In Texas, Armed ‘Marshals’ And ‘Guardians’ Stand Ready

Armored-Cars have armed guards, because they're full of valuable money.
Museums have armed guards, because they're full of valuable art.
Capitols have armed guards, because they're full of valuable people.
Award shows have armed guards, because they're full of valuable celebrities.
Airports have armed guards, because they're full of valuable aircraft & equipment.
Gold Exchanges have armed guards, because they're full of valuable metals.
Stores have armed guards, because they're full of valuable goods.

Schools do not have armed guards, because they're just full of kids.



You use a gun to protect things of value people, get a hint.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Irishhaf

What I have been noticing is that it is getting worse, those that are committing the murders, are getting to a point where it is a matter of time. What does one do, when a shooter is prepared to go into a fire fight?

If you are in a place (lets remove kids from the equation) and someone comes in with a gun prepared to kill people, its fight or die.

What they teach us in the Military is, if you can escape safely do so, try to avoid contact (hide), if no other options is available fight with whatever you have available.

I would rather have teachers that want to, get the training and have the potential to do more than just shield the kids with their bodies as they die.

The coach that died in Parkland was a CC holder, several of the kids interviewd were certain if he had been allowed to carry he could have stopped the attack.
he ran from a couple buildings over and still managed to confront the shooter, but because of the laws he could only physically shield some kids rather than meet the attacker with an equal measure of force.

originally posted by: CB328
I think this is a ridiculous and horrible idea.

Of course, you do. I'd, quite honestly, be surprised if you didn't think that...

You say it's a ridiculous and horrible idea...that, seemingly, implies that you, smart guy that you are, have a better one? I mean you do, don't you??

A person comes onto a school campus with intent to cause massive loss of life, it only makes sense that there should be someone, preferably several someones, there who can stop it.

Until a better idea comes along, this idea implemented with care, will work.

a reply to: CB328

1. This is a perfectly reasonable solution to what many, on all sides of the aisle, have deemed a problem befitting a solution. From your own link:

Marshals, most of whom are men, also must hold a concealed handgun license, complete 80 hours of training, undergo a psychological exam and, after two years, complete a 16-hour license renewal course along with another psychological evaluation.

I'm assuming that you have done little-to-no firearm or tactical firearm training, but 80 hours is quite a bit of good training, along with what is already necessary to get the CHL. Plus, there's a psych exam and bi-annual license renewal courses and psych exams.

2. "They" don't hire more security guards (who, for the most part, are ineffective at providing protection) or police because it would be rather cost-prohibitive to taxpayers versus doing it this way. Plus, having everyone licensed and trained wearing security or police uniforms kind of defeats the purpose of anonymous deterrence. (Yes, I see the "Marshal" vest, but not all will be as visible to an attacker)

3. You can think whatever you want about the motive behind this, but your opinion--which is seemingly derived from ignorance and ideology more than actual understanding of the training and process--is irrelevant to reality. Yes, there's always a chance of accidents happening, but we get friendly-fire incidents in our military, police accidentally shoot wrong people, and there are negligent firearm discharges across the board. Pretending that these marshals and guardians will be a bigger liability just because they aren't licensed LEOs is rather silly. You just said why not hire more armed guards--well, instead of that, they are providing training for some, and I bet you money that this is more thorough training than your average armed guard would have.

4. All parties use fear as a manipulator--pretending that it's just conservatives is intellectually dishonest, and you know that. You lose all credibility when you talk that way.

Anyhoo, congratulations to these school districts and their students, and I hope that the training is thorough and will never have to be used in a real active-shooter scenario.

just wondering OP

Are you going to come back to your thread or? Was this just bait like all your other ones?

a reply to: CB328

Yes those kids will be so terrified knowing they are safe.

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

It's actually what the OP is known for.

Ive noticed people arguing for and against this. But i see no one even mentioned the fact that our society has reached a point where people think this is neccessary. Cant wait until they continue to devide us. We can each start out in different casts. Cant wait to join candor its my first choice.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Interesting thought, however, lets put this into prospective, as you were in the military: It is a building, and you can not get out, then what?

Most schools and office buildings, do not have back doors that are so readily accessed and thus it becomes an enclosed situations.

School shootings have been around, but they were far and few between with very small numbers. That changed when in 1966, with the shooting in Texas, from a bell tower.

I do not think that arming and training teachers to do such is an answer. I think it is wrong and ripe with the potential for a further tragedy and far worse situation that can and will come from such. And here again, what if, that teacher pulls that weapon on a student who is physically attacking the teacher, then what?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

If someone is physically attacking another person and is the aggressor and they get shot I won't lose any sleep.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ever been in a situation where there is danger all around and confusion, where one misstep can cause injury to others?

That is exactly what this is going to do, and the only real problem here is that it is in an enclosed space, where no one can get out of the way. Most of the schools, have limited entrance and exits, so there is no real way for children or teachers for that matter to get out if there is an emergency. It is designed that way to protect the children from various dangers that come around. Very few schools have more than one exit out of the various classrooms. Or even offices for that matter. Most stores are like that where there are only 2 ways or out of a store, or even a building.


The issue is protecting the children, and as noble of an intention to have armed people patrolling schools, the reality is that with such, eventually a child or children will be either injured or harmed by friendly fire, and then what?

The facts are that police and others who use a firearms in the line of duty have a hard enough time with hitting the target the first time, often having to discharge more than one bullet. However, if they have a hard time, what makes anyone think that a teacher will be a bit better at such?

www.myajc.com...

a reply to: sdcigarpig

This entire comment is pure speculation and opinion. I mean, it's neat that you state it as if it's fact, but it's not. (regarding your initial comment in this thread)

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I'm uncertain as to how well versed you are in schools and their modern active-shooter drills, but it's not like all of the kids just run out of the classroom and flood the halls with innocent bodies.

