world

South Dakota allows armed 'school sentinels'

20 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

What could possibly go wrong?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Disturbing. Very disturbing.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This story made me laugh. Sadly this could only be deemed a good idea in the US of guns..... What happens when one of these armed sentinels goes of the rails. Maybe then they need guards to guard the guards....

3 ( +5 / -2 )

In places that are very rural, students used to be able to bring their guns to school and hunt (pheasants, grouse, ground animals) on the way to and from. Guns would be parked in the front of the school or just inside.

-This was when you still had the small wooden school houses and kids would walk a few miles to school. Still had this in the 60's for sure. Schools have been unified now (like in rural Japan) and kids are bused.

Most pick-ups had the gun-rack in the back cab window. -If you didn't you were anti-gun, anti-American or something was just plain wrong with you.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Reducing gunfire in schools by increasing the amount of gunfire in schools during an incident? Isn't that like reducing the possibility of a fire by having everyone carry lighters and fluid?

In all cases, what are we going for here, tactically? That the children are going to be trained to evacuate while the teachers take to the halls and ambush the threat? I sincerely doubt the teacher's are going to be open-carrying the entire year.

Why gun against gun? What is the point? Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to just train teachers how to chuck flash-bangs? Wouldn't it be a lot safer as well? Heck, the teachers could continue their training on a daily basis by just tossing a bean-bag around the office. They wouldn't actually have to put themselves in the direct line of fire of the guy with the military weapon. They wouldn't increase the risk of stray shots hitting the children who didn't pick up on the evacuation by however many teachers were supposed to be returning fire.

Seriously, even assuming you somehow managed to train all your teachers as law enforcement "sentinels" (please tell me we are going to start capitalizing that word...), let's assume the public schools which are already notoriously lacking funds for such things as...education, manage to find both the money and the time (Any teachers here? Remember that thing called "time", that used to have the word "free" in front of it?) and the principal, the teachers, and the janitor (really?) are now trained sentinels:

How often does that training get refreshed? How often do they get to go to the range? How often do they remind themselves to check behind the target for any innocent victims of shots that will miss, which is a not insignificant concern in a school? Law Enforcement training isn't an academic subject that can be learned once and then retained. The entire purpose of the training is to acclimatize one to the levels of stress involved and how to make good decisions while under that stress. That's why training never ends.

We don't need people exchanging gunfire in schools, not trained people, not crazy people, certainly not teachers who took a class on it a few years ago. Gunfire in schools needs to be put down hard, unfairly, and with unnecessary roughness, all the while keeping the students and faculty as safe as possible. I don't care how many fully-automatic weapons someone is carrying, he will still be susceptible to a flash-bang, let alone two or three from multiple teachers, with a minimum of risk to everyone involved. Better a dozen ruptured eardrums than even one child dead from a stray bullet.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The gun culture in a nation that is proud of being an advanced nation, but has not been able to liberate itself from the 'pioneer spirit', is not about to be defeated. Certainly not if the cowboys in the National Rifle Association and their Republican cronies have any say in it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It is really funny right now, but awfully serious:

You have a Government buying every bullet they can: (~2 billion rounds of ammo)http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/

Then you have the gun owners buying as much ammo and guns as they can: (pistol size rounds are specifically hard to find -note the .40 Gov purchase above )

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Libs want to break into every home (like in Iraq) and grab every gun they can. (gun owners lists)

The absolute worst (and most damaging) is the private FED Res giving away trillion to off-shore banks: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf (page 32/33)

Something has to give and the pressure is mounting.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@badsey3 I have absolutely no idea of what point you are trying to make. Are 'school sentinels' a good or bad thing?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

School sentinels maybe a good thing, but this whole GUN issue, makes the USA look like a bunch of morons.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What could possibly go wrong?

I don't know ask Utah. What could possibly go wrong with allowing cops walk around in public with guns in the US.....

Reducing gunfire in schools by increasing the amount of gunfire in schools during an incident? Isn't that like reducing the possibility of a fire by having everyone carry lighters and fluid?

Yes increasing the amount of gunfire during an incident can reduce casualties.:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/alabama-hospital-shooting-wounded-gunman-killed_n_2307505.html

Please do tell me without those guns on those police officers the casualties would have been lower.

Flash-bangs produce shrapnel in all directions, just not as much as a HE grenades, just ask the British hostage that was killed in Afghanistan by US special forces. Flash bangs don't incapacitate the attacker and a blinded/deaf shooter can still shoot/squeeze the trigger just as well as a person who isn't blinded/deaf.... Flash bangs are much more indiscriminate than guns, a flash bang could blind the teachers and the students at the same time as blinding the attacker.

