Rifles at Kansas school draw support

The purchase of rifles for a Kansas school district nearly two years ago has recently received a great deal of attention following an article published by local media last week.

Many parents weren’t even aware of the rifle purchases before the article was published and while some fully support the school’s decision to make the purchases, other parents are appalled at the idea of guns in the schools.

Shawnee Mission School District Director of Safety and Security John Douglass spoke with The Kansas City Star about the district’s decision to purchase eight Smith & Wesson semi-automatic rifles for the seven different schools in the district.

“I swore to myself I would never fail to do everything that I possibly could to protect kids when I took this job,” said Douglass, who also noted the recent rise in mass shootings.

Douglass, who is the former chief of the Overland Police Department, explained that while the school resource officers already carry handguns, their range is limited.

“To expect that I could stop somebody with a pistol from here to there,” Douglass said as he pointed down a hallway inside the Shawnee Mission school, failing to finish his sentence, as the point was already made.

But even so, Douglass indicated that the presence – or use – of the rifles is not something he takes lightly.

“This weapon is a very serious weapon for some very limited circumstances,” Douglass said. “You are never going to see it unless something really, really bad is happening.”

In fact, the rifles are typically kept locked up securely inside the resource officers’ patrol cars.

Still, some parents are uneasy knowing the officers are armed with semi-automatic rifles.

“I don’t fully believe one person with a bigger, badder gun is really going to make a huge difference in an active shooter situation in a school,” said parent Lisa Veglahn. “Why did they feel it was necessary over other types of weapons?”

Likewise, Melissa Patt, who has three children in the school district said, “It’s pretty offensive to me as a taxpayer to feel like you don’t have any voice and you are being excluded from decisions that could harm your child or kill them.”

Patt questioned whether the just over $5,600 spent on the rifles could have been spent elsewhere on other, more effective security measures.

However, some parents fully support the district’s decision to arm resource officers with rifles.

“While we will continue to hope and pray that these weapons are never needed and can continue to be locked in a safe, what if they are?” said parent Matt Trusty. “I would hope that in the event a real threat arose the person(s) deemed with keeping my children safe would have the tools and training to be able to do their job.”

Trevor Rine, who graduated from Shawnee Mission Northwest last year, said he feels, in the event of an active shooter situation, it is important for the officers to have the best weapons available to handle the threat.

Read More

 


source: http://www.guns.com/2017/06/13/rifles-at-kansas-school-draw-support-criticism-from-parents/

  • m1a0n3u0e1l2

    Wait to see when most of those rifles start falling into the wrong hands

    • Are you serious?
      Why is the rifle any different than a pistol carried by a resource officer?

      • jelpmac

        Rifles and pistols come in some of the same calibers but pistols are only effective, at short ranges, for most shooters, about 10 to 15 yards. Realistically, that’s only 3 or 4 running steps away. There are two things people have to consider. One, what would be the consequences if a trained protector were not around, how long would it take an assailant to decimate a school scene? Two, when seconds count, the police (SWAT, etc) are minutes away? That to me is, do you want your life guard on the beach or 5 miles away, eating donuts when your child’s life is in danger? You may not like firearms but truth be told, they do save lives if used timely.

        • Read my mail. I am talking about the weapons falling into the hands of thugs. What’s the difference if a rifle or a pistol falls into the wrong hands. None!

          • JDW

            Yep, o’criminal did a good job of that! Firearms in the hands of criminals is unacceptable. Blame this on liberal judges who turn these people back onto society. Firearms, falling into the wrong hands, that happens with illegal purchases, stolen from legal owners, taken off the bodies of legal owners. Simple, a felon caught with a firearm, life in prison; a felon killing or injuring a person id a death sentence. Law abiding citizens are being treated worse than the criminal even though the second amendment exist, liberals attack viciously wanting to prosecute people for exercising their rights.

      • Try reading something about fire arms you might learn something !

        • As a firearm owner and teacher of firearms I think I know something about weapons.

          • Your post leaves a lot to be desired with the difference between a rifle and a pistol .As for falling into the wrong hands then it wouldn’t matter but if the jobs done right thugs won’t be getting anything .

          • And how do you stop thugs from getting guns, legal or illegal?

          • By being Smarter than they are !

      • cp123

        Rifle is more accurate and has longer range.

    • Harley157

      This is isn’t anything like Obamas fast and furious. These aren’t being given to the Mexican drug cartel to kill us. These are to protect the kids. I applaud the decision and am glad to see the school taking action.

  • Roger Martin

    It’s good to see some intelligent people trying to do something to protect our children from the criminals in our society. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58d1c835ad2d710b073f546718548e8a0bc0fcc82af46a26be27d0c0c7793032.jpg

    • Kanawah

      No.
      It was intended to make a “well regulated militia” readily available to the federal government.
      Now that we have the National Guard and a standing army, the second amendment should be greatly rolled back, if not totally repealed.

