Arm Teachers? Let's Make Them 'Emergency Management Specialists' Instead

A long time ago, Katherine and I advocated parent groups to help schools be the safe learning environments they're supposed to be. Our efforts never gained much traction despite our best efforts. 

Several reasons for this come to mind.

Lack of knowledge on what emergency management is, much less entails, was one of those reasons. 

Another reason was apathy. It seems like this kind of effort is almost cyclical. A graphic I made helps illustrate this point:

Another reason was no one appeared to know where to start. Parents are key stakeholders in their children's safety while at school. Problem is, few of them know what emergency management is, what their role in it might be, or how overwhelming the process can sometimes be, especially without adequate training in that process.

That's pretty much where everything broke down. 

Today, we still have school districts kind of floundering as they face active shooter drill requirements by law. They also have little, to no, knowledge on how to design, develop, and conduct lockdown drills that actually do no harm to those they're intended to protect.

Frustrating? You bet! Why? Because now there's an ongoing and growing call to arm teachers and/or school staff instead of looking at the bigger school safety picture.

So, I got thinking there has to be a better way because school safety is so much more than active shooter drills and lockdowns. 

Voila! FEMA, by it's very organizational structure, could serve as a model for how to better address this issue. There's the Federal level emergency management organization (FEMA). There are state level emergency management organizations in every state. There are county level emergency management organizations in every state. There are even city level emergency management organizations albeit mostly in 'larger' communities. County and/or city emergency management organizations are the 'boots on the ground' that actually engage in designing, developing, and implementing their jurisdictions' emergency management programs.

My point is, that's a model for educational organizations, as well. There's already a Department of Education at the Federal level that has resources available to help provide for school safety. There are similar state level organizations. There are similar county level organizations. Jefferson County Schools in Colorado (home of Columbine High School) is an example of this. Their Emergency Response Crisis Management Manual is comprehensive, complete, and follows what, in the emergency management community, are called 'best practices' currently available.

Thing is, though, many schools aren't at this level, yet. I'd be willing to wager most school staff in Jefferson County, Colorado aren't even at that level either. If any of them can tell me they are familiar with all the things detailed in the Manual they would be required to do if an actual incident played out, I'll eat my words. 

So, what's missing here? In emergency management circles, the local emergency management director at county and/or city levels directs emergency management activities including all five Mission Areas and Core Capabilities. The same preparedness mission areas of emergency management also apply to school safety:

REMS TA Center

But, in schools, who actually does all this stuff? Finding the answer to this question can be a bit of a challenge. The FEMA hierarchy includes 'boots on the ground' at local levels that actually design, develop, and implement local emergency preparedness missions. Schools, however, lack that last, most vital tier. And, that's where teachers can fill a vital role. Teachers could become paid part time 'emergency management specialists' in an extra-curricular capacity, like coaches, in their individual schools. That's what's been missing here. 

Simple. Straightforward. Cost-effective. All that's needed is for school districts to find it within their budgets to allocate for, and create, these positions.

Arming teachers with weapons is fraught with risks that far too many do not take into consideration. For me, personally, arming teachers is a non-starter. There are better alternatives. Creating 'emergency management specialist' positions to be filled by teachers willing to acquire appropriate training and certification is arguably one of the best alternatives available in my humble opinion. Also, training is free and accessible online from multiple sources including FEMA (Multihazard Emergency Planning for Schools Site Index), schoolsafety.gov, and Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center.

Where there's a will, there's always a way.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

The 'Real' Bullies in Mass Shootings.....

Remember awhile back when there was a counter-movement to the March For Our Lives movement called #WalkUPnotOUT? While well intentioned, I personally believe that effort was an attempt to try and address bullying in schools and to place responsibility for doing that squarely on the shoulders of the kids choosing to participate in the walk-outs and the protests of March For Our Lives.

 
With that, who are the real bullies in mass school shootings? Really. Who are they?

Soon after the massacre at Columbine High School April 20, 1999, rumors began circulating about the possibility that the two shooters who carried out this massacre had been the victims of bullying at the school. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Whether they were or were not is a conclusion that, by its very nature, must be reached individually by each of us based on our own knowledge and on our own perceptions of the incident, itself.

The fact is they, themselves --- the two shooters of Columbine, became bullies in the most extreme sense of the word as soon as they set their insane plan in motion. I would venture to say this is the case with any shooter, or shooters, in any mass shooting be it in a school or other public venue.

Bullying, while having been in existence since, well, forever, has taken on a new identity, a new methodology, if you will, with the advent of social media on the Internet. It takes on many more forms than it ever has in the past, as well. There's cyber-bullying, physical bullying, work-place bullying, verbal bullying, and the list goes on. There is also much more of a focus on bullying now than there ever has been in the past, due, in part, to the media attention being focused on teen suicides as a result of bullying. The problem as I see it, however, is there are so many facets, so many levels, to bullying in general, that it is difficult, at best, to be able to put a definitive face on it every single time.

The Columbine shooters were bullies extraordinaire. One of those shooters, was, in fact, a psychopath.

They bullied to the point of carrying out a massacre.

