Posted on Apr 11, 2018
A Former Embassy Guard's Solution To School Shootings
52.6K
514
130
131
131
0
*The views expressed in RallyPoint Command Posts are those of the authors’ and are not endorsed by RallyPoint*
This whole gun debate is getting out of hand. We’re focusing on all the wrong things in my opinion. So, I did some thinking and came up with a tried and true way of bringing school shootings to zero. Or close to it.
Most of the arguments I hear about how to stop school shootings are focused on the shooter. That’s our first problem. It’s an impossible task to try to stop the next shooter when they’re all different, have different motives, and different resources. The other arguments focus on the weapons. AR-15’s bear the brunt of this. What makes this weapon so bad? Magazine capacity? Ok. So, will forcing the shooter to reload more save lives? Maybe, maybe not. Most everyone I know with an AR-15 shoots FMJ rounds like we use in the military. If I had to choose between my child getting shot with a green tipped 5.56 round or a 30.06 Core-Lokt round, I’ll pick the AR-15 round 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. So, let’s be careful before we force these murderers to choose a 30.06. Just food for thought.
So, if focusing on the shooter and focusing on the weapon won’t work, what will? We need to focus on the school. Bear with me as I walk through this.
I was a Marine Security Guard at the American Embassy in Bogota, Colombia and Harare, Zimbabwe. Despite what you see in movies, the MSG’s job is to protect the people and information INSIDE the embassy. Much like what needs to be done at a school. What happens outside was of little concern. We literally never talked about the threats to the embassy unless they were an actual force like the FARC in Colombia. There was no point in spending time trying to pinpoint some individual that no one knows who might do something one day. So how did we protect the people and information inside from these unknown threats? I’ll use the embassy in Colombia for this analysis since it was much more fortified. First, we start with the building to be protected being placed far away from any streets. How far? Far enough that if a car blew up on the street nothing would happen to the building. Next, we have a wall (not a fence) surrounding the property to keep people and vehicles from going off-road and getting to the building. The entry point will have armed guards and barriers. Every vehicle and every person is searched at this gate before entering. The armed guard inside has cameras on the entire property. Could someone still scale the wall and sneak onto the property? Sure, but we’ll cover that later.
What if someone shoots the guards outside and heads toward the building you say? Well the building is fortified with bullet proof glass and blast resistant doors. And those doors are locked and controlled by another armed guard inside. This guard also can control the barriers at the outside gate should he need to. (Make a mental note that at this time the guard inside just triggered an alarm and 5-10 other guys that are nearby are suiting up to come help.) Located around the perimeter of the building are CS canisters that the guard inside can deploy as needed. So, the intruder that killed the guards outside and made a run for the front door is now sucking in gas.
What if someone has a gas mask and somehow gets inside the building with a gun? Remember that armed guard inside the building? With the flip of a switch he can magnetically lock all the doors in the building. So now the intruder can only attack those who find themselves outside of the locked down areas. But he better hurry because that armed response team I mentioned earlier is only minutes away. And this team does nothing but train to clear and defend this particular building. They have rehearsed this scenario more times than they can count, and they know every nook and cranny in the building. You can’t hide. Their whole purpose in life is this exact scenario. The intruder will soon be dead.
You can see how much better this is than the current situation schools face where the shooter just walks through the front door and starts shooting. A single police officer may be there in a minute, but it takes some time figuring out what’s going on. He also doesn’t know the layout of the building. Meanwhile other law enforcement arrives and a plan is developed. All of this takes time and during that time people are dying.
But you also see the enormous cost this would entail. It is impossible to do what I’ve described in every school if any. So, what do we do? We start peeling off layers of security. The building won’t be fortified. Maybe we have an armed guard, but he isn’t in a protected position and most likely becomes the first casualty. We might install a metal detector, but it will be inside and useless for someone looking to start shooting. In the military we call this Risk Management. FM 6-0 defines it as the process of identifying, assessing, and controlling risks arising from operational factors and making decisions that balance risk cost with mission benefits. We know at the beginning of an operation people will die. We do what we can to limit that, but we can’t prevent it completely. Every layer of security we peel off from what I’ve described means we assume a little more risk which equates to possible deaths. Is the embassy scenario overkill? Probably. But at what point do you stop adding security measures and accept the risk?
The point of this is to show that A) there is a way to protect our children in school almost completely. And B) the cost to do so would be astronomical. Now we just need to decide how much we’re willing to pay (since our taxes pay for schools). But we must focus on the facility being protected. We don’t focus on unnamed, random threats in the military so why do that here? We also don’t focus on getting rid of something so prevalent as guns. We have entire government agencies focused on getting rid of illegal drugs and they can’t do it. If you think outlawing guns in the US won’t make every arms dealer in the world start drooling, you’re wrong. The influx of illegal weapons into our country would be enormous and immediate. It’s basic economics.
