Gun Free Zones

[Morgan]

First a little humor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then a little serious article...

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Wh ... KbePA.cspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Liberty]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Wh ... KbePA.cspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow!, I usually just read the story and don't bother with the video of these type of articles. A very well done story by MSM in Ohio of all places!! I thought the MSM liked the idea of everyone being sheep and embracing our gun free zones. With all the doom and gloom we read lately articles like there is hope. that some folks are actually get it. With MSM producing pieces like this, maybe we are actually going to see thing change in the Texas 2009 Legislative session. Yup. real hope and change we look forward too.

[Excaliber]

I have spoken and corresponded with Ron Borsch, the trainer who did the research that underlies this article.

His thinking is spot on, and wholly consistent with the research I've done on my own in this area over the last 30 years, and more recently while developing active shooter response training modules for businesses, churches, and schools.

The same facts Ron cites can be used to make a strong case against "gun free zone" signs in all their variations because they proclaim vulnerability and guarantee success for deranged killers.

The biggest mistake administrators and managers make is believing that deranged killers think like they do, and will be deterred by things that would deter themselves. The fallacy, of course, is that if that were the case, they wouldn't be deranged killers - they'd be administrators and managers. It's not surprising that their ill grounded solutions don't work. What is a little hard to understand is that they insist on applying the same failed solutions over and over while expecting different results.

Another interesting point is that many of the best thought out responses to the threat are being implemented by churches who largely rely on volunteers, instead of by the schools and businesses that employ highly paid personnel to manage security issues.

[mr.72]

Another interesting point is that many of the best thought out responses to the threat are being implemented by churches who largely rely on volunteers, instead of by the schools and businesses that employ highly paid personnel to manage security issues.

This is a very interesting point. I would like to postulate a few explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Churches only have to satisfy their congregation members' with regard to their policies, etc. They do not have to gain broad support across the spectra of society. So they are free to enact policies that may be repellent to the mainstream of people, or to people on the other end of the political/social spectrum. In fact, they are accustomed to commonly maintaining ideals that run counter to the mainstream of society and have become relatively immune to PC attacks.

2. If there were a policy or tactic that could be employed in places such as schools and churches that would absolutely eliminate the risk of some kind of armed violence occurring on the campus, then your highly-paid security specialists would be out of work in short order. The conspiracy theorist in me may suggest that maintaining the fear of such attacks on campuses is to the benefit of security consultants' continued employment. Since the people working in this capacity in churches are volunteers, there is no benefit to them if there is a continued perception of threat.

3. Churches are not mandated by Federal or State laws with restrictions regarding the types of policies or procedures they can put in place for security.

4. Church volunteer security teams operate with great autonomy. Generally the pastors or other leaders at churches do not fancy themselves security experts, and unlike many of the other functions of the church, I suspect they would rather the security team deal with problems or provide solutions without really involving the senior leadership. Out of sight, out of mind. Once you are aware of your security team's efforts, then that means you may already have a failure of such efforts at hand.

5. Related to #1, churches tend to be attended by people who generally have a more pro-gun attitude than those attending a university or the faculty of a public school. So any policy that may include real armed responses will be met with less resistance in a church.

6. The most common religions in the USA teach that there exists in this world a real, practical, and definite difference between good and evil. It's not some big gray area. This mindset makes it much easier to respond to threats with the appropriate effective response, I think.

Just IMHO...

[Excaliber]

Another interesting point is that many of the best thought out responses to the threat are being implemented by churches who largely rely on volunteers, instead of by the schools and businesses that employ highly paid personnel to manage security issues.

This is a very interesting point. I would like to postulate a few explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Churches only have to satisfy their congregation members' with regard to their policies, etc. They do not have to gain broad support across the spectra of society. So they are free to enact policies that may be repellent to the mainstream of people, or to people on the other end of the political/social spectrum. In fact, they are accustomed to commonly maintaining ideals that run counter to the mainstream of society and have become relatively immune to PC attacks.

2. If there were a policy or tactic that could be employed in places such as schools and churches that would absolutely eliminate the risk of some kind of armed violence occurring on the campus, then your highly-paid security specialists would be out of work in short order. The conspiracy theorist in me may suggest that maintaining the fear of such attacks on campuses is to the benefit of security consultants' continued employment. Since the people working in this capacity in churches are volunteers, there is no benefit to them if there is a continued perception of threat.

3. Churches are not mandated by Federal or State laws with restrictions regarding the types of policies or procedures they can put in place for security.

4. Church volunteer security teams operate with great autonomy. Generally the pastors or other leaders at churches do not fancy themselves security experts, and unlike many of the other functions of the church, I suspect they would rather the security team deal with problems or provide solutions without really involving the senior leadership. Out of sight, out of mind. Once you are aware of your security team's efforts, then that means you may already have a failure of such efforts at hand.

5. Related to #1, churches tend to be attended by people who generally have a more pro-gun attitude than those attending a university or the faculty of a public school. So any policy that may include real armed responses will be met with less resistance in a church.

6. The most common religions in the USA teach that there exists in this world a real, practical, and definite difference between good and evil. It's not some big gray area. This mindset makes it much easier to respond to threats with the appropriate effective response, I think.

Just IMHO...

These are all thoughtful points. I'll add a couple of observations:

On #2: I haven't seen security managers and consultants deliberately maintaining risk to assure continued employment. Many have backgrounds only in corporate security, and have seen very few if any major critical incidents involving violence that they were responsible for managing and resolving. They literally don't understand the problem, and viable answers aren't often found in the raft of books published on the issue. Others have more hands on emergency management backgrounds and do understand the problem, but their companies' senior management won't allow them to implement workable solutions.

On #6: I think you've hit an important point here. Pastors come face to face with evil in many forms. They know from personal experience what it looks like. You don't have to work to convince them that it exists, and they understand that submission is not an option. I think this is the single most important reason that churches have taken the lead in dealing with the problem.

Most church leaders feel a true sense of responsibility to protect their flocks, unlike many business leaders who see murdered employees as a small workers' comp risk that can be readily absorbed as a cost of doing business.

When presented with the dynamics of active shooter incidents, pastors don't waste a lot of time. They very quickly sort through the options and arrive at solid and workable solutions.

[WildBill]

I think that church carry has to do with these factors:

1) The management of a church is more local, so there isn't a distant "corporate office" that is dictating policies for a large number of locations.

2) The church is a non-profit organization that is not run by accountants, lawyers, HR departments and other people whose primary concern is not getting sued.

3) The members of the church are likely to be more pragmatic about issues concerning personal and family safety.

[Excaliber]

I think that church carry has to do with these factors:

1) The management of a church is more local, so there isn't a distant "corporate office" that is dictating policies for a large number of locations.

2) The church is a non-profit organization that is not run by accountants, lawyers, HR departments and other people whose primary concern is not getting sued.

3) The members of the church are likely to be more pragmatic about issues concerning personal and family safety.

I would agree with these points as well. I think #2 is a major factor.