Furthermore, I'm wiling to bet that you have ZERO ideas as to the specifics on the 80 hours of training that these volunteers will undertake--neither do I, but I can nearly guarantee that there will be a decent portion of the training devoted specifically on sight picture, looking in front of and behind your target, trigger discipline, and erring on the side of caution by not firing, if necessary.

But riddle yourself this: If one of these marshals/guardians chooses not to shoot because of a possibility of hitting an innocent student, and while waiting for the real cops to show up, that shooter shoots and injures/kills handfuls more kids in the meantime, what is better, having those marshals/guardians there at the ready and taking out the shooter (with possible injury/death to innocent kids), or patiently waiting with fingers crossed that the on-duty SRO isn't related to douchebag in Florida or that the shooter just gets tired of shooting and stops out of the kindness of his heart?

And of course LEOs discharge more than one bullet when they fire--it's what all people who are trained to put down a violent attacker do.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Why would a student be attacking a teacher unless they meant to do harm? Your afraid a student trying to kill a teacher will be shot?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Only 80 hours? Funny how police and the military, soldiers who are front line and have to use firearms on a regular basis, have to spend far more times on the range target practice time and time again.

And you are correct I am not familiar with school shooting drills.

However, I do know, what most experts will say, that in a firefight all bets are off. There is no cold calculated shots, there are not take careful aim. One looks in the direction of the shooter and makes a best guess, and then fire. And move and try not to get shot, and then fire again.

The reality is this: The first shot is the one that may hit, and all others are pretty much a wild guess where it could hit.


And now what all this has done is put a target on all adults in a school where it is known that some of the teachers are armed.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Unless you have information I haven't seen mass shooters don't get into shoot outs, they try and escape or suicide themselves once they are confronted by armed responders.


As I mentioned earlier teachers have been throwing themselves at attackers with nothing but their bare hands to try and protect the kids, so why not let them have a chance to actually stop the attack and have a chance of survival.

ETA: in answer to your question is Run hide fight, that is what the military asks us to do in an active shooter, leave the building if able, if not lock the door to your office and hide, lastly if everything else has not worked fight with whatever you have.

Please also remember we are not allowed to carry on a military base, that is why the fort hood shooting was so bad it took time for the armed responders to get there, and in the meantime soldiers were throwing themselves at the shooter.... much like teachers in a school shooting.

a reply to: dragonridr

Every 20 years, things tend to change, and in this case, students are no longer feeling the consequences of their actions. More and more, it is being shown where a student attacks a teacher, though it is far and few between, but this is still very much present, where said student is intending on doing the teacher harm. So that would mean that if the student knows or even suspects that the teacher has a firearm, that would be one of the things the student would try to go for.

In some cities, they have metal detectors and search the students for any possible weapons.

So is this a risk, one wants to put others in?

By arming teachers, it no longer becomes a matter of if, but when. Accidents happen, we see that, where even a person trained to handle firearms, ends up shooting themselves or another. This would only make the odds in favor of a child or someone who is innocent getting shot by friendly fire.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Only 80 hours? Funny how police and the military, soldiers who are front line and have to use firearms on a regular basis, have to spend far more times on the range target practice time and time again.

Emphasis on the "have to use firearms on a regular basis," or no? Because that's what matters.


These employees are not training to become police, Soldiers, Navy Seals, school-district covert assassins, or anything else in that branch of profession. They are being trained to be a first line of defense for a few minutes (hopefully not longer) until said experts arrive, providing a deterrent to would-be mass murderers and, if necessary, engage the target. Yes, 80 hours of training is plenty to accommodate such a goal and need, coupled with the way that most schools practice for active-shooter scenarios.

[quotes]And you are correct I am not familiar with school shooting drills.

However, I do know, what most experts will say, that in a firefight all bets are off. There is no cold calculated shots, there are not take careful aim. One looks in the direction of the shooter and makes a best guess, and then fire. And move and try not to get shot, and then fire again. [/quotes]
You are half correct, and of course actual engagement with a live shooter is chaos, with adrenaline surging and breathing issues and tunnel vision and hearing changes and tensed muscles and loss of fine motor skills--but where that reality exists, proper training can overcome a LOT of that. Keep in mind that the 80 hours is the mandatory training for certification--that doesn't mean that individuals can not and will not train outside of that training to be better equipped for such an encounter.

But even if they don't, it is still better to have them there, trained with 80 hrs and hopefully consistent range time, than to only huddle in a corner and cross one's fingers.

The reality is this: The first shot is the one that may hit, and all others are pretty much a wild guess where it could hit.

If that's true, explain how CCDW holders, officers, and military personnel can put all rounds on target when firing in a self-defense scenario? It happens more than you're wiling to admit, since you are claiming that it basically doesn't happen. Yes, there are those everywhere who are bad shots, but there are also civilians who have never had formal training who end up being great shots in self-defense scenarios like a home invasion.

THAT is the reality. And if you train proper technique, you can hit center mass with three consecutive rounds within the span of one second without even using the sights on the pistol. I know because I've done the training and tested it myself. And when you train that way repetitively, it becomes habit, even in high-stress scenarios.

And now what all this has done is put a target on all adults in a school where it is known that some of the teachers are armed.

Targets are already on them if they are a human being in a school where a shooter is intent on randomly killing said human beings. If you think that concern over the possibility of teachers carrying is only going to make them target adults, I would again ask you to prove it, even though I know that you can not.