So, we have the plan. And like most other things in life it really comes down to money. How much are you willing to spend and how much risk are you ready to assume?
This whole gun debate is getting out of hand. We’re focusing on all the wrong things in my opinion. So, I did some thinking and came up with a tried and true way of bringing school shootings to zero. Or close to it.
Most of the arguments I hear about how to stop school shootings are focused on the shooter. That’s our first problem. It’s an impossible task to try to stop the next shooter when they’re all different, have different motives, and different resources. The other arguments focus on the weapons. AR-15’s bear the brunt of this. What makes this weapon so bad? Magazine capacity? Ok. So, will forcing the shooter to reload more save lives? Maybe, maybe not. Most everyone I know with an AR-15 shoots FMJ rounds like we use in the military. If I had to choose between my child getting shot with a green tipped 5.56 round or a 30.06 Core-Lokt round, I’ll pick the AR-15 round 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. So, let’s be careful before we force these murderers to choose a 30.06. Just food for thought.
So, if focusing on the shooter and focusing on the weapon won’t work, what will? We need to focus on the school. Bear with me as I walk through this.
I was a Marine Security Guard at the American Embassy in Bogota, Colombia and Harare, Zimbabwe. Despite what you see in movies, the MSG’s job is to protect the people and information INSIDE the embassy. Much like what needs to be done at a school. What happens outside was of little concern. We literally never talked about the threats to the embassy unless they were an actual force like the FARC in Colombia. There was no point in spending time trying to pinpoint some individual that no one knows who might do something one day. So how did we protect the people and information inside from these unknown threats? I’ll use the embassy in Colombia for this analysis since it was much more fortified. First, we start with the building to be protected being placed far away from any streets. How far? Far enough that if a car blew up on the street nothing would happen to the building. Next, we have a wall (not a fence) surrounding the property to keep people and vehicles from going off-road and getting to the building. The entry point will have armed guards and barriers. Every vehicle and every person is searched at this gate before entering. The armed guard inside has cameras on the entire property. Could someone still scale the wall and sneak onto the property? Sure, but we’ll cover that later.
What if someone shoots the guards outside and heads toward the building you say? Well the building is fortified with bullet proof glass and blast resistant doors. And those doors are locked and controlled by another armed guard inside. This guard also can control the barriers at the outside gate should he need to. (Make a mental note that at this time the guard inside just triggered an alarm and 5-10 other guys that are nearby are suiting up to come help.) Located around the perimeter of the building are CS canisters that the guard inside can deploy as needed. So, the intruder that killed the guards outside and made a run for the front door is now sucking in gas.
What if someone has a gas mask and somehow gets inside the building with a gun? Remember that armed guard inside the building? With the flip of a switch he can magnetically lock all the doors in the building. So now the intruder can only attack those who find themselves outside of the locked down areas. But he better hurry because that armed response team I mentioned earlier is only minutes away. And this team does nothing but train to clear and defend this particular building. They have rehearsed this scenario more times than they can count, and they know every nook and cranny in the building. You can’t hide. Their whole purpose in life is this exact scenario. The intruder will soon be dead.
You can see how much better this is than the current situation schools face where the shooter just walks through the front door and starts shooting. A single police officer may be there in a minute, but it takes some time figuring out what’s going on. He also doesn’t know the layout of the building. Meanwhile other law enforcement arrives and a plan is developed. All of this takes time and during that time people are dying.
But you also see the enormous cost this would entail. It is impossible to do what I’ve described in every school if any. So, what do we do? We start peeling off layers of security. The building won’t be fortified. Maybe we have an armed guard, but he isn’t in a protected position and most likely becomes the first casualty. We might install a metal detector, but it will be inside and useless for someone looking to start shooting. In the military we call this Risk Management. FM 6-0 defines it as the process of identifying, assessing, and controlling risks arising from operational factors and making decisions that balance risk cost with mission benefits. We know at the beginning of an operation people will die. We do what we can to limit that, but we can’t prevent it completely. Every layer of security we peel off from what I’ve described means we assume a little more risk which equates to possible deaths. Is the embassy scenario overkill? Probably. But at what point do you stop adding security measures and accept the risk?
