Police Fire Blanks in School to Teach Kids “What Gunshots Sound Like”

Readers eedfbzdfeb
— Here’s what’s happening in two Champion, Ohio schools right about now today. According to WFMJ:

The sounds of gunfire will ring through the halls of two Champion school buildings this afternoon.

According to a letter sent home to parents of students, police will be firing blanks from a gun at the high school and middle school so students can hear what gunshots sound like.

The exercise is part of A.L.I.C.E. training. A.L.I.C.E. stands for Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter and Evacuate.

The blanks will be fired in hallways or the office. The letter says that they will not be fired in spaces containing students. Elementary school students will also take part in the drill, but gunshots will not be fired, according to school superintendent Pamela Hood.

Champion School personnel have already received A.L.I.C.E. training from Training Consultants Inc., of Hubbard.

An A.L.I.C.E. drill will be conducted twice every school year to practice methods to deal with a dangerous intruder in a school building.

As I mention in my post about this on Reason:

1 – I guess the fact that schools are still among the safest places for kids to be, when it comes to violence, doesn’t matter? We should pour our resources into gunshot-sound education? 

2 – Who EVER remembers what an obscure acronym stands for, especially in a panic? A.L.I.C.E.? Come ON. 

Anyway, here’s the schedule:

The drill schedule for each building is as follows:

Middle School – 1:00 p.m.

High School – 1:30 p.m.

Elementary School – 2:15 p.m. (No gunfire used for training)

I'll bet this sounds like a little cat meowing!

I’ll bet this sounds like a little cat meowing!


, , , , , , , , , , , ,

49 Responses to Police Fire Blanks in School to Teach Kids “What Gunshots Sound Like”

  1. SKL September 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm #

    Yeah – a gunfire sounds about like a hardcover book falling on a tile floor. Ha ha. This is going to be fun.

  2. Ben September 22, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    Kids play video games, they see films and if they’re anywhere where guns have a legal use (for example hunting), they are bound to know what a gunshot sounds like.

    If for some reason they don’t, knowing isn’t going to make them any safer. All it does is create a panic.

    All you need is an evacuation drill. You can use that in case of a fire, a gas leak or a very unlikely gunman. It also costs a lot less so you have money left to spend on something like education.

  3. lollipoplover September 22, 2014 at 3:58 pm #

    “Champion School personnel have already received A.L.I.C.E. training from Training Consultants Inc., of Hubbard.”

    Which I’m sure was not free. With background check companies profiting on our paranoia and now go ask A.L.I.C.E. training companies to train staff on active gunmen that are both random and rare, what money are we spending on our kids??

    Schools can hold their own safety drills for students without these *professional* (fear mongering) consultants. Students would be better off with a general knowledge of what to do when disaster strikes (tornado, earthquake, fire, flood, car accident being much more likely)than any fake gunfire sensational drill will accomplish. And precious resources can go to actually educating young minds with useful knowledge than perpetuating media paranoia.

  4. Christine September 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm #

    Depending on how this is done, it could cause a panic. I was a teacher and one year they decided to hold a simulation activity on a teacher workday. The principal was to come over the loudspeaker with the code word and we were to pretend that we had students and follow intruder protocol. In this case they also wanted to give first-responders the chance to simulate their actions as well so they hired real men in dark clothes with blank shooting assault rifles to run through the halls. I was a special ed teacher with no actual classroom so my partner and I went to another room. There were 5 grown women in that room. We knew perfectly well it was a simulation with no guns or bad guys. We were hiding on the floor in the dark joking and laughing like it was a slumber party when all of a sudden the bad guys started banging on the door. They fired off a number of rounds right outside. As embarrassing as it is to admit now we were all terrified. We screamed and cowered in the corner. It was an extremely traumatic experience that lasted several hours. And I’ll tell you something, if you did that to me today 9 years later I’d probably still scream. Hearing gun shots does not lessen the fear. It only makes it worse.

  5. AmyO September 22, 2014 at 4:07 pm #

    This is terrifying. If this was my daughter’s school (thank goodness she goes to a sane one), I’d be pitching a fit. The nightmares this could cause scares me, and the kids are going to talk about this for weeks on end.. this is thrusting violence right into their faces. It would take just one adult to step back, take a breath, and say, is this really worth it?

