Could janitors be one school's line of defense?

[Live_2_Ride]

I didn't say "teachers" I said "school personnel". Big difference. The primary objective is to make the schools harder targets so none of the good guys and girls get shot. If a BG wants to attack a school where one or more people are carrying, he's not sure who might be armed: is it the principal, vice principal, janitor, maintenance guy, bus driver, science teacher, or music teacher? Hopefully, it's all of the above. Most of these locations are chosen because the schools are woefully unprepared. For areas that have the manpower to designate sworn officers to their schools - more power to them. I know here in my poorly managed state that education gets the ever shorter end of the budget stick. Sworn officers are a luxury we wouldn't be able to afford. Arming personnel who are already employed with the school seems more managable. BTW, OldVet, I really like your avatar photo and the history! Thanks to you and your dad for your service!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ccw9mm]

I didn't say "teachers" I said "school personnel". Big difference.

And, too, if faculty and staff are considered, and there end up being multiples of them at the average facility, there's a strong likelihood that the overall body-count would lower due to the more-rapid response of multiple folks. Beyond which, there's the simple reality that the harder the facility is hardened in such ways, the less likely it is that an attack will come by a lone assailant. Which is the whole point: reducing the body count, reducing the risks of threats, dramatically raising the chances of being able to quickly stop an assailant(s) if they do come.

So you're placing teachers below LEOs on the value scale as to who gets shot at first?

Me, I'm placing those who would be in body bags at the top of the list. The fewer of them the better, by whatever means we have to reduce that number, whether that be via staff only, faculty and staff, key admin weenies only, one lone LEO who's there occasionally, or whomever acquires a CHL and passes the training regimen. Whatever combination can be stomached by a local school has got to be better than the prayer-and-pixie-dust approach we've got now.

[BugDude]

It doesn't matter who is going to be allowed to carry in the school as long as it's a competent person who is physically capable of filling that role. Someone who at least qualifies and has a ccw permit.

I don't care if it's non-school personnel. I'm a firm believer in how Isreal does it with a volunteer force of parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Basically, someone who has some skin in the game. Someone who has a family member as a student. You'll be more inclined to find a larger pool of people from the student body's relatives on a volunteer basis, than you will out of staff and faculty members. And there's nothing wrong with having both.

Ensure they have a clean record, have their ccw permit, and then have them attend some sort of government sponsored training course designed specifically for being armed protectors in school (that takes care of any insurance liability issues for the school district). That's all you need to do.

The thing is, word will get out. People will know everywhere that schools are no longer "gun free" zones. They will know that if they think they are going to waltz in and shoot up a school, that there will be armed staff, faculty, and even armed parents and other folks. Yep, no more "guaranteed free reign" in an open killing field.

See how many school shootings we have then.

Not only is it a no-brainer, it's really the most logical thing to do. (That is, if you really care about the childrens safety). Of course if your true agenda is to disarm law abiding citizens, then of course, those people refuse to see the logic and the facts.

^^^^ This ^^^^

My kids' school required parent volunteers for all sorts of functions (the drop off and pick up line for example) day in and day out. I'm sure there would be enough qualified parents that would sign-up in a rotational manner to cover security on a volunteer basis.

[Bark'n]

Bark'n Our governor did NOT sign the bill.

Now that really surprises me. I had no doubt Jen Granholm would not have signed it. I never figured the newly elected Republican Governor would not. That is disturbing, to say the least.

Bills can be forced through without the Governor's signature.

It took a vote of the people to get CCW passed in Missouri. The legislature kept passing it, and the Democrat Governor kept refusing to sign it. Finally, "the people" decided. And once it was enacted, Missouri ended up with one of the best ccw laws in the country.

Missouri is really an extremely gun friendly state. It was a Democrat Governor who was in office at the time, who was an anti-gunner. And of course the local governments in St. Louis and Kansas City, to a lesser extent.

Not sure if the will of the people in Michigan will be strong enough to override the Gov. on this issue though. If they are concerned about the safety of their kids, they will. But too many people are easily swayed by the feeding frenzy and the myths offered by the rabid anti-gun crowd.