Protection at the federal level

It seems that everyone is pointing toward gun controls to curb school shootings, which may be just part of the problem.

The Secret Service, who has the responsibility of protecting the president, volunteered to help schools protect themselves against future attacks back in 1999. Whether it was determined as not being needed, lack of federal support or funding is unknown, but nothing more was heard of it.

Current-day shooting attacks are totally out of control and can impact any place that has a gathering of people, not just our schools filled with our precious kids. Local law enforcement agencies, with severe budget constraints trying to do more with less are just not able to take control. This protection requirement should be administered at the federal level, specifically the Secret Service who has the expertise of running a program of this magnitude.

In 2000, the Secret Service, using its “threat assessment” model, looked at the thinking and behavior of some 41 school attackers, excluded gang shootings, over a 26-year period, with an age group of 11-21 years old.

Seventy-five percent of the group were white shooters, and it was concluded that there was no good profile for school shooters other than they all think, plan and tell others of their plans.

Researchers interviewed 10 surviving shooters and found that most were suicidal, just didn’t snap and began shooting impulsively, but planned for weeks, owned guns, while few had a fascination with firearms.

The first line of defense must be the parents listening to their kids’ personal problems while observing behavioral changes, limiting violent TV show viewing and discussing any and all school issues involving other kids and teachers.

Ensure guns are locked in a dual/triple keyed locked gun vault when not being handled by competent adults and ammunition stored at a separate location.

John R. Tucker

Colorado Springs

Key points that need emphasis

In the debate about placing police in schools or arming teachers, several key points are not being emphasized. First of all, a policeman is not the most effective deterrent because a shooter could attack the policeman first and then no one else could defend the school.

Furthermore, a police officer can only be at one place at one time.

Columbine proved that. Having a number of armed people in the school with the shooter not knowing who they are, will be a greater deterrent.

Second, we give extensive training to police officers because they use that training on a daily basis. We are training and arming teachers for the highly unlikely event they might have to use it. We are mainly training the teachers as a deterrent and not with the primary goal of actively using deadly force. Some say an armed teacher is vulnerable to a student forcibly taking their gun away from them. There are holsters that have latches and release mechanisms that help prevent a person from quickly snatching a gun from someone.

Schools with armed personnel should display a sign at each door that says, “Teachers in this school are armed and prepared to protect students with deadly force if necessary.” Many of these school shooters want a blaze of glory and media attention. To remove the blaze of glory goal, we must convince would-be shooters that entering a school with an unknown number of armed teachers and administrators is a place where they might be stopped quickly without the big media attention they desire.

Terry Stokka

Black Forest

Arming our schools

While we are having a big debate about how to secure our schools, I have two big questions to ask.

Who would you be more comfortable with, a principal, teacher or retired safety officer?

The other question is how do we cover the cost? My thinking is PERA has early retirement for police, county and state safety officers. That is because of the stress of bodily injury or death on the job. Those same officers might love a job securing a school where the chance of being shot at is minimal and they could increase their years under PERA for a full pension.

To reduce costs pay them the difference between their reduced pension and prior salary. A second benefit to the school is to give the officer some legal power to stop fights and reduce bullying which even happens at the junior high and grade school level. Most important is to reduce the cost of firearm training and having experience in using that weapon, which a newly trained principal or teacher might not have.

A prior military officer principal with the training might have a tendency to run the school as a boot camp.

Brent Price

Colorado Springs