Perhaps it's just my web browser, but my last post in this thread somehow wound up on page 2, so I'm reposting it because otherwise I'm not sure anyone will see it. 
Ed,
I disagree with looking at countries with the fewest school shootings. We need to look at other countries with the most, or the most in the past and fewer now. What works for them and what doesn't?
Also, rather than "militarizing" our schools, it needs to be like the Federal Air Marshals. Very discrete, undercover and no one outside the administration and the local responding LE agencies should know who or how many are carrying weapons (or have access to them). The armed personnel must have strict use of force and engagement policies. They never intervene in any non-lethal encounter. Their sole mission in life is to lie in wait and counter-ambush an active lethal threat. The deterrent and response capabilities are enhanced by the secretive nature of the program. The one thing you do is make it very clear that they are there. Are there two armed agents in the school? Five? Twenty? See how that complicates the active shooter's plot?
It's all well and good to have SRO's on site and I think it's an excellent program. But what happens when the potential shooter knows who the SRO is and either takes them out first, or waits until they're off site? Undercover armed responders are VERY difficult to account for when planning a massacre.
It's the very best security measure you can take.
They can't be armed without training and coordination. Not effectively or safely that is. Even volunteer watch persons would require the same. In a perfect example, the community itself would set the policies and procedures, using guidelines promulgated by personal security professionals. I specifically point to personal security professionals because neither the police nor most security are trained in response and protection for individuals. Most security is trained to protect property and police are trained to process crimes and protect themselves. Having worked in all three fields, I have a unique frame of reference for that assessment.
When discussing armed security in a school setting, you're essentially talking in-place VIP protection. Your VIP’s are the children and to a certain extent, unarmed adults who comprise the potential victim pool. Security of the property itself is only relevant in the context of advancing security for the principals (protected persons, not school administrators in this context). Due to the nature of the setting and environment, weapons control, accountability and deconfliction are critical elements of a successful plan. TTP’s have to be developed, coordinated with local law enforcement agencies and practiced. Hardly any school is going to spend much if any money on the project, so it would require volunteers willing to spend time, money and effort on it. A perfect model would be the TSA Federal Flight Deck Officer Program as administered by the TSA Office of Law Enforcement. All FFDO’s are volunteers who spend their own time and money to get training and remain current.
The only relevant question is whether our school children are valuable enough to make the effort worthwhile. We tend to guard our money and gold with armed men. We tend to guard our children with words and signs. Priorities of the damned if you ask me.
Ed,
I disagree with looking at countries with the fewest school shootings. We need to look at other countries with the most, or the most in the past and fewer now. What works for them and what doesn't?
Also, rather than "militarizing" our schools, it needs to be like the Federal Air Marshals. Very discrete, undercover and no one outside the administration and the local responding LE agencies should know who or how many are carrying weapons (or have access to them). The armed personnel must have strict use of force and engagement policies. They never intervene in any non-lethal encounter. Their sole mission in life is to lie in wait and counter-ambush an active lethal threat. The deterrent and response capabilities are enhanced by the secretive nature of the program. The one thing you do is make it very clear that they are there. Are there two armed agents in the school? Five? Twenty? See how that complicates the active shooter's plot?
It's all well and good to have SRO's on site and I think it's an excellent program. But what happens when the potential shooter knows who the SRO is and either takes them out first, or waits until they're off site? Undercover armed responders are VERY difficult to account for when planning a massacre.
It's the very best security measure you can take.