They caused an ensuing debate with few, if any, answers as to 'why' by taking their own lives, thereby leaving entire families and a grievously wounded community with no one at whom to direct their collective grief, sorrow, and, in some cases, rage.

Not only did these two bully an entire school, they bullied an entire community, as well. They bullied their parents, their siblings. They bullied their surviving victims. 

In reality, I suppose it could be said they actually bullied a nation.

I've been asked the question, "Do you hate them --- the shooters, that is?" I didn't know them, so how could I realistically hate them? Do I hate what they did? That pretty much goes without saying. Have I forgiven them? I honestly can't say that I have. Perhaps someday, I'll be able to reach a definitive point of forgiveness toward them. That day hasn't yet arrived.

They did so much harm to so many, I can't begin to wrap my own head around why they would do such a thing. Maybe that's a good thing - if any of us actually understood why they did this horrible thing, wouldn't that make us capable of similar acts? I don't know. What I do know, however, is that the answers to 'why' died the day they took their own lives. Beyond that, I believe anything anyone comes up with is pure speculation.

I've also been asked, "Do you blame the parents?" You know, even my Dad asked a similar question. He tried so very hard to wrap his head around why anyone would do this, how the parents could be caught so off guard. All I could say to him was that these families were as caught up in their grief as any other families were. These families had suffered great loss, too. These family’s lives were also changed forever. Does that absolve them from guilt? Could they have been more aware of what was going on? Could they have done more to get help for their kids? I don't presume to judge them in any way, shape, or form. That's something they must work through in their own healing process. I don't wish them ill, never have and never will. They didn't bully anyone that I am aware of - their sons did. Does that make them guilty by association? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I prefer to think not.

So, how can any of the questions asked following this massacre be definitively answered? I don't know. All I know is if we do nothing, if we do not engage in dialogue, intelligent and meaningful discussion, we'll never be able to put an end to the issue of bullying itself.

Hell, as time has elapsed and the nation keeps experiencing more and more mass shootings, Columbine has faded into most people's collective memories. Oh, it’s still there for sure. It’s just not the primary topic of conversation when another mass shooting goes front and center in our lives. Rather, it’s a sort of a citation, something to be referenced as a comparison. And even those instances are becoming fewer and fewer as more recent mass shootings eclipse the savagery the shooters of Columbine carried out. I've heard tell there are even those who don't know what is being talked about when the subject of Columbine is brought up. That's not their fault. No, indeed, it isn’t. It’s our OWN damn fault.

To be clear, I'm not saying any of this out of any sense of need for sympathy or condolences either for my own, or for my family’s, personal experiences in the massacre known as 'Columbine'. Likewise, I'm not doing this to gain anyone's approval or permission to proceed with my memories, my experiences, etc., either. It took me a long time to even be able to give myself permission to do something like this. And I'm not going to stop just because someone who does not truly know me apparently thinks ill of me, or thinks I'm too close to the incident to be able to speak to it rationally, or believes I'm using my children in some way to further an agenda because of their direct involvement in the massacre. I simply do not care what people like this think. My thoughts and my experiences are my own, not theirs. That's a simple statement of fact. Truth is, bullies are everywhere. On social media sites, the bullying can be, and often times is, brutal.

For far too long, prior to the massacre at Columbine, my family hid behind a veil of secrecy, pretty much pretending that everything was okay, putting on the happy face so no one would suspect any underlying problems even existed. That facade was erected to hide a very pervasive, very debilitating mental illness in my first wife that ultimately resulted in her suicide with a gun. I've been told her suicide by gun was my fault. That, to me, is bullying in the extreme.

There was a controversy surrounding the phrase "We Are Columbine" that came into widespread use almost immediately following that fateful day. Because this massacre affected so many, a modification was eventually made to the phrase to read "We Are ALL Columbine". Whether or not that satisfied everyone is a question each individual will need to answer for themselves. If we truly are all Columbine, then we should all also have a voice, a means by which we can all share our own stories, our own paths toward healing, and our own journeys as we each move forward with our lives. That's the only way, in my opinion, that meaningful lessons can be learned from any of this. That being said, I do not for one second believe any of us will ever completely heal from this. I do know, however, that each of us can once again find happiness if we never, ever give up striving toward it.

Given the fact kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have put themselves out there in order to try and turn their own personal trauma into something positive, and given the fact they continue to get attacked and bullied for doing so, it behooves ALL of us ---- EVERY..SINGLE..ONE..OF..US --- to heed the call for calm and rational conversations on how best to address not only the ongoing issue of bullying, but also the ongoing issue of gun violence in this country.

Our journey continues.....

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

DO SOMETHING!!!

 

October 15, 2015 Eric Mace published the following missive on his Facebook timeline Do Something. In it, he asks folks on both sides of the gun safety reform issue to actually do something. His daughter, Ryanne, was one of the victims in the Northern Illinois University mass shooting February 14, 2008. I'll let Eric speak for himself, though:

Eric Mace: 

Several days ago a close friend of mine posted a statement about doing something to reduce the number of mass shootings there have been over the last several years and the fact that they are becoming more frequent. He referred to what I've gone through since Ryanne's murder in '08 and echoed a sentiment that I've had since the day she was gunned down. That sentiment is simple and easily encapsulated by the following statement: do something!