The point of this is to show that A) there is a way to protect our children in school almost completely. And B) the cost to do so would be astronomical. Now we just need to decide how much we’re willing to pay (since our taxes pay for schools). But we must focus on the facility being protected. We don’t focus on unnamed, random threats in the military so why do that here? We also don’t focus on getting rid of something so prevalent as guns. We have entire government agencies focused on getting rid of illegal drugs and they can’t do it. If you think outlawing guns in the US won’t make every arms dealer in the world start drooling, you’re wrong. The influx of illegal weapons into our country would be enormous and immediate. It’s basic economics.
So, we have the plan. And like most other things in life it really comes down to money. How much are you willing to spend and how much risk are you ready to assume?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 62
Great article. I know on MSG duty, you have lots of time to think. You did well.
(3)
(0)
Good points and good responses. At some point our community leaders in all facets are wondering what happened at the school and why. I know each school have a teachers and parents school associations. Why not get them involved. Better yet why not get every parent, every law enforcement officers, and every community leader involved. The responsibility that I see is everyone who’s child is in jeopardy. Great advice and proven facts. People just don’t get it sometimes. You have to have someone killed or injured before forcing the issue.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
A result of Gov't being RE-ACTIVE and TRANSACTIONAL vs. PRO-ACTIVE and TRANSFORMATIONAL....
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see) I read the article and I was dismayed. The education institution I remember was one where little kids and young people were scattering off to classes, meeting for lunch on the lawn, playing hooky and sneaking off campus. It is unfortunate that the horror story from school of being caught sneaking back on campus seems like a fairy tale and the true horror story is "my school has a swat team on standby and my teacher carries a gun". The schools are armed against terrorism and the students and staff function with PTSD in our communities and we have active duty fighting the war on terrorism away from home. I don't know. Is this what is next for societies?
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Our society certainly seems to have taken a turn for the worse. But I also think the media does its best to convince us that problems are bigger than they actually are. School shootings, while tragic, are not very likely to happen given the number of schools we have in this country. But to watch the news you'd think they were going to class in a war zone.
(3)
(0)
Maybe we could also post the 10 Commandments at every school too. After all, schools are NOT Congress, and Congress is the only entity prohibited from creating a State religion. The Constitution says we can freely practice our religion anywhere we want. What better place to teach people to respect their parents and not to murder? Is it really wrong to say, "Don't commit adultery?"
Bring God back to school. That will help.
Bring God back to school. That will help.
(2)
(0)
You are the expert and I like the direction you are taking. That is to say I'm glad I didn't see any attack on the constitution. But, I think you take a little over the top. When I was in school, all the doors only had latches on the inside and classroom doors were on each side so if a student opened an outside door to let someone in a teacher noticed. In those days teachers were like police almost so woe be It to anyone opening a door to the outside.
I just think doors like that and a few armed personnel would be enough. Like I said though, you're the expert.
I just think doors like that and a few armed personnel would be enough. Like I said though, you're the expert.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Being "over the top" was my point. What irritates me about this discussion is that everyone seems to be falling all over themselves for a solution. This article shows the solution that's tired and true but also shows the enormous cost. No one would pay to have what I proposed done. So like in everything else, you start peeling back layers of security until the cost is reasonable as compared to the threat. You're correct that better doors that can be locked and a few armed professionals would help a lot.
(0)
(0)
It makes perfect sense and it can be done quite inexpensively I don’t want to be mean but I have spent my whole life since I was seventeen years old in the military and law enforcement and I have lost count of the number of times I sworn an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic I have been shot at and missed and shot at and hit. Down here we have so many retired law enforcement officers and retired military veterans that you could get them to do the protection for the kids for free! THE WIVES WOULD BE SAYING PLEASE GET HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE HE IS DRIVING ME STARK RAVING MAD!!!!!
(2)
(0)
or even better yet....home school. Oh but parents work, well then just move to the mountains and live off the land away from everyone. But then you have lions and tigers and bears. lol Its not a laughing matter but honestly just bring the bible back to the schools IMO! Civility is out the door these days build up morality that's a NO BRAINER! And guess what it costs NOTHING!
(2)
(0)
Very well stated, and as one who worked in Embassies also, I can personally state their level of security is amazing. It's a "normal day at the office" for most foreign service workers, however; it think it would seem more like sending their kids to a prison for the average American Joe and Jane. I am all for beefing up security at schools (my child is well beyond school age), hiring veterans or volunteers as resource officers, and just increasing the level of physical security at schools overall (walls, screening devices, etc). I think we are going to see a trend of a lot more folks trying to home-school their kids. All the increases in security measures as schools will cause increases in taxes. Homes with two working parents will probably start weighing the advantages and disadvantages of having two incomes, especially if the majority of one of them is going solely to pay for the increased taxes and other expenditures related to school security. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that trend, as I personally believe that parents have left the reins of raising their children to the schools anyway. Parents need to take back the full responsibility of raising fully-function human beings to adulthood; including the respect for others, respect for law enforcement, respect for rules and regulations, and respect for,last but not least, their COUNTRY!