  6. SteveS September 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm #

    What a waste of resources. Like someone else mentioned, gunfire is a pretty distinctive sound and kids and staff can probably figure it out if it actually happened.

  7. Jill September 22, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

    There’s no way this could possibly go wrong.

  8. Donna September 22, 2014 at 4:36 pm #

    Good grief!!

  9. Sam September 22, 2014 at 4:46 pm #

    Hey next Fire Drill lets fill the rooms with fog and bring in heat lamps for added realism!!!

  10. C. S. P. Schofield September 22, 2014 at 4:55 pm #

    I keep waiting for some nitwit to pull a surprise drill on a bunch of keyed up high school students, and get dog-piled by the football team.

  11. Leah Backus September 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm #

    *sigh* Yep. The Missouri legislature just overrode a veto and now certain people will be allowed to carry firearms in schools. The day this happens in any school my daughter attends, I will pull her out and home school her. Not because I think she would be in any danger (people around here carry both concealed and open all the time with very few incidents) but because I believe *that strongly* that schools should be peaceful places of learning. I bet, if you look deeply into this matter, you’d find a bunch of gun manufacturers itching for contracts with school systems willing to arm their employees. The gun debate ceased to be about safety or liberty a long time ago. It’s about money now, pure and simple.

  12. Papilio September 22, 2014 at 5:45 pm #

    Oh, come on – can’t you see it’s all for the chilllldren?!! They’ll all run away as quickly as possible and make it the most effective calorie-burning PE lesson ever!


  13. J- September 22, 2014 at 5:56 pm #

    I don’t think they took it far enough. One or two loud pops isn’t going to make a difference. They should get one of the officers to cary into the school an automatic weapon loaded with blanks. Then have some of the teachers wear squibs and blood packs under their clothes like in hollywood action movies. Then have the officer open fire in one of the hallways during the break between classes and have the teachers trip the squibs and fall down and play dead. Then we will see how the children REALLY react during a school shooting. See if any of them freeze.

    Better yet, have some police officers carry in Simunition guns (like paintball but with real guns http://simunition.com) and open fire on the students. Any of the kids that get hit can go for additional training. That will teach them to run when a real shooting starts.

    So what that you might cause some soiled underwear and PTSD, it’s for the children. We just trying to save some lives.

  14. Bill K September 22, 2014 at 6:24 pm #

    Which once again raises that age-old question of whether an America with strict, Canadian-style gun control laws would result in a country more like, well…, Canada, or that gulag of subjugated slaves the NRA always warns about. Yes, we have plenty of hunters here.

  15. SteveS September 22, 2014 at 8:34 pm #

    Bill, what does that have to do with anything? Did we read the same article. We have thousands of school districts in the US. Only a handful have decided that they needed to do active shooter drills. We have other districts that do other stupid things like random drug tests and bringing in drug sniffing dogs to conduct massive searches. We also had a district in California that got an MRAP from the federal gov’t. School districts aren’t immune to jumping on some kind of idiot bandwagon.

    I had previously argued that teachers should be allowed to carry. I haven’t changed my opinion. I can honestly say that this topic has gotten a lot of discussion among “gun nuts”, but they think it just as stupid as everyone else seems to think. Why don’t parents in these districts speak out?

  16. SteveS September 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm #

    The gun debate ceased to be about safety or liberty a long time ago. It’s about money now, pure and simple.

    The gun debate has never been about safety or liberty. Only one side of the debate has ever presented that. The other side has presented emotional arguments like “a place of peace.” I fail to see how a Missouri law that allows teachers to carry concealed gun if they get additional training and certification makes a place less peaceful or any less peaceful than any of the multitude of other places that people can carry their.

  17. Nicole September 22, 2014 at 9:05 pm #

    Yeah, let’s make a safe place feel scary for kids. Do these people even realize that kids often don’t consider something is dangerous until the adults in their live teach them to? So by teaching them that gunshots are possible in school, kids won’t feel safe away from home. Let’s just raise a generation of paranoid, helpless people who see danger around every corner. Jeez!