To put some more detail behind it, it's not a simple request even though it can be boiled down just those two words. Remarkably, it confuses the hell out of lots of people because of their own internal biases and fears. For some, it's a call to action on the subject of gun control while others see it as an expression of desire to take away someone's rights. Overall, it's an example of people fixating on whether the glass is half full or half empty when they should be making a cheeseburger. Even more confused now? Well, I'll try to clear it up in the next few paragraphs so, please, bear with me.

When I ask for something to be done I'm not specifically talking about guns. While the problem revolves primarily around them there are plenty of things that can be done to have a positive impact on the number of people dying because of them. In my case, I'm often intentionally NOT talking about doing anything about the guns themselves simply because so many people lose their minds and nothing happens other than yelling and screaming.

What I am asking for is innovative thinking that will cut through the rhetoric and the arguments and just accomplish some kind of change in what is a ever-increasing problem. I've tried to do this on my own but I've hit the point to where I must acknowledge that I do not know everything I need to know to fix this problem. Mostly, it's because of my own ignorance and inexperience but also because I'm not the kind of thinker that is needed in this case.

My view of innovative thinking in the weeks after Ryanne's murder was to look at all of the things that were coming at me and try to pick a unique combination of them that might make a difference. This was motivated by the old saying about doing the same thing repeatedly hoping the outcome will change - you must do something different to expect different results.

So I set about looking at things that I could do outside of the gun debate. I took the NRA at their word that the solution was not in banning guns but in addressing mental health issues. They said it was evil that killed my daughter and 4 other innocent young adults in a classroom and that the gun was simply the tool that evil chose to use. So, it seemed to make sense that we would start a scholarship in Ryanne's memory to produce more mental health counselors, the career calling Ryanne herself was answering by getting her education. Folks from the pro-gun side of the spectrum stated all over the place that, short of arming everyone, greater access to mental health treatment was the way to go and they fully supported efforts in that area. Well, I gotta call bullshit on that one 'cuz once it was time to pony up some money to do exactly that all we saw from them was nothing. Zilch. Zippo. Nada.

So, I got involved in trying to strengthen the background check system. Once again, not about guns themselves but about people. That's what the NRA said was the problem on millions of t-shirts, bumper stickers, and TV ads - "guns don't kill people, people kill people". So, cool, let's check the people and see if they meet the criteria to be trusted with a gun. If we stop only one mass shooting in the process it's a victory. It might not make a huge dent in the total numbers of people killed by people using guns but it would make a world of difference for those few who don't have to live through what I've had to experience. Sadly, the NRA changed its stance on background checks from what it was in the late '90s when they strongly supported them to their current position of blocking a control on people instead of weapons. So, once again, I'm left at an impasse without any results to show for the trip down to the dead end.

So, all of this typing and talking boils down to a single reality, I'm out of ideas but I'm not out of energy to work on something. I am, however, limited on the amount of time and energy I have before I die and I want to make something count. So, a few years ago I started asking for someone to propose something to me that would make a tangible difference and would rally both sides of the gun divide to a common goal. Believe it or not, I got even more pushback than when I was talking about guns from people who still thought I was talking about guns. The majority of them were folks who didn't trust me, I guess, because they continued to act as if I was maneuvering into position to take their guns when I was proposing nothing and simply asking for ideas. Others discounted me since I was not actively pursuing their agenda and did little to help. But, perhaps the most insulting of all of these people were the ones who said that simply advocating that something be done is easy. Like hell it is.

I've seen this throughout my life and it all comes to one pinpoint for me about human behavior - everyone's an expert when looking at someone else's plan but most are total morons when it comes to coming up with one of their own. I've served in various capacities as part of decision-making teams and it's almost always been the same condition: it's incredibly difficult to come up with a possible solution and stupid easy to say it won't work or complain about it. Both look like they involve the same amount of effort on the surface but that's a flat-out lie.

So, if you've made this far in this post, I thank you for reading through it. I wrote this mostly because I've had good people on both sides of the gun debate ask me what they can do to help as if I'm an expert in what the solution might be. My message to all of them is to come up with something that you can do to help. You're all intelligent, rational people or you wouldn't be on my friends list. So, here's the direction I'll give you all (if you care to take it) - come up with something new that makes a small change and present it to me or this entire group. It doesn't have to be much, anything might help. Just be constructive and courageous enough to take some criticism. Remember, you always get more points for trying and failing than anyone gets by simply crapping on an idea. Even if it doesn't work or can't work we can at least identify it and move on to a new thing. All I care about is getting something, almost anything, positive accomplished.

I will close this out with one of my favorite quotes: "Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.” ~ Margaret Mead

 Eric's two cents (and mine in support of what he has to say, too).

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

"The AR isn't some magical weapon"...Well, DUH!!

