Assistant Professor Charged in University Shooting

Remove all ads!

I've heard of students going on stabbing sprees before. Here's an example from Japan. They're not as deadly as shootings, sure, but they still happen.

This is true, but I don't see the point. If anything, it'd just make a student more likely to try something with a gun rather than with a knife.

Balance the likelyhood of it happening with the cost of ignoring it and the cost of dealing with it. It's like the breakin issue. I don't think it's likely to happen, but I get insurance anyway. It's something that can happen (and has happened elsewhere, and for which we show risk-factors), so it's irrational to just ignore it. The only question is whether the reaction is worth it.

Cost of allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons: $0 (teachers would have to secure their own weapons, and permits, and training)
Risk of allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons: uncertain statistically, but evidence suggests it's not high.

So why do you object to allowing teachers to carry guns? Or are you objecting to my use of 'reasonable fear' only? If that's the case, I'm using it in something of a technical sense, not the emotional one. I'm talking about something that you should reasonably consider a possibility and think about preparing for. Even if something is vastly unlikely, if it's a terrible thing, you have a 'reasonable fear' of it, thus you prepare.

But you do take safety measures, don't you? You obey the speed limit, you wear a seat belt, you keep your eyes on the people around you, you avoid people that seem to be driving with excessive risk (high speeds, risky moves, swerving in their lanes, etc), don't you? We're not talking about closing all schools everywhere here (the equivalent of you not driving), just taking certain precautions.

One: it isn't exactly easy to obtain a concealed carry permit. Two: again, history seems to indicate that the risk carried by bringing legal weapons into the school environment isn't as big as you fear.

 

Of course it would be irrational to ignore it, especially when it can be fairly easily mitigated. Renter's insurance is what, $20 per month? Anything that can be easily mitigated should be.

Risk mitigation is not just about cost. By allowing teachers and students to bring loaded weapons into school, you are introducing another risk. While there are exceptions, the general rule is that you don't mitigate one risk by introducing another risk, especially when the original risk has a remote chance of happening.

Of course, and all those things reduce the likelihood of the risk happening, without introducing another risk to the situation - something you are overlooking.

How is that relevant? The entire idea of allowing weapons into school is predicated on the idea that people will obtain those permits. If it's so hard to get such a permit, to the point that virtually no one would, your risk mitigation is ineffective. The entire concept behind this mitigation strategy is there would be people carrying weapons.

You got me there. I'd say the risk from bringing weapons to school is approximately the same as the remote risk of a school shooting happening.

 

If we're still speaking to whether or not the teachers NOG mentioned were justified in having questions or concerns about the topic, I think the fact that we are discussing it at length ourselves shows that they were. Remember, the teachers didn't arbitrarily start carrying firearms there, they simply broached the topic academically. I think that was T2's main objection, and I honestly don't see any problem with it myself. School shootings may be rare, but school shootings happen. Personally I wouldn't presume to tell them that they are not allowed to worry about being killed at their place of employment, or to make a determination as to what is appropriate for class discussion, being as they're the professionals and I'm not. (Heh, sounds like the home-schooling topic again. )

@Aldeth, thanks for your professional opinion on risk mitigation. I'm also in the risk management business myself after a fashion, and I can say rather conclusively that in the case of private businesses, to ignore potential risks in the form of people who may 'go crazy' (such as disgruntled employees) is a major no-no in the industry and could expose you to huge liability. These companies will spend large amounts of money to ensure that their employees and property are not further endangered (within their ability to affect the matter), even if the perceived likelihood of the threat becoming a reality is very slim. Likewise, general security measures are typically considered by larger companies that have virtually no perceived risk (i.e, there have been no specific threats made against them, etc.), but who wish to be proactive about risk in general, regardless.

I know that private business and public schools (was NOG's public?) are not the same thing, however.

 

This is true, but as you are aware being in the field, that some risks are simply accepted. There is not much you can do to mitigate the possibility of a worker coming in one day with an assualt rifle who starts sniping people in the parking lot.

I work on a military base, that requires a clearance just to get inside. I'm well aware of security measures. No one is allowed to bring a firearm of any type into the base. Even if you're a soldier and you live at the base, all weapons stay on the base. But even at the checkpoint at the entrance, they only do random vehicle inspections. If you have a military ID at the checkpoint you are typically allowed to just drive through. I would guess that I'm stopped about once per month at the gate, where I need to get out of the car, and they search the vehicle (including under it) before I'm allowed to enter. It's really random though. I've gone months without getting stopped, but a couple of months ago my car was searched on consecutive days.

