School security lacking
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013, 8:43 p.m.
School security lacking
With the recent mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., schools across the country are re-examining the security of their buildings. It shouldn't have taken such an horrific event to have schools do this. Schools are doing everything possible, within reason, to make their buildings as safe as possible.
The major thing to look at, not addressed with most security measures, is that time between a dangerous intruder entering a building and the police getting there — anywhere from two to 15 minutes. That's when all the damage is usually done. One protective measure during that time could be an armed security person in the building. But that one person, with one weapon, would be no match for a maniac with an arsenal of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
Most schools have a check-in point for visitors, as Sandy Hook Elementary did. But how many other entrances are unprotected? Glass can easily be broken and the building entered. It may help to have sensors on exterior glass doors that would put the building into immediate lockdown and notify police. Even then, the only thing protecting everyone is a locked door with a glass window, usually surrounded by more glass around the door.
We need to train school staff members to use makeshift weapons to reduce casualties. They are truly the first responders. As a former teacher and instructor on dealing with violence in schools, I can attest that we can do more to protect everyone.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Putin’s actions II
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Putin’s actions I
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Obstacles to hiring
- Math in common?
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Not reviled abroad
- Keep Laurel Point