I did a thing. Yes, I did. The thing I did I probably shouldn't have done given past experiences debating with gun nuts, but I did that thing anyway. What was that thing? The thing I did was I posted a tweet on Twitter awhile back in which I said:

Ted Zocco-Hochhalter Twitter Link

That tweet was a retweet of, and response to, K-12 School Shooting Database (David Riedman), a researcher on school gun violence I have an awful lot of respect for. The reason I retweeted his tweet was because he mentioned school shootings in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s compared to school shootings today. Because the Columbine massacre took place in the 90s, I thought I'd throw in my two cents in support of what he was putting forward.

Enter the gun nut:

Well, DUH!!

That is the newest in a long and idiotic line of AR style weapons defender's defenses I've seen so far.

"The AR isn't some magical weapon." That's what he said.

It was meant as an insult directed at those advocating for gun safety reform. 

It was taken by me as a laughable condescending disingenuous attempt to dismiss gun violence trauma personal experiences, not only by my daughter and me, but also by anyone and everyone directly impacted by gun violence of any kind.

I honestly don't know why gun nuts invariably go to some condescending disingenuous remarks as soon as they see something that doesn't necessarily agree with their perception of AR style weaponry. I even referenced another blog post I'd written quite awhile ago on My Thoughts on 'Civilian' Weaponry in which I shared a few details of the injuries my daughter suffered during the Columbine massacre and tried to explain why, if AR style weapons had been used at Columbine, my daughter's injuries likely would have been fatal. It appears those details weren't enough.

So, before anyone reads any further, be forewarned that some folks will find what I'm about to say a bit disturbing because I'm going to describe, in graphic detail, why, exactly, an AR style weapon firing high-velocity rounds would likely have killed my daughter during the Columbine massacre. I haven't done this before. In fact, it's still emotional and raw for me. I try to imagine how emotional, raw, and physically damaging it is/was to my daughter.

That being said, here goes:

The weapon used to shoot my daughter was a Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. She was shot two times. 

One of her lungs was nicked by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. Her lung collapsed. During her hospital stay, her lung collapsed multiple times. Chest tubes had to be inserted and re-inserted multiple times to drain bloody discharge. Watching how painful this procedure was (no anesthesia) broke my heart and almost broke my own resolve to be strong for her. But, good news is her lung did not blow up from a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive.

Her vena cava vein was nicked by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. The cut in her vena cava vein allowed blood to flow into and fill her chest cavity. The reason I know this is because the ER doctor told me they opened her chest by cutting from the top of her sternum to her naval and from just under her breast on one side of her chest to just under her other breast on the other side of her chest. They then pried her chest open to basically try to determine her cause of death, basically a 'cadaver' procedure, because they thought she was dead. He also told me my daughter really should not have survived this procedure. His word for this procedure? "Radical". When they detected a very faint heartbeat, they rushed her into OR at which time a trauma surgeon took over. Over the course of the surgery to repair her vena cava vein, she had what amounts to a whole body blood transfusion. The OR surgeon also implanted a vena cava filter to break up any blood clots that might flow back to her heart which would have killed her. He told me he had to clamp her aorta in order to do this surgery. He also told me every once in awhile, he unclamped her aorta to give her brain a 'drink'. He cautioned me about the possibility of brain damage from lack of blood flow. But, once again, her vena cava vein was not severed because of a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive.

Her liver was damaged by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. Doctors assured me her liver, if she lived (they placed her survival chances at less than 25%), could regenerate. When I think what happened to her liver, I think of Brett Cross whose son Uziyah (Uzi) was killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX when a bullet from an AR style weapon left a gaping void where his stomach should have been. Once again, her liver was significantly damaged but was not destroyed because of a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive.

Finally, her spinal column was damaged by a bullet from the Hi-Point 995 9mm semi-automatic carbine rifle. The bullet entered her spinal column and spiraled downward until it stopped near the T-12 vertebra. In the process, the bullet damaged what spinal cord experts told me they euphemistically call the 'horse's tail'. The medical term for this is 'cauda equina' for it's resemblance to a horse's tail. Her spinal cord was bruised and caused paralysis from the waist down. Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jamie was murdered in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas massacre, described his daughter's fatal injury as having her spinal column shattered by a bullet fired from an AR-15. She died instantly. My daughter survived. Her spinal cord was not destroyed because of a 'blast effect' caused by cavitation or fragmentation of the bullet like a high velocity round from an AR style weapon would have done. If it had, she wouldn't have made it to the hospital alive. 

I could go on to describe more of what happened to my daughter in the ER, OR, CCU, MTU, and spinal cord rehab in Craig Hospital, all of which lasted four months, but won't. Those are things I lived with my daughter all day every day for those four months and beyond. They still stir feelings and emotions decades later that I'm still uncomfortable talking about.

So, when gun nuts tell me things like "the AR isn't some magical weapon", all I can say is I know that. I know that because AR style weapons don't work magic on anyone. No, they don't. Exactly the opposite in fact. And that's the whole point behind advocating that these kind of weapons simply do not belong in civilian hands in our society.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

NRA, All Y’all Might Want to Stay in your OWN Lane!

 

NRA, All Y’all Might Want to Stay in your OWN Lane! 

