This is my third article in the series evaluating the debate on arming teachers and the respective alternatives. In this article, I will be looking at the option of bringing armed guards into the school as protection against an active shooter (AS) situation. The format and criteria for evaluation will flow as it did with the first Course Of Action (COA).
COA #2: Armed Guards in School
Schools would hire armed security to secure the school. In order to ensure that there was sufficient personnel coverage, I factored in 1.5 guards per school. This allows for training time, sick days, vacation time, extended shifts (events outside of normal school hours), etc. The guard would be primarily concerned with the safety of students and teachers against the threat of violence from an AS. They would not be law enforcement (LE), as this would be cost-prohibitive. In figuring the cost of implementing this option, I assumed a salary of $30,000 for working during the school year (180 work days), which is within the national average for armed guards. I also factored in a 20 percent administrative cost in managing these new employees. Each guard would be issued a gun which I have assigned a cost of $400 per weapon and a uniform cost of $100. I assumed 14 days of firearms training at a cost of $240 dollars per day. Additionally, I factored in $500 in ammunition cost. Averaged out amongst all public K-12 schools in the US, the cost per school comes to roughly $60,000 with a cost per student of $135. All told, this comes to a total cost of roughly six billion dollars.
Of course, this cost fluctuates greatly based on the actual size of the school. Training costs are assumed to be borne by local LE as they already have trainers and facilities. While I am certain that there are more costs associated with this plan (such as new administrators to manage the specialized requirements), this is, I believe, a fair representation. In addition to being a deterrent to AS situations, the guards would likely have additional duties to keep them actively employed during the school day. For example, the guards could be utilized to help monitor student arrival and dismissal, along with monitoring student movements to and from class. School districts would be responsible for determining other duties as long as they did not interfere with the primary purpose.
As a side note, I believe that there is an intangible benefit to having armed security at a facility—even though this assessment cannot be truly weighted and evaluated. By their nature, school shooters are cowards who are afraid of reciprocal violence. They want to be in charge of the shooting and tend to go to great lengths to include suicide so as to avoid being shot by LE. I believe that simply having armed guards present would act as a natural deterrent by all but the most determined of active shooters. Unfortunately, there is simply no way to know or evaluate how many potential shooters were/are deterred by the threat of immediate violence—there is no way to know how many ASs there would be without such a threat.
Wargaming: Most Dangerous COA
Action – Clearly the most dangerous course of action is for the AS to gain the element of surprise and engage the guard without them being prepared. The chance of this happening is potentially increased through complacency and repetition—a habit of being at the same locations on a daily basis may occur. With this scenario, the guard is immediately taken out of the fight. This may or may not allow students time to disperse and escape depending upon the location of the AS and their proximity to students.
Reaction – The school would go into a lockdown situation with students and teachers reacting as per training. Without the guard able to engage the AS, the school would be dependent upon the arrival of law enforcement to neutralize the threat, or for the AS to cease their assault.
Counter Action – AS would roam the school unfettered, minus any interdiction from students and teachers (least likely event). Without any direct engagement, the AS would be able to set their own agenda until LE arrived and engaged.
Wargaming: Most Likely COA
Action – It is more likely that the AS would enter the school with the sole goal of maximum student carnage. In my research, I could not find any examples where AS entered a school and sought out confrontations with armed personnel. It is far more likely, therefore, that they would tend to avoid those individuals.
Reaction – When the AS begins his assault, the guard would move towards the AS. Given their knowledge of the school and training, they should be able to enter into a position with superior cover, allowing them greater survivability. Additionally, as the shooter is the one who began the engagement, the guard would have an element of surprise in engaging the target.
Counter Action – There are three options at this point. First, the guard engages and kills the AS thus ending the attack. The next is that the guard engages, misses, and the two engage each other. The final is that the guard misses and the AS runs with the guard in pursuit. That second option is the most dangerous, as it increases the likelihood of students hit by either shooter and also risks the guard once again being taken out of the fight. Should that happen, the shooter would once again be unfettered in his attack.
Evaluations/Ratings
Fiscal cost: (4) Total cost is still high, totaling $135 per student. However, this is not necessarily a cost-prohibitive option, depending on the size of the school and the economic support structure within the community.
Training requirements: (4) Clearly making this a viable option would require guards to be trained to properly respond to an AS within their school.
Cost of life by AS: (3) This scenario is based on an all-eggs-in-one-basket plan. An AS is less likely to be trained and able to engage with another armed individual than a guard who has been through police training. While the violence they are capable of is immense, it tends to be sporadic and disorganized, driven by emotional impulse as opposed to solid planning. This all benefits the guard in being able to take out the AS. However, should the guard be the first target, none of that training would matter.
This threat is severe enough that it needs to be factored into the overall rating within this option. The other factor is the location of the guard in relation to the attack and their ability to quickly enter the fight. There is no way for a guard to be everywhere at once and the shooter could decide to engage from a position on the opposite side of the school.
Fratricide: (3) This is a realistic possibility within this scenario. Training can absolutely mitigate the overall likelihood, but with the chaos that ensues within any high-stress situation, there is no way to account for the movement of students trying to escape the AS threat. Engaging the target quickly is paramount, which also increases the overall possibility of an accidental victim.
Ability to neutralize the threat: (2) As with the cost of life by the AS, this factor comes down to the guard surviving the initial engagement. If the AS does not intentionally begin by taking out the guard, then the likelihood of quickly ending the attack is extremely high. However, this threat must also be accounted for and, thus, brings down the overall likelihood of success.
The speed of neutralizing the threat: (3) As with the previous factors, this one is completely dependent upon the single guard surviving the initial engagement. Again, this possibility must be considered. Additionally, with only a single guard, the response time is completely dependent upon their location in relation to the AS.