  18. Joanna September 22, 2014 at 9:21 pm #

    I’m one of those gun nuts. I have no problem with teaching staff carrying, either (yes please stop making our schools “gun free” target zones. But if our schools do this, I will pull my son out for the day and I will raise holy heck at the massive waste of taxpayer funds. My job does these and I find them traumatic enough, regardless of it being a necessity (military installation). But no way would I subject my child to one of these drills.

  19. Warren September 22, 2014 at 10:18 pm #

    Let’s stop with you idiots that call schools “gun free zone targets”.

    Those deranged individuals did not target the school because they were gun free, and presented no armed resistance. They targeted the school, because the school, the staff and the students were their intended targets. They were targeted for personal reasons. Not because it was gun free.

    Secondly, teachers that cannot handle what used to be normal classroom discipline without having the cops involved, are not capable of handling a firearm, and should not be trusted with that firearm. I guaranfuckintee you that not long after teachers can carry, that stories of teachers brandishing/ threatening will come out. Arming teachers has no plus side. Unless that teacher is a retired Army Ranger, Navy Seal, Green Beret or SWAT instructor, they have no right to be taking on an active shooter.

    And yes let’s hold all these drills, so just like when the fire alarm goes off, all the students basically start ignoring them as drills.

  20. SOA September 22, 2014 at 11:15 pm #

    Yeah this won’t terrorize the kids with sensory issues at all…………………. My child would not be there while this is going on. My son has sensory issues and loud sounds terrify him and hurt his brain.

  21. Mandy September 23, 2014 at 1:56 am #

    Just… WTF?

  22. Edward September 23, 2014 at 2:01 am #

    I’d like to suggest to all students in the future who are faced with attending this assinine event – PLAY HOOKEY! – and instead make it a spontanious “Take your kids to the park and leave them there day”.

  23. no rest for the weary September 23, 2014 at 2:16 am #

    Wow. So many thousands and millions and billions of days of lifetimes of people who went to school and never heard gunshots there.


    And, well, there are maybe a score or two who, on one particular day, did hear gunshots.

    So we drill kids to “recognize” gunfire at school, which is honestly a one-in-a-billion possibility?

    This is where I’d prefer prayer in schools. Teach kids to honour the will of whatever God they imagine exists, and understand that there is an order higher than the one we try to arrange as humans on this planet, and SOMETIMES STUFF HAPPENS, and accept that fact.

    Instead of “preparing” them for violence… how about “pre-prayering” them for acceptance of the uncontrollable?

    A drill like this implies the opposite of any kind of spiritual enlightenment. It is like an initiation to the Dark Side.

  24. Stafir September 23, 2014 at 3:43 am #

    Honestly I have a better idea for how to get kids used to gunfire…we’ll go with the same method my school had for 6 to 8’th graders.

    Someone comes in, teaches them about gun safety, how to use a gun, how to hold it, just general stuff for kids to learn.

    Then when they’ve learnt well and good, take them to a small set up shooting range (the teacher just made one, no special spot we went to) and let them shoot one if they want to, but no forcing someone to use one.

    In the years I went to that school, and have stayed near it. I’ve never once heard of a school shooting there.

  25. SteveS September 23, 2014 at 7:48 am #

    Warren, I promise I won’t use that term. How about CEZ, or Criminal Empowerment Zone? How do you stand the cognitive dissonance? The vast majority of mass shootings occur in places where guns are either illegal or forbidden by the property owner. While I suppose it is possible that the shooter never took this into consideration, I find it difficult to believe.

    Regardless, it seems like gun owners and gun banners all think that these drills are a bad idea, so who thinks this is a good idea? I am going to take a guess and say that it is the police, specifically, the same kind of police that get MRAPs from the gov’t, have a huge S.W.A.T. team, buy tons of military style gear, and spend a lot training for this kind of stuff.

  26. MichaelF September 23, 2014 at 7:57 am #

    This is just wrong on so many levels, it’s hard to even know where to start. I’m just shocked, but glad that at least in the current environment my kids are not going to be subjected to this since it would never be acceptable to most of the parents in my school district. I’m not pro/anti gun, I grew up with them, shot a few but have no interest in them – since I don’t hunt I don’t have a need to have them. Maybe if my kids really develop an interest I’ll bring them to a place they can learn to target shoot, then let them decide. Right now they “play” guns and that’s enough for them.