Flash-bangs also have another big problem within buildings, they have a tendency to cause fires.

with a minimum of risk to everyone involved. Better a dozen ruptured eardrums than even one child dead from a stray bullet.

That begs the question why is law enforcement in the US even carrying guns then? Why don't just replace all of their guns and ammo with flash-bangs and only use flash-bangs if they are effective as you claim their are.

You really think the shooter is just going to stop firing when they are blinded and deaf for a few seconds and then only resume firing once they regain their sight or hearing?

Flash-bangs don't incapacitate.

What happens when one of these armed sentinels goes of the rails. Maybe then they need guards to guard the guards....

What happens when someone in your police forces goes off the rails? What happens when someone goes off the rails in your military?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have absolutely no idea of what point you are trying to make. Are 'school sentinels' a good or bad thing?

I would say they are an insignificant thing. I see it as an option for schools that are specifically rural.

<http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=NEWS >(not a word about it)

The "school sentinels" law signed by South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, allows the state's 152 school districts to decide whether they want to arm teachers, other employees, hired security guards or volunteers.

School boards must get approval for their program from local law enforcement officials, and sentinels would have to pass a training program to carry weapons in the schools. District residents could put the issue to a voter referendum.

-seems fair enough to me. I personally would not want a concealed carry gun on me (get in the way, possible accidental discharge etc).

http://www.tristateneighbor.com/news/regional/article_43a160d8-720e-11e2-8d66-0019bb2963f4.html (these are the bigger issues and the looming oil issues + high corn and soybean prices)

So an article like this out of Chicago (homicide central) is sort of funny. It is a national propaganda story they are pushing that has no real merit locally and is not even covered locally.

Tim Mitchell, superintendent of the Rapid City Area Schools (not rural) district, said the bill does not address broader safety issues such as improving mental health services for students or updating buildings to make schools physically safer.

The school sentinels program would be open to teachers, principals, janitors and other staff members such as security guards and also to “volunteers.” “Sentinels would have to take the same weapons training as is required of all South Dakota law officers,” Kafka added.

-the 2 quotes above seem to be good with good intent. The article itself seems to have bad intent = gun ownership is wrong = funny in rural SD and even in the larger cities like Brookings (22,000), Sioux Falls (156,000) and Rapid City (69,000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_South_Dakota (lots of small towns and ranch/farms = you may need to drive 100/200 miles+ just to hit a Walmart)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no way that I would let my children go to a school where people wear guns. I would resort to homeschooling them if I had no other option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Noliving

Yes increasing the amount of gunfire during an incident can reduce casualties.:

It can also increase them, particularly when done by a group of people not specifically trained in counterattack, particularly in a target-rich environment like a school.

Please do tell me without those guns on those police officers the casualties would have been lower.

Okay. Without those guns on those police officers, the casualties would have been lower.

Is that true? No idea. I don't have the ability to determine what may or may not have happened, and neither do you.

What I can tell you is that the probability of higher casualties due to stray gunfire had those police officers been teachers without continuous training, would significantly increase.

Flash-bangs produce shrapnel in all directions, just not as much as a HE grenades, just ask the British hostage that was killed in Afghanistan by US special forces.

Military firearms used by insane people (or teachers suddenly thrust into life or death situations) produce bullets in all directions. Bullets are far more deadly than shrapnel. I would submit there are a lot more people dead from bullets than wounded from shrapnel.

Flash bangs don't incapacitate the attacker and a blinded/deaf shooter can still shoot/squeeze the trigger just as well as a person who isn't blinded/deaf....

I disagree. A), because quite a few people would indeed be incapacitated by a massive explosion, pressure wave, and flash of a flash bang (that is, after all, specifically what they are designed for; we've just gotten a bit spoiled by only seeing them in use against military trained people in combat situations), B) because clamping a finger down on a trigger while disoriented is not the same as shooting or squeezing a trigger "just as well" as even the controlled fashion a crazy person employs, and C) even people with military training need a good 10-15 seconds to get their bearings after a flash-bang, which is enough time to tackle a person (or to throw another two or three flash-bangs more accurately at them, which is what would probably happen).

Flash bangs are much more indiscriminate than guns, a flash bang could blind the teachers and the students at the same time as blinding the attacker.

Which is why you train the teachers to cover, throw the flash bang, and take cover again, something that is almost intuitively known by most people due to the vast amount of war movies we see on a regular basis (and the desire to not actually be in the line of fire of the person with the machine gun). With actual training, the behavior is much easier to retain, particularly when compared to the amount of training required to effectively participate in a gunfight.

And I have no problem with teachers or students being blinded, particularly when the alternative is being shot. Considering there are far more teachers and students than there are attackers, sheer probability will tell you that there is likely to be people not blinded who can take down the attackers.

