Posted on Apr 11, 2018
A Former Embassy Guard's Solution To School Shootings
52.7K
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?
Firearms and Guns
Security
Teacher
Education
Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 62
0
0
0
One scenario that this doesn't help is when a student already has a gun inside the school. You need a way to stop that too. It is a simple fix but not mentioned. I often point out to people that the existing gun laws are enough. They need to enforce those laws to include not selling weapons to those with mental illnesses. Spend the money to treat the illnesses before they become a problem. More people die every day from suicide than from murders.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir, the intent would be to check everyone, every day. But I agree with you that current gun laws are adequate. My main point was to illustrate that "rules and regulations" can provide almost total protection, but the cost would be astronomical and any intelligent person could look at it and see that it's overkill. Peeling back layers means accepting risk. But we do that in every part of life. There should be no difference with schools.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm not so sure that physical security measures are really in question. School buildings have existed longer than the prevalence of a motive for someone to bring a gun to school and shoot other people.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
So lets start out by going after NRA and its members and Supporters and tax the snot out of them. If you need more then 1 Bullet to kill a Deer your doing it wrong. So why would anyone need a 100 round clip
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
You might have a point if firearms were used for nothing but hunting deer. But target shooting is actually fun and requires a lot more ammo. As for the magazine capacity, if I thought that would stop mass shootings I'd jump on board with you. But it won't. And you can only assume that it will result in fewer casualties.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I was asked once in my HR Guru role how to prevent harassment. Besides replacing people with robots, the only absolute solution I could come up with, and I did in fact give it some thought, was to have everybody -- EVERYBODY -- dress in Burkas, the ones with the cloth over the eyes and to minimize interaction between people to the largest extent possible. Told that was impossible, I said that so was the task. Let's redefine it.
I like the idea of focusing on the site and on the grounds. I also like the idea of school uniforms to preclude Piper and Pipette from wearing "tactical" pants and black raincoats with shotguns and AR15s concealed underneath. Realistically, reducing the number of rounds available without reloading will reduce the time the shooter is shooting while either attacking or defending him or herself. But, ultimately it comes down to resources. A platoon of Marine Embassy Guards was the norm for a long time; costs reduced that to a lot of outsourced or civilian employee security forces. Given my choice, no constraints, I want the platoon of jarheads as opposed to ACME Security Specialists or whomever. But, that's X number of war fighters at a lot more money than anyone wants to spend.
Same of course, with schools, perhaps to some absurd degree. But, I think the SWOT analysis (Strength/Weakness, Opportunity/Threat) analysis should definitely look at the school (or other target) from both the perspective of a likely attacker.
And then, figure out what priority socially and budgetarily you've got here and then do what needs to be done.
In other words, whether for schools, or embassies or military bases or our infrastructure, security needs more money spent wisely and fewer thoughts and prayers. Whenever I see the colors at half staff, I like to check immediately as to why. It's surprising how often it's not for anything militarily or historically related to the American experiment and it's protection, and how often to mourn the dead caused by another obsessive, spiteful and confused citizen.
I like the idea of focusing on the site and on the grounds. I also like the idea of school uniforms to preclude Piper and Pipette from wearing "tactical" pants and black raincoats with shotguns and AR15s concealed underneath. Realistically, reducing the number of rounds available without reloading will reduce the time the shooter is shooting while either attacking or defending him or herself. But, ultimately it comes down to resources. A platoon of Marine Embassy Guards was the norm for a long time; costs reduced that to a lot of outsourced or civilian employee security forces. Given my choice, no constraints, I want the platoon of jarheads as opposed to ACME Security Specialists or whomever. But, that's X number of war fighters at a lot more money than anyone wants to spend.
Same of course, with schools, perhaps to some absurd degree. But, I think the SWOT analysis (Strength/Weakness, Opportunity/Threat) analysis should definitely look at the school (or other target) from both the perspective of a likely attacker.
And then, figure out what priority socially and budgetarily you've got here and then do what needs to be done.
In other words, whether for schools, or embassies or military bases or our infrastructure, security needs more money spent wisely and fewer thoughts and prayers. Whenever I see the colors at half staff, I like to check immediately as to why. It's surprising how often it's not for anything militarily or historically related to the American experiment and it's protection, and how often to mourn the dead caused by another obsessive, spiteful and confused citizen.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spot on article on the school shooting issue in this country! Why is it that most countries have armed guards in the schools other than here in the gods old USA? Wake up folks, bad people are bad and we need to defend our prescious resource(children) from getting hurt!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Agree with you 110%. Spent 5 years with military law enforcement and 11 years with ships security force. There are thousands of retired military out here with nothing to do and are very capable of providing security for schools. Guess protecting our schools and children aren’t really that high on the list of priorities.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Gun violence in schools may not be "controlled". Military bases have been attacked. Banks have been robbed. Prisons have riots. Stores get robbed. What do they all have in common...armed guards.
Signs, media, armed guards, armed teachers may deter a would be shooter, until they find an entry point which can be breached, or change their intended target.
Our kids need protection, and the answers may not be in safe rooms, buckets of rocks, bats, barricades, guns, training, police presence, or metal detectors...but something might save their lives.
The first thing to do right would be to tone down the media, stop the sensationalism of the massacres, and quit talking about gun control. Gun control discussions sparked a rush on purchasing guns and ammunition and acquiring licenses to carry.
Signs, media, armed guards, armed teachers may deter a would be shooter, until they find an entry point which can be breached, or change their intended target.
Our kids need protection, and the answers may not be in safe rooms, buckets of rocks, bats, barricades, guns, training, police presence, or metal detectors...but something might save their lives.
The first thing to do right would be to tone down the media, stop the sensationalism of the massacres, and quit talking about gun control. Gun control discussions sparked a rush on purchasing guns and ammunition and acquiring licenses to carry.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree that the media should be toned down but that would be asking them to make less money. I doubt that will happen any time soon.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google