  27. Gary September 23, 2014 at 9:12 am #


    My kids are three and two and have heard more gunshots than most kids probably and it doesn’t affect them in the slightest.

    Then again my son used to love riding on the tractor with me and now you go near it and he starts crying and flips his wig and runs into the house and is always saying “no turn on” so take it for what it’s worth. Lana OTOH loves mowing the lawn.

  28. K2 September 23, 2014 at 10:06 am #

    I think that very often the school’s teaching has the opposite effect of what they are trying to achieve and sometimes they make it possible for that to happen. When my brother was little he came home and told my mother a detailed description of how to roll a joint. He learned in school. He never had a problem with drugs, but a lot of other kids did and that lesson in the early years motivated many to want to roll a joint. Sex ed classes in that district had similar results. Now I am required to fill out a paper when I read to my children and that has a negative effect. Do you think gunfire and talk of guns will prompt curiousity and a desire to try something new? Sadly, I think a lot of the effects of the school’s efforts are predictable and that most of them just accept things as they are and don’t really care.

  29. Warren September 23, 2014 at 10:55 am #

    If you really think that these shooters pick their targets because of the lack of armed resistance, then you are as stupid and ignorant as I thought you were.

    They choose targets because of the personal connection with the target. They choose the target by how much attention it will attract. They choose the target that will make them famous.

    And of course law enforcement loves these things. MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Budget increases, gov’t grants, officer overtime, more equipment and on and on.

    Every cop I know, and I know quite a few, thru sports, school and such, every cop I know doesn’t even like lockdowns, let alone arming teaching staff.

    And again, do you want your kids teacher grabbing their gun and heading out into the halls, leaving your kids alone? Only the completely moronic wants that.

  30. Steve S September 23, 2014 at 12:13 pm #

    Warren, I am sure that they pick their targets for a multitude of reasons, but you can’t (or shouldn’t) ignore the facts. Most places don’t ban guns. It would seem that, despite the infrequency of mass shootings, a few would be in these places? Just keep denying reality. It is impressive.

    You live in a country that has mostly disarmed the populace. I am not surprised that your cop friends support this. Why wouldn’t it be any different. As for not supporting lockdowns, the cops here are the ones telling schools to do this. I don’t see this coming from any other source. I don’t think they are a very good idea unless you are dealing with a threat that is outside the building.

    I have never said that I want a teacher rushing out and confronting a threat. Never. I am not sure where you are getting this idea from?

  31. Donna September 23, 2014 at 1:08 pm #

    “Most places don’t ban guns. It would seem that, despite the infrequency of mass shootings, a few would be in these places?”

    Like workplaces? Oops, there have been many mass shootings there. Far more than school shootings as a matter of fact.

    Like restaurants? Oops, there have been mass shootings there.

    Like malls? Oops, there have been mass shootings there.

    Highways? Oops, there have been a close approximation to a mass shooting there.

    Grocery stores? Oops, there have been mass shootings there.

    Religious institutions? Oops, there have been mass shootings there.

    Courthouses? Oops, there have been mass shootings there despite armed deputies being present at every courthouse I’ve ever entered.

    Government buildings? Oops, there have been mass shootings there, again despite armed people generally being present.

    Military installations? Oops, there have been mass shootings there, despite everyone being armed (I do realize that that is an exaggeration).

    Mass shootings predominantly occur, as Warren states, at places with a close connection to the shooter. For kids, that would naturally be school and adults that would naturally be work (or former work). It is where each party spends the majority of their waking hours and is most likely to have suffered some real or perceived slight that set off the situation.

    Of the mass shootings committed by people with no close connection to the place where the shootings occurred, schools don’t seem to be any more likely than McDonalds or the DC Beltway.

  32. Warren September 23, 2014 at 2:34 pm #

    Either your memory is shot, or you are a liar.
    In the previous story Lenore put up, where this discussion came into play, you talked about teachers firing from cover down the hall. That would imply leaving the classroom to engage the shooter.

    Schools are not targeted for being a gun free zone. They are targeted for personal reasons, only. You are the one living in denial or just trying to convince yourself that your right. Because noone else is buying your crap.