Flash-bangs also have another big problem within buildings, they have a tendency to cause fires.

No, they don't. They have, on occasion, but it is far from being a regular occurrence. Additionally, the vast majority of schools are mostly concrete and vinyl flooring, which massively reduces the chances of an accidental fire. And, to be frank, even if the chances of a fire, particularly an out-of-control fire, were not so low as to be negligible (keeping in mind that we are already talking about an event which is itself low probability), I would still prefer risking a fire than having multiple people shooting it out with guns in a school full of children.

That begs the question why is law enforcement in the US even carrying guns then?

Which begs the counter-question: Why are you comparing law enforcement in the streets of the US to teachers in a school full of children?

Why don't just replace all of their guns and ammo with flash-bangs and only use flash-bangs if they are effective as you claim their are.

A) Because flash bangs are effective in a given niche, such as an enclosed area with a relatively exposed shooter, and not anywhere and everywhere, and B) because arming regular police officers with flash bangs would increase the chances of military style tactics (or accusations) employed out on the field.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You really think the shooter is just going to stop firing when they are blinded and deaf for a few seconds and then only resume firing once they regain their sight or hearing?

No, I think the shooter is going to clamp his finger down on the trigger, shoot out his entire magazine in 3-4 seconds (assuming he had just loaded a fresh clip), and then spend another good 10-15 seconds before he has enough wits around him to strip the clip, reload, and be ready to fire again (which even trained military take anywhere from 5-8 seconds or more in optimal conditions).

Flash-bangs don't incapacitate.

Well, pretty much all law enforcement and military disagree with you. Flash bangs not only afford you a good 20-30 seconds of incapacitated enemy on a regular basis, they have even been known to completely take down a target all by themselves, depending on the physical surroundings (such as the size of the enclosure), the constitution of the target, and the level of aggression or training of the target. There is a surprising amount of pressure, noise, and light coming from that little package, and we tend to forget that because flash bangs are usually used in relatively open areas.

But lets look at a more realistic scenario, where a crazy person goes to the school lunchroom around noon and starts shooting. It is already relatively bright, it is a wide open, non-enclosed space, so a flash bang here, while not at optimal effectiveness, will still produce a good 10-15 seconds of disorientation. The natural physiological reaction to the massive sensory dump of a flash bang is for people to crouch into a semi-fetal position, often raising one hand to the eyes in a sort of reflex, post-injury attempt to protect the eyes. In soldiers carrying firearms, the weight of the weapon, particularly if the soldier releases one hand, makes the weapon point towards the ground. People can train to sense this and compensate, however in those 10-15 seconds, assuming one has trained the extensive hours it takes for this to become reflex, the hand tends to over-compensate and the gun ends up pointing upwards. Remember that flash bangs disorient you because they literally flood your sensory system with too much conflicting information; there is no reasoning your way out of a flash bang, and your most logical and clear thoughts are still going to have to compete with all the chaotic information for actual brain time (a common occurrence for people who have been in this sort of situation is the feeling of telling yourself to do something, like block a hit, and simply not having your body respond).

But that is for trained people. If you are not trained in responding to a flash bang, you are likely to panic, point your gun towards the ground or ceiling and shoot out your entire clip in a few seconds (an M14 shoots 700-750 rounds a minute. A full clip has about 20 rounds. Do the math). You will not have the presence of mind or even the nerve and muscle control to switch out your magazine for a good 10-15 seconds, plus whatever time it takes you to actually get back into the locked, cocked, ready to rock mode of shooting at anyone else. We didn't have professional athletes at any of the high schools I went to, but I am willing to bet that most of them could sprint a cafeteria in that time and tackle someone on the other end. I am also willing to bet that they would be more likely to successfully do that and end up with less casualties, as opposed to everything involved in a multiple person shoot-out in a school cafeteria.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I would say if it is dark a flash is exceptional and blinding. Maybe everyone should carry some firecrackers or fireworks flashers with them at all time just in case. Don't try this in Minnesota where (all the good) fireworks are illegal.

Buy some really good party-poppers and see how these drugged-out Lib shooters like some of their own medicine. -that should be part of their jail sentence (every day throw some fireworks in the cell whenever they decide to sleep/nap). The US needs to declare "open season" on these school shooters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How would the states pay for this half-baked plan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How would the states pay for this half-baked plan:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/south-dakota-ends-budget-year-with-million-surplus/article_0508ce03-aa04-53c2-8d52-c2fc762e305e.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57516677/$1.6-billion-nd-budget-surplus-continues-to-zoom/

-Conservative states almost always have money (more workers, less moochers), plus corn/soybeans/wheat are priced high. +plus if these sentinels needed guns people would just donate them and probably train for free --> it wouldn't cost anything except for time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It can also increase them, particularly when done by a group of people not specifically trained in counterattack, particularly in a target-rich environment like a school.