Awhile back (2018 following the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to be exact), the NRA created a virtual shitstorm when they ‘suggested’ that medical professionals stay in their lane. That same year, the NRA also created something they called their "National School Shield Program". Between the time they created the National School Shield Program and today, there has been little, to no, media coverage I'm aware of for this highly touted program (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek)....until May 31, 2023 that is. I give you their tweet here:

Tweet: NRA National School Shield Program

There's a video attached to the above tweet, but I won't share it here. That's how much I think of it. If you, the reader, feel the need to view it, you'll have to go to Twitter by clicking the above link and watch it there.

“Stay in their lane”….that’s what the NRA said medical professionals should do. 

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Jeez, I’m digressing quicker here than I usually do! 

Back on topic….

The NRA has told medical professionals to stay in their lane. They've been critical of so-called Hollywood 'elites' for speaking out about gun safety reform. They've been critical of politicians and gun safety reform advocates like Moms Demand Action, March For Our Lives, and others for doing so, too. But, to my knowledge, the NRA hasn’t come out and specifically told educators to stay in their lane. However, and more importantly, the NRA has advocated arming teachers.

The first question that comes to my mind when I see the NRA advocating for arming teachers? Wouldn’t arming teachers require that they not stay in their lane of educating our children? 

Sorry, rhetorical question.

So, when I saw this tweet from educator, Susannah Hogan, back in 2018, it resonated with me:

Susannah Hogan Twitter Response to NRA

Active shooter drills have become her and so many other educators’ lane.

Now enter the NRA, self-professed facilitators of school safety.

Wait! What?

Don’t believe me? 

Take a look at what they say on their NRA National School Shield Program website:

"We Have A Singular Mission: To Protect Our Children"

 Wait! What? I thought their singular mission was to advocate for the 2nd Amendment. Am I missing something here? Sorry. Rhetorical....

Also, from their website:

School security is a complex issue with no simple, single solution. The NRA School Shield program is committed to addressing the many facets of school security, including best practices in security infrastructure, technology, personnel, training, and policy. Through this  multidimensional effort, NRA School Shield seeks to engage communities and empower leaders to help make our schools more secure."

And this from NRA Chief Executive Officer, Wayne LaPierre when he announced this program on NRA-ILA:

“The nra (sic) is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.”

In other words, the NRA said they were going gung ho on school safety….to bring it all home and make it happen. 

Did they do so? 

Not so much according to Mother Jones:

After Sandy Hook, the NRA Made Big Promises About a New School Safety Program. It Hasn’t Done Much.

That article was published in 2018, but color me not surprised one little bit. 

From the Mother Jones article:

“According to the foundation tax returns through 2016, it didn’t issue a single grant for school security after 2014.”

So, while the NRA School Shield Program is still active on their site, no grants were issued between 2014 and 2016. I seriously doubt any grants have been issued since then either. 

Why is that?

According to Mother Jones, at that time NRA spokes-‘model’ Dana Loesch was asked about this by a grieving Parkland Mom. Her response was schools had to 'volunteer' to take advantage of it (the program).

Interesting…not very practical, but interesting nonetheless.

And then there's this from NBC News from June 10, 2022: Wayne LaPierre touted an NRA school safety program after Uvalde. Here's how much the NRA really spent on it.

"The total amount of NRA funds given to schools to improve security since the program began in 2014 is less than $2 million, or .08 percent of the $2.2 billion in revenue the NRA and its associated foundation have raised in the same timeframe, from 2014 to 2019, according to an NBC News review of charitable tax filings and information from the Second Amendment organization."

From the same article:

"One former adviser to the organization told NBC News that multiple former NRA employees were “stunned” that LaPierre chose to highlight the program in the wake of Uvalde."

So, do you, the NRA, keep full-time school safety subject matter experts on payroll on the off chance a school 'volunteers' to take advantage of the NRA School Shield Program? After all, you (NRA) stated you were bringing together subject matter experts in their respective fields to contribute said expertise in developing your School Shield Program.

Serious question NRA. Do you?

If so, what are their school safety qualifications?

If you haven't kept them on your payroll, well….some pretty damn empty promises don’t you think?

When the National School Shield Program initially came out, I decided to take a pretty deep dive into the kinds of guidance that were available. On the whole, the guidance was pretty repetitive from other sources (FEMA Multihazard Emergency Planning for Schools, SchoolSafety.gov under Dept of Homeland Security, Readiness and Emergency Management Technical Assistance Center, etc. etc.) with the singular exception that the NRA program was advocating for armed personnel in schools. And now, in 2023, the NRA is again touting its National School Safety Shield Program as something schools should invest their time and energy into taking advantage of even though it's been largely dormant pretty much since its inception. Seriously? 

Perhaps all y’all should leave school safety to those who actually have the training and expertise to make it happen because I really don't believe you or Wayne LaPierre give two shits for our children even though you say you do. Empty words are just that....empty.

Perhaps all y’all should stay in YOUR lane lobbying for guns everywhere. 

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

You Really Need to Educate Yourself (About AR-15s/Ammo). Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

 

You Really Need to Educate Yourself (About AR-15s/Ammo)

That's what he was told: "You really need to educate yourself". 