  • cjjf

    Melissa Patt, a shooter is not going to ask for your approval before they start in. If you lock your doors at home, you have no valid reason to oppose the rifles in the hands of caring adults.

  • Sharpshooter

    It’s about time that some one with some “common sense” and “logical reasoning” has some input. No telling how many lives could potentially be saved!

  • Elwood Ballard

    Parents that don’t like the idea, will be the very cause of their’s, or other children to be hurt !

  • Bill Wilson

    I was in my Jr High Shooting Club…my 1st yr in a public school, 9th grade. A local Hunter’s Club donated time on their indoor .22cal range. This was back when the community was involved in teaching safety and sport.

  • Mynickelsworth

    I appears to me that, in the case of a shooting incident, the rifles will be practically useless when they are locked up someplace.
    Time is of the essence when such as situation takes place. By the time the officer goes to the site of the rifles, unlocks the safe, gets the rifle, loads and or checks that the rifle is read to fire then gets back to the site of the shooting it can be all over with and deaths as a result.

    A pistol on the hip, always instantly available is, in my opinion much more useful that the best rifle locked in a safe. Knowing how to use the pistol is of maximum importance. If you know what you are doing with a pistol you can hit target 100 yards away and you have a good weapon.

    A hit with a handgun in the body is not as effective as a rifle however, unless you are shooting from a long distance away there are areas that, if hit, can kill or wound the offender to end the danger of mass killings. A head shot is perfect if the offender is wearing body armor and is not impossible if you know your weapon and how to use it.

    Officers need to practice accurate shooting often. It is said that if you acquire skills at shooting today that one week from today you will have lost a lot of those skills.
    IF the shooter knows those rifles or handguns are available it may deter him from the attempt for fear he might get killed before he accomplished his goal. That doe not apply to terrorists, they are on a mission and expect to be killed, otherwise, there would be no bodies carrying an explosive charge to detonate.

    • champion2211

      Go back and read the story again. It tells you where the guns will be. Guns in the hands of the security forces and not in a safe some place in the school. They will be locked where the security will be. They should have axces when needed.

  • champion2211

    Times change as well as kids or adult terrorist. The terrorist just looks at a lot of people stuck in one place as to how many can they kill if they can get in . Each child is special and needs all the safety in the world to protect them. Back up to the 50’s. If they had this kind of security back then I never saw it. Or plainly we didn’t need it. People back then were a totally different kind. They never thought of killing others. We had guns at home and even at 15 years old we knew how to handle guns. We knew what they were for. Now I believe that if the security needs better weapons to keep YOUR kids safe, let it do it. The better the security now just might be that your child will come home.

  • cp123

    The police will be there long after many are dead. This is excellent and will save lives.

  • Terry Butts

    “Many parents weren’t even aware of the rifle purchases before the article was published and while some fully support the school’s decision to make the purchases, other parents are appalled at the idea of guns in the schools.”

    Why would they be appalled? This is about having a way for the school to STOP people trying to harm the children people who DO NOT OBEY GUN BANS/RESTRICTIONS by preventing them from having nothing but unarmed victims where it has been proven that dozens can be killed or harmed before the AUTHORITIES these appalled anti gun people think should be the only ones allowed armed to respond. Those appalled sound like the nut-case that sued because the school did not CENSOR the dictionary by removing the word gun and was APPALLED to find out he learned how to spell the word.

    Further more this was TWO YEARS AGO I think enough time has passed to PROVE that the guns are not going to jump up on their own and start harming people.

    Remember that social media post a few months ago where the ANTI GUN woman posted about how TERRORIZED she was to notice that another shopper was LEGALLY carrying his gun? She actually stated ” I JUST KNEW THAT GUN WAS GOING TO JUMP OUT OF ITS HOLSTER AND ATTACK US ANY SECOND” as if the gun was going to act of its own accord and harm her or her child.

    This is the mindset being pushed by the anti gun propaganda the media pushes every day just like was done under Hitler getting the population so brainwashed with the idea that only criminals had any use for a gun that there was no LEGITIMATE need for private citizens to be armed that he easily disarmed the people he then rounded up and MURDERED as they had no means of defense against the tyranny that had taken over their government.

    To demand all potential victims of crime be DISARMED in the name of protecting them protects only the criminal as they will no longer fear being shot by their intended victims and will be emboldened to be more aggressive in their criminal acts.

    It would also be the same logic as BANNING money from banks on the logic it would end bank robberies regardless of the hassle it would cause in the financial industry as well as forcing people to keep cash at home instead of a bank thus simply shifting where the robbery happens.

  • Kanawah

    One big question.
    How will the police know who is the “bad guy with a gun” form the “good guy with a gun” when they arrive.