Yes that is exactly what is being advocated put untrained people with guns in schools.....

Is that true? No idea. I don't have the ability to determine what may or may not have happened, and neither do you.

So what your saying is you don't want to concede that I'm right....That if the police officers were not there chances are more people would have been killed or wounded.

Military firearms used by insane people (or teachers suddenly thrust into life or death situations) produce bullets in all directions.

Yes just not instantaneously in all directions at all angles at the exact same moment.

Bullets are far more deadly than shrapnel.

That is only because you have much greater control over the placement of the bullet. Shrapnel is just as deadly as bullets, you reduce your ability to control where the shrapnel strikes someone in order to not have to spend as much time on making the throw just right.

C) even people with military training need a good 10-15 seconds to get their bearings after a flash-bang, which is enough time to tackle a person (or to throw another two or three flash-bangs more accurately at them, which is what would probably happen).

Actually it is significantly less time than that, studies show that the effects of a flash bang are around 3-6 seconds at best.

Which is why you train the teachers to cover, throw the flash bang, and take cover again, something that is almost intuitively known by most people due to the vast amount of war movies we see on a regular basis (and the desire to not actually be in the line of fire of the person with the machine gun). With actual training, the behavior is much easier to retain, particularly when compared to the amount of training required to effectively participate in a gunfight.

Your assuming the teacher has cover available, for example what if the gunman is standing in the door way and the teacher is in the class room, where exactly are the students going to take cover behind the teachers desk? Same with the teacher? What if the teacher is standing in the middle of the hall way? What if the hall way is filled with students how are you going to be able to lob that flash-bang over the heads and at the feet of the attacker?

And I have no problem with teachers or students being blinded, particularly when the alternative is being shot. Considering there are far more teachers and students than there are attackers, sheer probability will tell you that there is likely to be people not blinded who can take down the attackers.

Probability tells you it is most likely the students that will be blinded not the attacker and the ones that won't be will be to far away to tackle the attacker by the time the attacker regains his or her senses.

No, they don't.

Yes they do, on occasion and tendency mean the same thing and that is there is a significant minority chance the event in question will happen. If a person is standing next to a flash bang when it goes off the odds of their clothing starting on fire is surprisingly high.

Additionally, the vast majority of schools are mostly concrete and vinyl flooring, which massively reduces the chances of an accidental fire. And, to be frank, even if the chances of a fire, particularly an out-of-control fire, were not so low as to be negligible (keeping in mind that we are already talking about an event which is itself low probability), I would still prefer risking a fire than having multiple people shooting it out with guns in a school full of children.

Sadly you have a lot of clothing and backpacks and other flammable materials such as those ceiling tiles that can start on fire.

I would be more comfortable with them using taser guns than using flash bangs or firearms.

Which begs the counter-question: Why are you comparing law enforcement in the streets of the US to teachers in a school full of children?

Because you made the claim that it is an effective non lethal tool. If it was as effective as you claim it was and considering law enforcement job is to capture not to kill.....

The truth of the matter is that they are lot more dangerous than you are letting on. So much so that there have been very significant lobbying to reduce or even prevent law enforcement from using them in the US.

B) because arming regular police officers with flash bangs would increase the chances of military style tactics (or accusations) employed out on the field.

That is a mute point if they are not as lethal as they claim they are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, pretty much all law enforcement and military disagree with you.

To me incapacitate when I use that word means knocked out or be killed instantly not be blinded for a few seconds or be death for a few seconds. However though since my use of the term is incorrect that would be true.

It is already relatively bright, it is a wide open, non-enclosed space, so a flash bang here, while not at optimal effectiveness, will still produce a good 10-15 seconds of disorientation.

Not even close, if you look at the videos of Oakland police department using flash bangs on occupy wallstreet movement the flashbang produces effective disorientation for around 2 seconds at best.

The natural physiological reaction to the massive sensory dump of a flash bang is for people to crouch into a semi-fetal position, often raising one hand to the eyes in a sort of reflex, post-injury attempt to protect the eyes.

Again I look at the videos of Oakland police department using flash bangs on occupy wall street movement the flash bang does not cause that type of reaction and those flash bangs were nearly falling at the feet of the protesters. They do not in anyway react as you describe they should.

In soldiers carrying firearms, the weight of the weapon, particularly if the soldier releases one hand, makes the weapon point towards the ground.

What scientific study do you have to prove that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites