This is why we need to arm teachers: Glenn Beck deserves a lot of credit for this story
On Glenn Beck's page scroll down to the middle of the page and click on the video for "Exposed: The Perfect Day". Beck says that the government is sitting on this information because they are "afraid that the American people will panic." I think that this is the information that we need for a rational discussion on arming teachers.
Glenn's guest, Brad Thor, gets it partially right when he says "You want an armed presence at your school." He then points to armed guards and police. The problem with armed guards and police is that if they are present, they will be the first ones taken out. It is good to have some there, but it is cheaper and much better to allow armed teachers and staff. He makes four points on school security: deter, detect, delay, and destroy. Armed teachers and staff can help with all these four points (even "detect" because they might be more able to successfully detect and alert others if they are armed). The deterrence, delay, and destroy aspects are more obvious. Thor points to Israel, but he doesn't mention that they arm teachers in Israel.
Glenn's guest, Brad Thor, gets it partially right when he says "You want an armed presence at your school." He then points to armed guards and police. The problem with armed guards and police is that if they are present, they will be the first ones taken out. It is good to have some there, but it is cheaper and much better to allow armed teachers and staff. He makes four points on school security: deter, detect, delay, and destroy. Armed teachers and staff can help with all these four points (even "detect" because they might be more able to successfully detect and alert others if they are armed). The deterrence, delay, and destroy aspects are more obvious. Thor points to Israel, but he doesn't mention that they arm teachers in Israel.
Labels: TeachersGuns, Terrorism
posted by John Lott at 10:42 AM
2 Comments:
Glenn Beck certainly deserves credit for giving airtime to expose an extremely perilous risk.
However, even though the segments were stacked with 'experts', I found the absence of serious content terrifyingly naive and superficial.
Why did nobody mention the most singularly successful example of school security - Israel - and talk frankly about how _only_ armed individuals, present at the moment of attack, are in a position to save lives.
Why did nobody mention that the government, and by extension police, are under _no_ duty or obligation to save our lives? Why did nobody speak truthfully about the practical logistical impossibility of having police intervene?
Why did nobody mention that paper-based 'comprehensive strategies', developed largely by academic bureaucrats, primarily document paper-based reactive protocols, not credible realtime tactics for preserving life _as the assault is underway_?
Again, kudos to Beck for discussing this, but we need _far_ more serious debates than this.
-dk
I've mentioned this before on this site, but when--not if--a school attack occurs, even the most rapid police response will take at least five minutes, and that's from the moment the closest officer receives the call until they arrive in the school parking lot. Figure in another two minutes for the officer to become oriented and to run to the sound of gunshots before they are capable to firing on the suspect.
If we are extremely generous, we might give the officers five minutes from the first call to the first contact with the shooter. Even in that case, the only issue that matters in this discussion is how many dead kids and teachers is acceptable in order to preserve a politically correct illusion of "safety?" Every second that passes in such situations counts.
Only armed staff members can reduce or eliminate the body count. Only armed staff members. Nothing else.
Post a Comment
<< Home