That comment was directed at Brett Cross. Who is Brett Cross? Well, Brett's son, Uziyah (Uzi), was one of the children murdered at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.  

Brett Cross on Twitter

According to ChadHud39666678 (Twitter handle), Brett apparently needs to educate himself on the nuances of AR-15 style weaponry. 

It doesn't seem to matter to Chad what Brett Cross believes regarding his son's death because, according to Chad, Brett apparently doesn't know anything about what killed his son, Uzi, in the Robb Elementary School massacre. It only matters that Brett doesn't understand, according to Chad, that AR-15s can chamber a number of different caliber bullets. Therefore, according to Chad, Brett can't be involved in a discussion or debate about the weapon of choice for so many mass shootings here of late. Why? Because, according to Chad, Brett isn't educated enough about the AR-15 to be able to talk knowledgeably about it. 

The illogical logic in Chad's argument is astonishing!

Never mind the fact Brett's son was actually killed by someone using an AR-15 with a high velocity round chambered. 

Never mind the fact Brett's son was horribly mutilated by the high velocity round that was used in an AR-15 in that massacre. 

No sir. 

None of that matters. 

All that matters to Chad is the fact different caliber rounds can be chambered in an AR-15. 

Ergo, Chad implies it's somehow wrong to put anything out there contradicting his claim. 

Ergo, Chad implies Brett isn't supposed to conclude anything bad about AR-15s even though one was used at Robb Elementary to kill his son, Uzi, in a most horrible way along with 18 other children and two teachers. 

Seriously? 

Sorry....rhetorical.

No sirree. Can't blame the AR-15 because, according to Chad, the AR-15 isn't as lethal as Brett, and so many others who support gun safety reform, would have us believe! 

But I digress.

Awhile back, I wrote a blog post titled My Thoughts on 'Civilian' Weaponry. In it, I detailed some, but not all, of the injuries suffered by my daughter when she was shot and paralyzed in the Columbine High School massacre back on April 20, 1999. I was struck by the similarities of her injuries to some of the injuries suffered by some of those killed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas school massacre in Parkland, Florida February 14, 2018. The difference? My daughter did...not...die! 

I even provided a link to a YouTube video from the Smithsonian Institution (embedded in the blog post for anyone choosing to watch it) in which the military version of the AR-15 was used to fire rounds into ballistics gel. The video clearly shows the effects of a high velocity round on a substance (ballistics gel) similar to human flesh. And those effects on ballistic gel were sobering, to say the least.

My intent with that blog post was to show that my daughter likely would not have survived had she been shot by an AR-15 using high velocity rounds. Her wounds were actually pretty similar to those suffered by Jamie Guttenberg, one of the victim fatalities in the MSD massacre. But my daughter survived. Barely. But she didn't die. The weapon used to shoot her was a Hi-Point 995 semi-automatic carbine rifle. 

She...did...not...die!

Why didn't she die? She didn't die because the two rounds that entered her body were not high velocity rounds like those fired from AR-15s. The rounds that caused so much internal damage to my daughter's body didn't tumble. They didn't cavitate. They didn't kill her, although they came very very close to doing so.

She...did...not...die!

Two bullets. One exited her body without leaving a gaping exit wound hole. But it did non-fatally damage multiple internal organs. The other one was surgically removed a long time after she was shot. That was the one that damaged her spinal cord and left her paraplegic. 

Since I wrote that blog post, another YouTube video has been published in which a pro-gun advocate gleefully uses an AR-15 to demonstrate the damages done by an AR-15 using high velocity rounds fired into what I believe he said is a pork shoulder. For those who choose to watch it, the video is titled AR-15 vs MEAT & BONE. For those who do not wish to watch the video, suffice to say that the damage done to multiple pork shoulders by high velocity rounds fired from an AR-15 was astonishing, much to the glee of the pro-gun advocate who filmed it.

Folks, I myself was told by someone awhile back that an AR-15 is nothing more than a glorified .22 caliber rifle. At my request, a friend of mine, Gary Denton, responded with this (provided with Gary's permission):

Gary has 20 plus years in law enforcement under his belt. His experience with AR-15s is irrefutable. His knowledge of them is irrefutable. I'll take his input about AR-15s over Chad's any and every day of the week.

The Washington Post article Gary mentions, "The Blast Effect", isn't available without a subscription that I've been able to find. However, the Washington Post did put a Twitter Tweet thread out there for folks to view if they want to get a summary of the story. Here's the link for those who would like to see it: The Blast Effect by The Washington Post. I'll state unequivocally that the words of medical professionals describing the blast effects of high velocity rounds fired from AR-15 style weaponry are also to be trusted far over and above anything someone like Chad has to say.

For anyone still wondering about the lethality of AR-15 style weaponry, here are some facts to consider:

• An AR-15 was used by the shooter at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX to murder 19 children and 2 teachers.
• A high velocity round from that AR-15 killed Uzi, Brett's son. It left a gaping void where Uzi's stomach should have been.
• That high velocity round did irreparable unsurvivable damage to Uzi.
• High velocity rounds from that AR-15 did irreparable unsurvivable damage to 20 other human beings at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX.
• Reports are that some children had to be identified by the clothing they wore to school that day.
• Medical professionals tasked with conducting autopsies on victims from several mass shootings in which AR-15s were used have said "The Blast Effect" from high velocity rounds fired from AR-15s was not survivable because those rounds literally tore flesh and bone apart.

