicated security professionals. The way this discussion stands now, we're expecting a lot more of our janitors than we are our security guards (because the rusty mop bucket makes us feel uneasy?) and that's not realistic to the bottom line on multiple levels. The laws of economics matter here, namely supply and demand, and scarce resources.

[aztek]

Exactly. Teachers, lunch ladies, school secretaries, nurses, and janitors have no business carrying a concealed weapon into a school.

i agree,

however if they have no business carrying than no one has, they are the target, and it is them who get shot at.

Edited January 14, 2013 by aztek

[lightly]

A whole two days of training!? .. surely a one day course would be more than sufficient? these guys are professionals.

[Yamato]

Teachers, lunch ladies, school secretaries, nurses, and janitors have no business carrying a concealed weapon into a school.

They "have no business"? That's just a quick and dirty substitute word for "right". If a crazy kid comes in blasting up a classroom, they'll have business then.

What you're saying is by virtue of one's job, one doesn't have the right to bear arms. That's infringing on our 2nd Amendment right which doesn't specify anything about what jobs qualify Americans to exercise it.

If we can only accept professional shooters with high stress shooting experience, where are we going to get these people? Are we going to take police officers out of their stations and put them in our schools? That's a terrific idea to have more crime in our communities. Are we going to take soldiers coming back from war zones with PTSD because it's arguable they can shoot better than someone else? If a person proves they can competently handle a handgun in a two day course, they should be able to carry that gun into schools regardless of what their job is. To say otherwise is to effectively agree that people don't have the right to defend themselves because they're the wrong experience level, job, career, shoe size, socioeconomic class, or whatever other creative reason.

Back to Ohio. Are there legal expectations put on the janitor for defending the school during the next Sandy Hook? If so, then part of the two day course needs to express the precise nature of the personal liability to the trainees before they assume that responsibility. And if they're not eminently confident behind the barrel of a gun, they probably won't accept that risk. But if a janitor is actually expected to defend the school from the next crazy invader and fails to do so, after the first one pays the price, the second one will think twice.

[Stellar]

All these maximized (expensive) new standards for gun proficiency would first make their debut in the security industry and this is where I'm not talking about janitors packing heat, but dedicated security professionals. The way this discussion stands now, we're expecting a lot more of our janitors than we are our security guards (because the rusty mop bucket makes us feel uneasy?) and that's not realistic to the bottom line on multiple levels. The laws of economics matter here, namely supply and demand, and scarce resources.

I wouldn't say resources are scarce... you're living in quite a wealthy country. Its the distribution of resources that's the issue. I think the more responsible thing to do would be to take a look at whether your military really needs all that money they're getting and decide if it might be better to use some of that money to provide schools with proper security...

[Yamato]

I wouldn't say resources are scarce... you're living in quite a wealthy country. Its the distribution of resources that's the issue. I think the more responsible thing to do would be to take a look at whether your military really needs all that money they're getting and decide if it might be better to use some of that money to provide schools with proper security...

So militarize our schools with federal soldiers instead of free civil society because you think the problem is civilians not shooting straight or hesitating to pull the trigger.

Resources aren't scarce in quite a wealthy country? This country is running trillion dollar deficits. A small surplus every year would be scarce resources.

[Stellar]

So militarize our schools with federal soldiers instead of free civil society because you think the problem is civilians not shooting straight or hesitating to pull the trigger.

No that's not what I said. I said that perhaps the best answer is to reallocate spending so that the schools could have enough money to hire professionals.

Resources aren't scarce in quite a wealthy country? This country is running trillion dollar deficits. A small surplus every year would be scarce resources.

In a way no, they aren't scarce, they're just poorly spent. Again, I'm talking about a reallocation. If you have a budget split into two areas A and B, A having 60% of the total budget and B needing more than its 40%, I think it would be worthwhile to really look into perhaps lowering A's percentage and raising B's. The spending overall wouldn't change.

[Stellar]

Hell, on the topic of reallocation of money, if you truly believe that schools need more security, wouldn't it make sense to use all the money being spent on police drones and instead spend it on school security?

[aztek]

Hell, on the topic of reallocation of money, if you truly believe that schools need more security, wouldn't it make sense to use all the money being spent on police drones and instead spend it on school security?

no.

would you personaly like gps\id chip implanted at no cost to you??? lol. would you like to get electro shock option too??? this was a joke btw. lol but you get the point, right?

Edited January 14, 2013 by aztek

[Yamato]

No that's not what I said. I said that perhaps the best answer is to reallocate spending so that the schools could have enough money to hire professionals.

In a way no, they aren't scarce, they're just poorly spent. Again, I'm talking about a reallocation. If you have a budget split into two areas A and B, A having 60% of the total budget and B needing more than its 40%, I think it would be worthwhile to really look into perhaps lowering A's percentage and raising B's. The spending overall wouldn't change.

You said the country is quite wealthy and doesn't have scarce resources. You can't say that without meaning federally subsidized security in our schools. These professionals, wherever they are, are paid for by the country or else "the country is wealthy" would be irrelevant.

Allocating scarce resources is the purpose of economics. If everyone had all the resources they need, economics wouldn't even exist. Reallocating percentages don't increase the budget. If you want to sacrifice from a school's primary function which is to educate our children to get some kind of professionals from somewhere, then schools have less to spend for educating our kids and the quality of our education goes down. Schools can't afford to play this economic game and compete for professionals which are scarce resources themselves. Maybe a few private schools can afford professionals, but not county level schools which are already strapped. You have no idea what kind of economic environment our states and local governments are operating in if you're trying to claim that resources aren't scarce.

[Stellar]

no.

would you personaly like gps\id chip implanted at no cost to you??? lol. would you like to get electro shock option too??? this was a joke btw. lol but you get the point, right?

Wtf are you talking about? You're completely nonsensical.

[aztek]

Wtf are you talking about? You're completely nonsensical.

lol, you don't get it do you?

drones to watch who? everyone every second?? how do you think drones will make school safer?

Edited January 14, 2013 by aztek