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
TSgt Sandra V. I couldn't agree more. The point of my article was to show that we can in fact secure buildings and the people inside them. We do it everyday. But it comes at a very high cost. If I were to write about what I thought the actual root problems of this violence (and a lot of America's issues), it would begin with the breakdown of the American family. I know I'll step on some toes here but, when I see both parents working and dropping their 8 week old baby off at day care all I can think is "For what?". More money? More vacations? More stuff? The stuff is nice and there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it too comes with a high cost. And that cost is that someone else is raising your child.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Sandra V.
And compounding this whole problem is the rising number of single parents. I was one from the time my child was 2. I divorced my husband, got out of the military, got a great civilian job, BUT the downside was the long hours, having to put my child in daycare (sponsored by the US Navy at the Federal Building) from a very young age, and for very long hours. I don't think there is one definitive solution to this problem, BUT I do believe a vast majority of the problem with school shootings lies with the break-down of the basic family structure and support system. I also feel the media needs to not "glorify" these incidents (and therefore the shooters) and harp on them forever and ever. Reporters need to get back to the job of actually just REPORTING the news, not politicizing it, nor emotionalizing it. Just report the damned facts and move on!
(0)
(0)
I've spent 16 years, all after Columbine, on the local School Board and have tossed fits about the security issue many times. Your solution would work against outside threats over the objections of most civilians, school administrators and teachers. Let's assume the money is available (which it isn't in most school districts). First, none of the above want a fortress school because it might give the students the impression they're "locked down". Second, most of them are totally ignorant of firearms and feel introducing them to the school environment will result in accidental shootings, students taking the weapon from the armed person, and, again, the students' poor little minds feeling threatened. They all prefer passive defenses such as IDs (my stated opinion was they would only assist in the identification of the dead), central lock systems (we have them, but the kids and teachers all block them open for assorted reason), cameras (I said they would be handy for recreating the incident), and an additional principal who would walk around handling disciplinary problems (untrained in psychology, defense or security). Of course, police are nothing but a pipeline to jail and the kids won't feel safe around them.
Second problem, most of the shooters have been insiders not invaders, so all the security to keep people out is not effective 95% of the time.
The solution I felt had the most potential for success was the trained School Resource Officer. Take a look at the web site for the national association. A qualified SRO is first a fully qualified police officer, then he's trained in appropriate security measures in a school and can make recommendations for creating a safer environment. Then, and most importantly, he's trained to interact with the kids. Consider all the shootings. Most of the time the kids say that the shooter was weird and they could see him doing what he did. By interacting with the kids, not sitting in an office, an SRO becomes the trusted agent amongst the students, he's not going to give you detention and has nothing to do with your grades, but he hears the talk, sometimes receives tips from the kids who have learned to trust him, recognizes the ones who don't fit in or seem to have problems and can take preemptive action to prevent the incident by either interacting with the kid, or bringing the appropriate people in to resolve the situation. And yes, when all else fails, blow the idiot away.
In our area they cost about $80,000 per year, remain active policemen, and are not running around thinking about retiring.
Second problem, most of the shooters have been insiders not invaders, so all the security to keep people out is not effective 95% of the time.
The solution I felt had the most potential for success was the trained School Resource Officer. Take a look at the web site for the national association. A qualified SRO is first a fully qualified police officer, then he's trained in appropriate security measures in a school and can make recommendations for creating a safer environment. Then, and most importantly, he's trained to interact with the kids. Consider all the shootings. Most of the time the kids say that the shooter was weird and they could see him doing what he did. By interacting with the kids, not sitting in an office, an SRO becomes the trusted agent amongst the students, he's not going to give you detention and has nothing to do with your grades, but he hears the talk, sometimes receives tips from the kids who have learned to trust him, recognizes the ones who don't fit in or seem to have problems and can take preemptive action to prevent the incident by either interacting with the kid, or bringing the appropriate people in to resolve the situation. And yes, when all else fails, blow the idiot away.
In our area they cost about $80,000 per year, remain active policemen, and are not running around thinking about retiring.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The SRO you described sounds like a very viable solution. Much better than the versions I've heard elsewhere. Thank you for sharing that.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next


Firearms and Guns
Teacher
Education
Command Post