    And I guarantee you the tactical cops that respond to these things do not want to have to deal with a bunch of teachers with guns.

  33. Steve S September 23, 2014 at 3:40 pm #

    Donna, lets look at your list.

    Workplaces ban gun. I have never Most places don’t ban guns. Can you direct me to an employer that allows their employees to carry? There was a shooting at a UPS facility just today and sure enough, no guns allowed. For the first time in my entire career, I can carry at my workplace…only because I work for myself.

    Many restaurants ban firearms. I couldn’t think of many mass shootings that happened at one and then I remembered the one at Lubys in Killeen, TX. In that case, guns were not allowed in there and one of the patrons, Suzanna Hupp, had left her gun in her car, just a 100 feet away. As the shooter had stopped several times to reload, she likely could have done something to stop him.

    Malls also ban guns. Almost every mall in my state does. There have been a few high profile shootings at malls. There was one at the Westroads mall in Nebraska a few years back and one at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah. Both of these malls had sign banning guns. The second one is notable in that the shooting spree was stopped by an off duty police officer that said he had ignored the prohibition.

    Highways? That is a tough one. There was the DC beltway sniper. Guns were banned there, so that doesn’t help your position. We had a highway spree shooter case that was local to me. The guy shot from his car, which was illegal in and of itself, but I’ll give you this one. Highways don’t really ban guns.

    Grocery stores? I could only find one and the article didn’t say whether the store had a policy. I am familiar with some stores that have banned guns.

    Religious institutions? Most have banned guns. In my state, you can’t have a gun in a church unless you have the explicit permission of the church head. Guess how many have said yes?

    Courthouses? Yes, there have been mass shootings at them, but they are rare and don’t seem to last very long. I found a few where someone tried to shoot their way in and were stopped before they got very far. In many other cases, the shooter got their gun because they grabbed it from one of the deputy’s that had obviously fell asleep in their weapon’s retention class.

    Government buildings? The few that have taken place in these kinds of buildings have been at ones with minimal security. The one at the Navy Yard killed most of his victims before any kind of armed response could happen. He also appeared to have had some kind of training.

    Military installations? Have you ever been on a military base? The only people that are armed are the MPs. Weapons are very strictly controlled on base and aren’t within easy access.

    I guess I don’t see your point. Some of these places have connections between the shooter and the place, in many others, there isn’t much of one. In all cases, the shooter likely knew that they wouldn’t get away with it and probably wanted to make a point or go out in a blaze of glory. In almost all of the cases, they also knew that they would have time before they met some kind of armed response.

    Warren, you are either a liar or English isn’t your first language. I spoke about teachers firing from cover, but never said they were necessarily doing it down a hallway. What kind of cover are they going to find in a hallway? I said that a teacher responding was in a defensive situation and was an absolute last resort. I also said they should get their students away and flee if they could.

    And I guarantee you the tactical cops that respond to these things do not want to have to deal with a bunch of teachers with guns.

    And you are basing this on what? Your years of tactical experience in law enforcement? I am sure cops would rather deal with dozens of dead kids. Cops have dealt with armed homeowners and thousands of defensive shootings. I am sure they could handle one if it happened at a school.

  34. Steve S September 23, 2014 at 3:43 pm #

    Oops. My first full paragraph in the previous post should say that most workplaces ban guns.

  35. Lance Mitaro September 23, 2014 at 4:43 pm #

    Who thought this was a good idea? Is this to normalize and desensitize children to would-be active shooters?

    And who comes up with these asinine acronyms?

    There is absolutely NOTHING proactive or preventative about this so-called demonstration.

  36. Warren September 23, 2014 at 4:44 pm #

    Okay Steve you win.

    But at the same time, as we are arming everyone so that no place is a gun free zone, there are a few more things we need to do.

    1. Stop making and using motor vehicles, in favour of carriages, covered wagons, and horses.
    2. Women go back to limited employment as entertainers, bartenders, teachers, and whores.
    3. Disputes can be settled legally by who draws fastest.
    4. you hopefully get the idea.

    You are nothing more than a small boy, who needs his carry permit to feel like a man. I have nothing against firearm ownership. I do have a lot of distaste and disgust for people that believe the answer to gun violence is more guns. That ranks right up there with throwing gas on a fire to put it out.

  37. SteveS September 23, 2014 at 5:52 pm #

    Okay Steve you win.
    –Childish, inane comment.

    But at the same time, as we are arming everyone so that no place is a gun free zone, there are a few more things we need to do.

    1. Stop making and using motor vehicles, in favour of carriages, covered wagons, and horses.
    2. Women go back to limited employment as entertainers, bartenders, teachers, and whores.
    3. Disputes can be settled legally by who draws fastest.
    4. you hopefully get the idea.

    –Liberal use of the logical fallacy known as a strawman.

    You are nothing more than a small boy, who needs his carry permit to feel like a man. I have nothing against firearm ownership. I do have a lot of distaste and disgust for people that believe the answer to gun violence is more guns. That ranks right up there with throwing gas on a fire to put it out.

    –This is a little tougher. Starts off with an ad hominem, then moves into childish, unrealistic, magical thinking. Gun violence, or violence in general, isn’t a question that can just be answered, but I’ll take a shot at it. Violence isn’t the answer. I got it wrong on purpose.

    We have known covered all the bases in the Warren Institute of Middle School Debate tactics. Our motto, “If you can’t win by insults, dazzle and confuse them with bullshit and fabrications.”

    I will say that, despite what you may believe, the goal of gun owners isn’t to arm everyone. We don’t care. You are responsible for yourself. We just want to be left alone. We also don’t crave or need your approval.

  38. Donna September 23, 2014 at 9:40 pm #

    To quote Steve S – “Most places don’t ban guns.” Followed by an extremely long list of places where guns are banned that includes … well, just about everywhere anyone goes during the day. Am I the only one who is confused?

    The vast majority of mass shootings do involve someone with a connection to the location or a person at the location. Only 14 of the 62 mass murders in the last 30 years had no connection to the location or a person at that location, 3 of which were at schools and the rest random businesses. Most of those were committed by extremely mentally ill individuals. None, except possibly Adam Lanza (who did have a tenuous connection to the school), were known gun enthusiasts. Do you really think that these very mentally ill people in the throws of delusions actually researched the right to carry between McDonalds and Burger King before heading to McDonalds? If so, there really is no talking rational sense with you.

  39. Warren September 23, 2014 at 10:57 pm #


    But by Steve’s logic, the McDonalds shootings never would have happened if the guy working the deep fryers had a .44 Magnum in a shoulder holster.

    Sandy Hook never would have happened if the teachers had shotguns hanging between the alphabet and the times table.

    In other words by Steve`s logic, the best way for shootings to be avoided, is for guns to be everywhere.

    Take a look at what you are advocating, and it`s natural progression. Teachers that want to carry firearms in class should be allowed to, because a gun free zone is the choice target. Therefore teachers that don`t want to carry, and are beside teachers that do carry are now at a higher risk, because their class is gun free. So now they start to carry, to offset those that are already carrying. And so on, until they are all carrying. Why not just make getting a carry permit a prerequisite for teaching. Moron.

  40. Warren September 23, 2014 at 11:00 pm #

    Oh and Steve, actually you do need other`s approval, to bring your firearm onto their property. Just pointing that out for you.

  41. Steve S September 24, 2014 at 9:47 am #

    Donna, my point was that these types of shootings typically occur in places where guns are banned, either through statute or policy. Warren suggested that this wasn’t true. I know these people have some connection to wherever they choose, but you can’t argue with the fact that almost all of these places that they end up choosing happen to be places where you can’t legally have a gun.

    I apologize. I had thought you were trying to say that these shootings took place where guns were allowed. Despite the long list, in most states, gun are allowed in more places than they are not. Some states have a handful of of places that are off limits by statute. Some states allow private property owners to ban guns. There are also some that require the owner to tell the person to leave before they can be considered a trespasser. Again, I apologize for the confusion. I should have read your post more carefully.

    Donna, with all due respect, while many of the people that did these mass shootings were mentally ill, they otherwise functioned well enough to spend a great deal of time planning these events. Are you really going to sit there and say that Harris and Klebold didn’t put some effort into planning. Hell, the guy that was responsible for the VT shooting wrote an 1,800 manifesto before he set out.

    Warren, a .44 magnum in a shoulder holster never would have stopped the shooting. Now, a 9mm or .40 may have. The best way to stop a shooting is what? Put up a sign? That has worked great so far. Ban guns from certain places? That has worked great. How about limiting people’s access to firearms? Nope, still happens.

    I can’t say with 100% certainty that having an armed teacher would stop a shooter. I don’t know. I do know that it might help in certain situations.

    As for your natural progression, facts and reality would again seem to get in the way of your rant. Utah has had teachers carrying for a decade and what you suggest hasn’t happened. For one thing, concealed means concealed. The teachers that carry aren’t running up and down the halls waving their guns around or shooting them up into the air during classroom parties.

    Warren, have you ever been out of your mom’s basement and visited the US? You really have a warped idea what it is like here.

  42. Steve S September 24, 2014 at 10:22 am #

    For the factually challenged Warren:

    The President, through an executive order, gave the CDC (not the NRA) 10 million to study gun violence. Among some of the questions and conclusions:

    1. Does being armed really help or hurt?

    “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

    2. How often do defensive gun uses happen?

    “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

    3. Do we need laws to stop mass shootings? If not, won’t all those crazy gun owners have all kinds of accidents?

    “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

    4. Aren’t like 50,000 people murdered by handguns every year?

    “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

    Despite the oft-repeated myth that the NRA has stopped gun violence research, there have been numerous studies into gun violence, looking at it from a variety of perspectives. The CDC is not a tool of the gun lobby and I don’t believe anyone can say that they are pro-gun rights, by any means.

    I know that there are some researchers, Like Professor John Lott, that have theorized that more lawful carry is associated with a decrease in crime. I suppose it is possible, but I think that crime is influenced by so many factors that it can be very difficult to isolate just one and say this is the causal factor. That being said, there isn’t any evidence that shows that limiting weapons from law abiding people will make society safer.

    One common theme among anti-gun people is to suggest that if the law makes it easier to do X, Y, or Z (something gun related), then there will be wild west shootouts and blood in the streets (or fry cooks carrying like Dirty Harry). Unfortunately for these Chicken Littles, the sky didn’t fall and these predictions never came to pass.

    Warren, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”

  43. Warren September 24, 2014 at 10:48 am #


    For one thing, I have only ever questioned your “facts”, to which you have never answered.

    So again we will do it again. To support teachers carrying, you need the right factual support. So of the millions of successful firearm defenses, how many were successful against an mentally ill person, with an automatic, a plan, intent on killing as many as possible before taking their own life?

    Do not spout general firearms stats to support a very rare occurance. If you want your facts to support a very rare occurance, then streamline your data to show that the common citizen has or can successfully defend against an active/suicide shooter. Do not include all the other defenses against unarmed intruders, that run at the sight of a homeowner with a gun. Not the same animal. And a tactic that you idiots think we will fall for.

  44. Steve S September 24, 2014 at 1:46 pm #

    To support teachers carrying, you need the right factual support.

    I agree, but I suspect we have some basic philosophical disagreements. I tend to view things in kind of a small “l” Libertarian/pragmatic manner. In other words, I start off with the premise that people should generally be able to do most things as long as they aren’t hurting others or infringing on the rights of others. This isn’t an absolute position and I will admit that there are probably things that I am not entirely consistent on.

    I also start off with the premise that the state (gov’t) shouldn’t restrict fundamental liberties unless it has a compelling interest and it should be done as narrowly as possible. In addition, there should be proof that what they are restricting is connected to the stated purpose.

    I consider the right to keep and bear arms, as well as the right to defend one’s self from a violent attack, to be one of these fundamental liberties. Therefore, I start out with the premise that a law abiding adult should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon onto public property and that the burden lies with the state or the opposition to demonstrate why they shouldn’t be able to do this. The simple act of law abiding person carrying a concealed weapon does not, on its face, harm or infringe on someone else.

    You want me to prove that an armed teacher would be able to stop an attack? How could I do that? I have provided some information that suggests a high number of defensive gun uses exist, but that isn’t enough. You want data as to how many of those criminals were crazy, heavily armed, and had a plan. I have no idea. As far as I know, there isn’t anyone that tracks that kind of data. I suppose I could provide anecdotal evidence and point out that the mass shooting at the Appalachian School of Law was stopped when the shooter was confronted and subdued by two armed (and one unarmed) students. I could also point out that the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi was stopped when the vice principal retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter.