On the issue with private companies (I'm a contractor, so I work for a private company on an Army contract), we have a whole badge system and other security measures present at the main office. You cannot just drive up and walk through the front door. However, there are no metal detectors, and there's no one who searches you. If I brought a hand gun in my brief case, no one would know. (Come to think of it, while I have had my car searched numerous times at the army base, and they look under the hood, in the trunk, in the glove compartment, and even check for bombs under the car, they have NEVER asked me to open my brief case. A brief case is plenty big enough to smuggle an explosive device or gun onto the base.)

My only point about arming teachers and/or students is that you are mitigating a risk (albeit a remote one), by introducing another risk (again, a remote one). Whenever possible we do not attempt to mitigate a risk by introducing a new risk, unless the new risk (A) has a notably lower probability than the original risk and (B) definitely provides mitigation benefits for the original risk. NOG's strategy fails both criteria. The first because the probability is already low, so finding something that is notably lower is nearly impossible, and the second because the benefits are possible, but by no means certain.

 

I agree in principal that not all risk can be eliminated and some has to be accepted, but I would point out that security measures like those you outlined in your last post could be implemented to reduce the risk of the sniper (assuming that there was no warning that the sniper would attack), and in the case of this sniper being a known disgruntled employee, very specific measures could and likely would indeed be taken to ensure safety at the location or even for any specific persons thought to be targeted individually (armed guards on the premesis, personal protection for the possible targets, etc.) Plus you could just put your cattle gate at the entrance to the parking lot.

But yes, not all risk can be eliminated.

Personally I'm not really convinced about armed teachers either way. The notion of allowing that is typically scoffed at, in my experience, but I suspect that's mainly because it is rather decidedly politically incorrect. People tend to have a reflexive panic reaction when firearms and children are mentioned in the same sentence (although we wouldn't be talking about children at colleges). But there are numerous scenarios where armed guards have been introduced at businesses or even government institutions (not just military, but schools and the like), so those are cases where additional risk has indeed been introduced and apparently thought to be justified and manageable.

My own major contentions with armed teachers are:
a. They may not be well-suited to handling crisis situations whether they're armed or not.
b. Very simply, people tend to be irresponsible with firearms. They do things like leave them laying on the toilet tank after they've used the restroom and that sort of thing. Not good.
c. As you pointed out, they (the firearms) would do very little good sitting out in somebody's car unless the incident occurred near their car while they were in it. (The 'leave it in the car' notion is foolish anyway imo. A firearm can only be properly secured if it is on your person. Leaving one lying around in a parking lot is irresponsible.)

The flip side to all those is that I'm not really sure it's up to me to determine anyone's suitability, particularly if what we're talking about is an individual's right to protect his or her own life and not a security measure for an institution recommended by a consultation firm.

Anyway, our inter-industry banter is very interesting to me but it's probably boring others to tears (and might be taking this thread a bit OT), so I won't subject anyone to any more of that after this, I promise.

 

I think I addressed the risk issue, except for your general rule. I'll take your word for it, but every instance I can think of goes the other way. The taking of a small risk to prevent a large risk is usually approved by society. When risk ratios are known, the taking of a very small risk to prevent a small risk is also approved.

The issue is relevant when it concerns who would have guns and what they'd have to do to get them. Realize, there are already guns in schools: my school had 4 security guards (actually, may have been police, not sure) assigned to us who all had pistols at all times. Of course, the risk there is miminal because of the training they have to go through. Most states, as I understand it, require certified training to get a concealed carry license, too. That, then, means that the teachers who could bring guns into the school would still have to go through a lot of training. Maybe not as much as a police officer, but still quite a bit.

Again, I disagrees, and I think history supports me. If we consider that every school (or at least HS and college) in the nation has the risk of a shooting, and consider how many actually have, we can determine the odds that a school shooting will happen. If we consider how many of them allow guns on campus, and then consider how many of those have had shootings, then we can determine the risks of that. I only actually know of one shooting at a school that allowed guns, and that was of the standard attempted-school-massacre type, so not really attributable to them allowing guns, but rather the overall risk of a school shooting.

I'd bet that if you looked at all the police reports of any kind of shooting on campuses that don't allow guns, and campuses that do allow guns, the numbers would be the same, which would indicate that there is no increased risk of shootings if guns are allowed.

Such people don't usually get licenses to carry concealed weapons.

Again, such people don't usually get licenses to carry concealed weapons. This is something that anyone can do, but a lot of training is dedicated to making sure they don't.

I hear this a lot, but the Appalacian Law School case had exactly this. Two students ran to their cars to get guns. They then confronted the attacker while a third bum-rushed him (I'm guessing from behind or something).

This is a good point, though a gun that is in a car's trunk when no one knows it's there is relatively secure. Leaving it on a seat is a big no-no, though.

 

...and you accused me of making generalizations that could not be proven. People with concealed weapon permits are also likely to be a problem (classic example is MacLendon, the nut in Alabama who killed 10, including his 74 year old grandmother and an 18-month old child ... but he had a license). There are many, many cases where a person with a concealed weapon permit (and weapon, of course) have pulled the weapon during an argument and used it. The permit does not guaranty the safe use of the weapon.

A license to carry a concealed weapon comes with minimal training -- one to two days at most. There is not "a lot of training" to ensure concealed weapon permit holders safeguard their weapons appropriately. There is no training to ensure a teacher can adequately use the weapon to protect students.

I've generally found teachers to be a diverse group, complete with their nutcases and raving lunatics -- many with anger management issues, and more than their fair share of control freaks. Add to that a union that doesn't really care about the children and would go ballistic (pun intended) at the notion that teachers would be required to pay for permits and training when they're actually doing it to protect the kids.

It's a simple equation: more people with guns = more people killed by guns.

 

Yes because teachers work with children and their work is for the children they should of course be willing to take any extra cost, spend any amount of time and the very fact that they expect to be paid now and then is offensive.

 

That is basically my point joacqin. It was stated earlier the teacher would do this on thier own dime, which is IMO a ridiculous statement if we're actually going to use them as a first line of defense. Even in those districts where teacher are not the first line of defense (and therefore the permits and training are not necessary) the unions will simply go nuts if those expenses are not covered -- which will be the majority of school districts, I don't think anyone believes a team of teachers should a trained SWAT team. Even though the teachers in those disctricts are really getting the permit so they can arm themselves (for whatever reason they desire), the unions will want that expense reimbursed if it's being reimbursed anywhere else in the US (say, at military schools where many of the teachers are appropriately trained and have combat experience).

Personally I don't want teachers armed and have no desire to pay additional taxes.

 

The first example is absolutely true. Remember what I said the two guidelines were:

So in the first case, by definition it meets criteria (A), so as long as it provided some mitigation benefit it would meet (B) as well. I will also concede that there are situations where you would mitigate a small risk with another small risk, I'm just not convinced that this is a situation where it is appropriate.

I think that we're arguing two different things. I'm not saying that arming teachers has no chance of preventing a school shooting. It potentially could. That's not my arguement, so whether or not there are fewer shootings at schools that allow firearms is largely besides the point.

I'm saying that by arming teachers you are introducing a new risk independent of whether a school shooting will occur or not. I'm saying that there is an increased risk of someone getting shot (perhaps not a Columbine-style massacre) simply by having more guns at school.

Gaear pointed out some examples, of a teacher not having the proper training, or simply being irresponsible. But there are others. What if two teachers get into a heated arguement, and in a fit of rage one of the teachers pulls out their handgun? What if a student(s) overpower a teacher to get their handgun? (This is certainly possible if you consider one or more male students against a female teacher.)

We already know that the chance of a school shooting is relatively low. If we start arming the majority of our teachers, can you honestly say that more shootings at school will be prevented than caused by some of the examples I outlined above? (Obviously, you cannot answer this question definitively, as you will not be able to count the number of school shootings that do not happen. You'll just have to estimate by the number of cases we've seen in the past.) Once you weigh the pros and cons of both sides, I don't think it's a slam dunk that arming teachers will reduce the number of deaths. Most schools will never see a school shooting, but they might if you increase the number of guns in the building.

If you are going to have armed people at school, I'm much more comfortable with the way your school high school did it. There you have trained professionals, where the possibility of something going wrong like I outlined above is reduced, while you still retain most of the benefits. When you arm teachers you get the possibility of all those things I listed happening, and the consequence associated with that risk is the same as if you didn't arm those teachers at all (i.e., someone getting shot). At best, I see arming teachers as replacing one risk with low probability and high consequence, with another risk with low probability and high consequence, that may not even fully mitigate the first risk from happening. That doesn't convince me that we're reducing the overall risk.

