[QUOTE="since9, post: 2236401, member: 43653]Snipppp...
Although I am very pro-2A, I do not support ALL teachers being armed. In fact, I believe in a strict selection process
administered by local law enforcement school security officers with both school board and
law enforcement oversight. At each stage, weed out those who don't qualify:
1. Only volunteers. If they didn't volunteer, they shouldn't be there.
2.
Only those with prior
law enforcement, military, and well-trained armed security guard training and certification. Honorable discharges and its equivalent, only.
3. Initial range qualification, beginning with a firearms and range safety class. Select only those who
achieve a passing score on the range qualification test. As a consolation, everyone who completes this phase, regardless of their score, will receive state concealed carry permits/extensions for five years.
4. School security training. This hands-on training conducted in the actual schools covers a BASIC, easy to memorize mental checklist: DRESSED, pronounced, "Dressed." It stands for:
- Detecting - potential danger
- Reporting - danger and the situation
- Evacuating - students to safe areas
- Securing - students against intrusion into the safe areas
- Securing - school against external threats
- Evading - detection while in the safe areas
- Defending - against an active shooter
This mental checklist and the steps one takes should be as well-ingrained as the bailout checklist of "canopy, visor, mask, seat kit, LPUs, four-line, horizon, and PLF" all military aviators commit to memory before they ever strap on a jet.
Believe it or not, if just 5% of teachers went through
this three-day, 15-hour course, schools would be considerably safer, not merely because some teachers are armed, but because most teachers would learn DRESSED and be far better prepared to respond appropriately to an active shooter situation.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/...eman-douglas-draft-report-20181212-story.html[/QUOTE]
so since9, i did attribute your post correctly and to your satisfaction didn’t i?
Now speaking of attributing correctly, as we were of course, who is actually responsible for developing your ithree day/15 hour [let’s see three, eight hour, days equals 24 hours ?] illustrious training scheme you reference without one iota of acknowledgement and might, just might, be an infringement of copyright laws?
Btw since9, the extremely relevant reference to the “bailout checklist, etc.,” while discussing a handgun training class was precious to say the least.
You forget, LE/Mil/Sec Guards mind sets are not trained to protect/defend and LE/Mil/Sec Guards are some of the worst individuals on the range with the lowest qualifying scores - just barely enough to qualify, so you want this group to facilitate a shooting course.
Now, for the record, i have no heatburn whatsoever of building a viable national curriculum outside the auspices of LE [who despite their omnipresent blue belief in themselves, are not known for their educational background capabilities] or Xmil, from a collaborative group of subject matter experts, e.g., legal experts, known firearm training entities [absolutely no LEs, Xmilitary, let alone “CERTIFIED SECURITY GUARDS” need apply] and others SMEs all under the oversight of viable educators who are familiar with the psychological learning traits of adult learners.
Remember, these folks would no longer meet state mandates as SD JQPublic pulling their SD handgun to defend themselves against someone because they ‘fear for their life’. These individuals are now trained and armed by an outside enity to premeditatedly defend the ‘populace’ around them from someone who is an adolescent or young adult suffering from MH issue(s).
Finally, who absorbs the liability or will the courts also allow them QI umbrella protection? Or liability of the school districts themselves when the stellar trained educator missed and takes out a random student or in the rush shoots someone they ‘believe’ is part of the BG’s group?