    If you support gun control because you don’t like guns, they make you uncomfortable, or whatever, then that is your choice. I don’t agree with that position and I obviously don’t share it, but people are certainly entitled to their own opinions. On the other hand, if you support it because you believe it makes you safer, lowers the crime rate, or is somehow measurably beneficial to society, then you are likely deluding yourself. The reality is (and facts support this) that it doesn’t. It is just like the sex offender registry. It appeals to people’s emotions and sense of justice and has no real bearing on real safety.

  45. Steve S September 24, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

    And a tactic that you idiots think we will fall for.

    I don’t get this. We live in different countries, correct? I doubt that either one of us have any impact on the laws or policy decisions of the other person’s country.

    As for mine, there is progress. Eleven years ago, carry in schools was impossible. We know have 2 states that allow it and around 8 or so that will likely allow it within the next few years. My state has a strange loophole that allows people with permits to openly carry firearms in schools (which I am not a fan of doing). There have been several attempts to close this and they haven’t even made it out of committee.

  46. Puzzled September 24, 2014 at 2:29 pm #

    Steve, a better spelling of “small l Libertarian” would be “libertarian,” I believe.

  47. Warren September 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm #


    What is the point of carrying a concealed weapon? You are big on weapons being a reason for someone to not attack a certain target. This is a contradiction. Unless the weapons are out in the open, and easily seen, they cannot be a deterrant. Concealed weapons are meant to hidden, and therefore produced after the attack has begun.

    You can spout all the liberty and freedom crap you want. It will never justify children being taught in a closed, armed facility.

    Now out of all those so called armed defenses, how many would have been successful without the gun, just by the victim standing up to the attacker? This is why your stats, don’t mean shit. They are too vague, too watered down to be of any use in any debate. Kinda like you.

  48. SteveS September 25, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

    Puzzled, I had considered doing that, but I wanted to be clear in that I wasn’t a die hard Libertarian, but more Libertarian-lite.

    Warren, concealed firearms offer several advantages. The carrier doesn’t have to be as concerned about having the gun taken. They also draw less attention. I’ll admit that the deterrent factor isn’t there, but why do we need to deter a tiny subset of criminals that are highly unlikely to attack any individual school at any given time? The other reason would be tat some people are uncomfortable around guns. Bedwetters and pillowbiters, such as yourself, would probably need therapy to deal with it.

    I find it somewhat relieving that a person that views freedom and liberty as “crap” doesn’t live or vote on my country.

    As for how many would be successful without the gun, I don’t know. Studies have shown that people that resist a violent criminal with a gun fare better than those that use other defensive strategies, such as fists, knives, or some kind of bludgeon. This is just an average. Obviously, someone that was well trained in martial arts would stand a better chance than a person that was weak or disabled.

    I know that you are a bad ass, but what about people that aren’t? What if a a person is older? What if they are disabled or frail? What about someone that lacks size and strength? Should we just say tough shit, I guess you are going to get beaten or killed?

  49. Craig September 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm #

    This has nothing to do with security. We know that school has nothing to do with learning or building intelligence but indoctrination and conditioning. (look at how you are prepared, Pavlov style, from day one for being in your cubicle at 9am, coffee break/recess at 10:30 all at the sound of a bell) Gunfire and police in schools is all about normalizing in kids’ and soon adult minds, that military in the streets at all times, having a gun pointed at you is all just normal daily life. That YOU are a potential terrorist if you ask the wrong questions. This way you won’t rebel or resist when the police state grows ever more present, visible and abusive. It will all be normal. We are all frogs in a slowly boiling pot.

    If I had kids I would have to raise them in a community of big minded expats somewhere in Indonesia or something. So they learn by 12 how to be creative and unlimited planetary human beings. Far away from narcissistc North American moms and psychotic busybodies who claim to be sacrificing their lives for their kids but really do it to fit in with and gain approval from all the other narcissist moms, completely oblivious to their own damage and the damage they inflict on their kids. We really are doomed.