 

If you are listing a Columbine-type assault as low risk with high consequences I'd say arming teachers is a moderate risk with moderate-to-high consequences. Overall the risk is higher.

 

I guess that varries wildly from state to state. My father had to go through almost a month of training to get his, and he was already familiar with it all from boot camp.

This is only ridiculous if they're required to do it and do so on their own dime. If its simply an option they're given and they can choose to do so or not, on their own dime if they wish, I don't see anything ridiculous about it.

Sorry, I thought I had been more clear that I meant any kind of shooting, mass-style or not, when analyzing the risk of giving teachers guns.

To both instances, I can only point you to the schools that do allow teachers (and even students) to carry guns and the distinct lack of such events.

I think this is the mistake you and T2 may be making. I'm not talking about arming the majority of teachers, or even a large minority. At my school, there were 2 teachers in support of this, of all the teachers I knew (we had similar discussions in many classes at the time). I'm guessing there wouldn't be more than a handful of such teachers at any school that would actually get a gun, get a license, and bring it to school.

The problem is that such armed guards are visible, and as such become the first targets or are intentionally avoided.

Do you have any support for this claim, T2? Any statistics at all?

 

You don't fire handguns in basic training, NOG. Unless you're father is a very large man, he didn't get a permit to walk around with a concealed rifle.

 

No, but they do cover gun safety in basic training.

 

NOG:

1. Quoting and posting to supply a redundant statement is not necessary.

2. I have no idea when or where your father got his permit, but the vast majority of states now have minimal requirements for training.

3. If you're only going to arm the occasional teacher, then why do it at all? One or two armed individuals playing Rambo are not going to provide a sufficient deterrant to an organized pair of teens with an agenda.

4. Look at any report of violence (not generated by the NRA) and you find a distinct trend -- more guns translates into more injuries with guns. How can you support the stance that having more guns at schools will not fall into that same trend? It's simply unreasonable and irresponsible to make that assumption.

One thing you seem to be missing is the deterence factor. Nutcases, terrorist and criminals are deterred by hard targets. One or two teachers who may or may not have weapons does not make the school a hard target. An adequately trained and visible security presence is far more successful at preventing such attacks. As you stated they 'become the first targets' [unlikely, as most of the perpetrators of these violent attacks are cowards and only pick soft targets] 'or are intentionally avoided'. The 'intentionally avoided' part is the key. If the presence is done right the only way to avoid is to not attack, and Aldeth was dead on with the best method of prevention.

 

Actually, Martaug just PMed me with an interesting piece:

While the piece is certainly written by gun proponents, the statistics are from the FBI. In reality, the proposition that 'more guns = more gun injuries' is not supported. Statistics from individual cases go both ways, but that just means that there is no sizable correlation, and that who gets the guns plays a huge factor.

As for your claim that a couple of teachers couldn't do anything, look to the Appalacian Law School case again. Two students with guns stopped the guy, with only 3 deaths (as opposed to how many at Virginia Tech?). No, two teachers with guns won't completely stop all school shootings, but if they can even hold the death toll down from time to time (without raising it up in other circumstances), they're worth it.

 

But if you have a policy in place that says teachers can be armed, then what is to prevent more than a handful of teachers at a given school from arming themselves? You assert it as true, but without giving any metrics by which we would be able to limit the teachers from having them. What if half the teachers were armed? It seems like you couldn't say some can have guns and others cannot.

Only if in doing so you don't cause other deaths. That's been my point from the beginning.

Look, I'm not anti-gun. If you want to protect schools with police officers with the proper training, as I said, that's fine. I'm opposed to arming the teachers, who may not be properly trained, with guns. It is incontrovertible that the experience, knowledge, and experience of a typical police officer in handling firearms exceeds that of a typical teacher.

 

A decrease in murder is not the same as fewer injuries. Weapon sales do not correlate directly with the number of people having weapons. Those are serious flaws in your argument. You are also intent on pointing to one case -- ONE and only ONE -- for your counter argument. That's not very good support of your argument and could easily be an anomaly (they got lucky).

 

Ok, how about a special permit for teachers in schools, then? Something requiring much more training, and all on their dime (and voluntary)? Between the work and the money, that should cut down the numbers, and the School Board could restrict the total number of permits per school if they want. It also addresses the training issue.

 

I thought we weren't going into the realm of fantasy here....