The above listed facts are irrefutable. 

So, when push comes to shove, it simply doesn't matter what Chad, and his idiotic AR-15 loving ilk, say and imply about the lack of power and the lack of lethality of an AR-15 firing high velocity rounds. We know otherwise.

In fact, I posit their 'opinions' in all of this matter not one whit.....that it's THEY who need to educate themselves about the blast effects high velocity rounds fired from AR-15 style weaponry have on human flesh and bone! And then THEY need to accept that 'stopping power', as Gary Denton put it, is just one of many reasons so many mass shooters choose AR-15 style weaponry to wreak their havoc.

Would they be swayed to change their opinions? I seriously doubt it given the fact nothing has changed their opinions in the intervening years between the Columbine massacre and every mass shooting since in which an AR-15 style weapon has been used. But unless we start calling them out on their attempts to distract away from AR-15 style weaponry lethality with their idiocy, nothing will change as far as gun safety reform is concerned.

My two cents.

* Comments on this blog are moderated.

So.....What's Next? A 'Brady Bunch' Approach to School Safety? Seems About Right....

Who remembers a TV show in the 1970's called The Brady Bunch? For that matter, does anyone besides me remember the start to The Brady Bunch? It begins by saying "this is a story". The show, for those too young to remember, is about a blended family that includes three boys (sons of the father in the series) and three girls (daughters of the mother in the series). It took place in the 1970's, so I wouldn't be too surprised if some folks don't remember it.

Anyway, the show featured a lot of family dynamics going on. Some might even call those family dynamics dysfunctional. Things often got a bit chaotic at times by standards of the time. But the things I remember about the show include how the lessons learned by the children from their individual parents before being blended into The Brady Bunch influenced how they reacted to their new lives as The Brady Bunch. Morals of the stories presented? There was always a happy ending with lessons learned somewhere along the way in each episode.

Well, this blog post will use The Brady Bunch as an analogy to emergency management in an effort to help define the role emergency management should have in the school safety arena. I use The Brady Bunch in this analogy to try and help illustrate that school safety can be dysfunctional. That school safety doesn't always reflect lessons learned. That school safety can be chaotic. That school safety requires 'family dysfunction'. It's a short story of how difficult it can be to help people understand emergency management (Emergency Management - What Is It?), and hopefully prompt them to get involved in it. The process can be chaotic at times. It can involve interpersonal dysfunction at times. In emergency management, there aren't always happy endings either. Sometimes there's even lessons learned that aren't really lessons learned.

Take the Margery Stoneman Douglas (MSD) school massacre as just one example. In their final report, the authors cited the Columbine massacre final report and lessons learned therein as an example that guided their research and results/recommendations. That's a problem. Why, you ask? Because the findings from the Columbine massacre final report were intended to have been a school safety guide for EVERYONE, including MSD officials, responsible for their school's school safety efforts PRIOR TO an incident occurring. In other words, the Columbine massacre final report should have been used as a template, so to speak, for other schools, including MSD, to address the issue of school safety BEFORE their massacre, not after.

There have been quite a few school massacres since MSD. Virtually the same song has been sung following each and every one of them. That song reflects the same song sung following the MSD massacre. A quote often attributed to Albert Einstein (some say it wasn't him, but it doesn't really matter) goes: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” When it comes to school safety, this rings so true, it's scary (even if Einstein wasn't the author). I've been at this a very long time. To keep seeing the same things over and over and over with little to no change is frustrating beyond measure!

Bottom line? Emergency management is not rocket science. Anyone can do it and engage in it. But first, those who do engage in it must also become knowledgeable about what it is and what it does.

Way back in 1990, I began my job with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC). This government agency owns and operates over 300 dams in the western half of the U.S.

I was hired to work in their Early Warning Systems Program. This program theoretically consisted of 5 separate and distinct components:

1. Detection: Crap! Something's happening, and it don't look too good!
2. Decisionmaking: What the hell do we do now?
3. Notification: Well, maybe we should let someone know what's going on.
4. Warning: Up to them to notify their community, not us! Not our responsibility.
5. Evacuation: Up to them to get folks out of harm's way, not us! Not our responsibility.

Anyone see anything wrong with this approach?

First of all, Detection: What's happening? Is it a flood? Is there a structural problem? How bad is it?

Second, Decisionmaking: Is there a reasonable threat to the structure, and, if so, is it also a threat to anyone downstream?

Third, Notification: If you, as the owner of the hazard, don't know what to do about what's happening, where does that leave everyone else?

Fourth, Warning: There's a population at risk. Who should be notified if you, the owner of that risk, don't know who to contact downstream?

And, fifth, Evacuation: Who should be evacuated? Is this a dam failure in progress or something less? What if an order to evacuate is given and the potential threat isn't all that much to worry about? What if an order to evacuate is given and whatever happens to the dam is bigger than the area of evacuation and lives are lost?

Lot's of questions, no real thought given to answering them.

As the owner of a hazard (dams - Grand Coulee Dam, Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam - any of those ring a bell?), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ethically, morally, and legally has a responsibility to consider the population at risk downstream from its dams.

A colleague and I immediately began to question why a robust emergency management program hadn't been considered instead of just early warning systems? Early warning systems had their place within an emergency management program, but were no substitute for them, that's for sure! Just as drills have a place within emergency management programs for schools, but are NOT a substitute for them.

Ever run into a brick wall? No one wanted to hear this emergency management program question. "Our dams don't fail!" was the retort we always got. Here's a snapshot of a typical conversation with BUREC personnel:

ME: If our dams don't fail, might they still pose a threat to populations at risk downstream if normal operations exceed normal operations?

BUREC: Good Gawd, man! We aren't responsible for anything downstream if that happens.

ME: If some of our dams can release huge quantities of water without even spilling from the spillway, what do you do then? Call someone and tell them to inflate their rafts (by the way, this actually happened way back in 1976 when the Teton Dam in Idaho failed and caused death and massive destruction downstream).

BUREC: Well, maybe. But warning and evacuation still aren't our responsibility!

ME: Never said they were.

BUREC: But, that's what you're implying!

ME: No, I'm not. I'm simply trying to get you to recognize that everyone has to work together in order to most adequately provide for the safety of the public in areas downstream from our dams.

BUREC: But that would mean we'd have to talk to those folks, wouldn't it?

ME: Yep. Let's get on it!

BUREC: Nope! If we do that, they'll think there's something wrong with our dams. We don't want to risk that!

ME: If something goes wrong at one of our dams, and the folks downstream aren't adequately trained on the system to begin with, and lives are lost, and there is damage to their property, who do you think they're going to blame? Y'all better be prepared to repel a horde with torches and pitchforks if anything like that happens.

Now, apply the above conversation to so many conversations that take place following any number of school massacres. You should be able to see a defintie pattern of what happens following just about any disaster, including school massacres.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this. But, suffice to say, my colleague and I weren't able to make any progress on getting emergency management programs accepted within BUREC until one day sometime in 1993, the Assistant Commissioner of Reclamation (second highest chingadeta in the organization) was standing on the crest of one of our dams alongside the project manager responsible for the operation and maintenance of that dam, looking out over a sprawling community of somewhere around 75,000 people, most of whom resided, along with the business district, in the already mapped "probable maximum flood" floodplain. He turned to the project manager and asked if "those people down there" were prepared if something bad should happen at the dam.

The project manager's response? "I don't know."

Well, that certainly didn't go over well! Although, for those of us promoting emergency management programs for our dams, perhaps it was the right answer because it certainly set things in motion for us.

Within days, our small group of emergency management specialists was tasked with developing a comprehensive set of emergency management program guidelines to comply with a new U.S. Bureau of Reclamation policy requiring full spectrum emergency management programs at every single one of our dams. And so it began.

It wouldn't be until 1995 that those guidelines were finally published. Even though it isn't rocket science, it is very difficult, frustrating, time consuming work to design, develop, and implement full spectrum emergency management programs. Sort of like establishing emergency management programs for schools, eh? But I digress.

I bring this up simply from the perspective that in Colorado, we have a state law (I've mentioned it before) known as SB 08-181 that requires every single school in the state of Colorado to design, develop, and implement full spectrum emergency management programs fully compliant with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS).

So, now we keep seeing these types of objections to emergency management programs for schools coming from school administrators:

• "What? You're kidding! Right? Right?"
• "Where's the money to do this?"
• "We don't have the expertise."
• "Where's the guidance?"
• "But it's not our job! First responders are supposed to do this stuff!'

Is it really any wonder that many schools in Colorado have failed to fully comply with this underfunded, understaffed mandate? Now apply that to schools nationally, and we are faced with an astonishing school safety failure. 

Sure, there's been moderate attempts at implementing new technology, security systems, and even different looks at what to do in the event an active shooter tries to cause havoc in a school. But there's no national standard.....yet. 

And that's where parents, students, communities, first response organizations, emergency managers, and other key stakeholders come in. The expertise is there. There's no need to re-invent any wheels. There's no need to spend a fortune. This can be done, and done very well, at very little cost except for a commitment of time and effort. The key to success in emergency management, as it is in life as far as I'm concerned, is the ability, and more importantly, the willingness to not only be able to listen to what's being said, but also to actually hear what's being said. Not an easy thing to do. So, if anyone is looking for a moral to this story/blog post, there it is.

If you, or someone you know, is willing to dive into getting emergency management programs for schools going, a good place to start might be to find the resources that can help you, or someone you know, get started. I've put together a comprehensive, but by no means complete, list of School Safety Resources for anyone to access. Most are free of charge. There's another one at the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center (REMS TA Center). Most of those are free, as well.

Folks, somebody's gotta do this. If someone else won't, then why not you? That's not a rhetorical question, either.

My two cents....

* Comments on this blog are moderated.