Clearly you've never worked in a school before. Logistics of getting, placing, inspecting, and maintaining the fire extinguishers would be cost prohibitive. Students would pull the pin and squeeze during non-emergencies. Easier to lock the door and get into a corner away from view, if the door has a window.
Kids aren't going to use a fire extinguisher, just as they do not pull fire alarms, the punishments are too severe and most kids have the morals to understand faking an emergency is dangerous. (Although yes sometimes kids do these sorts of things anyway). Initial costs would be relatively high, but they only have to be inspected once every handful of years, and this could be done all in one day. Yeah its easier to hide but it's not a safe option if their intent is to harm kids. Most classroom doors have windows that could easily be broken, and once they open the door from the inside every student in there is a sitting duck.
In the US, you must do a monthly check and a yearly inspection for the extinguisher to be certified. You have to pay a fire marshal or a certified company to come in to every school in the county or school district and put new tags on extinguishers. That adds up quickly. The threat of an active shooter versus the cost of putting an extinguisher in EVERY classroom is just too cost-prohibitive. Other methods to secure schools are better.
1/3 Upon review of available cases of criminals, police, and defensive use of fire extinguishers in the real world, I find evidence showing that fire extinguishers have actually been used to successfully incapacitate an armed human; but overall the results are inconclusive. Variables like the intent of the subject (none I found were clearly intent on using deadly force), their resolve, the exact type and amount of chemicals, proximity, etc all come in to play. Not a "deal breaker" but more testing would be needed for me to declare a fire extinguisher anything but a last hope and not a first choice to equip in classrooms. On the legal side- many organizations don't have portable extinguishers partly because it's redundant when they have sprinklers and also for the legal liability of staff untrained in fire control using them. Furthermore, in a closed classroom space it's likely all students would be trapped with the chemicals, with an attacker between them and the exit. Continued.....
2/3dry type extinguishers should never be used on humans. Asides acting as a skin irritant and mucous membrane irritant, dry extinguishers do not primarily remove air from a fire but stop the chemical reaction through coating. If inhaled the lungs are coated preventing oxygen exchange. The exact exposure limits aren't set and the matter is poorly researched. The journal of toxicology keeps statistics on the (few) Fire extinguisher deaths a year, but does not include cases of cardiac arrest in these findings. The lactic acid build up from hypoxia can cause cardiac arrest and many medical professionals view this as a danger to inhalation. Even if we aren't worried about the attacker, all the kids in the room would be exposed in a confined space with the exits possibly obscured in mist. I've only found one mention of police or LE use of fire extinguishers for human control and that was a system in the 1980's involving a net and batton and 4 person team <continued>
3/3 in The Encyclopedia of Police Science edited by William G. Bailey, but was unable to find actual use of the system in the real world. In fact the most concrete use of an extinguisher being used to subdue an attacker I found involved beating them with it. In closing schools and teachers would face legal hurdles and possible suits from the attackers family as well as other students for deploying these extinguishers "off label" and put them selves at legal risk even through regular use unless staff were certified in fire control through a recognized course, and extensive human testing and trials are needed to see if they are safe and effective for use as intended. With the cost and simplicity of extinguishers one wonders why more police and LE don't use them if they are suitable? It seems cheaper and more reliable, with less chance for injury to bystanders to simply train and equip teachers with a defensive chemical spray or tazer and training. The idea has potential but many hurdles
Thank you. I didn't go too in depth with research, and didn't time it but would guess 15-30 minutes total. I wasn't trying to conclusively prove or discredit the idea, but it made me curious as in theory it's an interesting idea, and usually that means someone's tried it out.
I think Australian schools have this ( I know our school has an extinguisher AND fire blanket) but I think thats just because we live in fire country and most of our classroom doors lead straight to the great outdoors
Most people with guns including the average police officer do not spend enough time or effort practicing to be combat ready. Do teachers have the time and money to regularly hit the range and periodically take classes in active shooter suppression? Do they have the attention span to guide 30-40+ young minds in learning and deal with immature children while keeping vigilant on weapon discipline and making sure their gun isn't taken from them? To train in unarmed defense should someone try by force to relive their weapon? No matter how you feel about guns in general I hope you understand that for there is a tremendous amount of training and dedication in safe and effective use of fire arms where collateral damage is unacceptable. Special forces operatives have accidentally killed hostages they were sent to save on several occasions and they have more training with weapons discipline than most teachers. The average person "sprays and prays" when frightened and holding a weapon.
What about the value of deterrence? Shooters like soft targets, and when push comes to shove I will happily take the possibility of collateral damage over an otherwise certain massacre.
famousone is absolutely correct. And regarding kids and guns; it's always best if you teach them early. Did you know high schools used to have shooting clubs where kids (even girls) would bring their rifles to school with them everyday?
Yeah, you ever notice that "mass shootings" only happen in places where people don't have guns? And when they don't, the shooter gets dropped before anything big happens (like that off-duty cop in texas who popped those ISIS terrorists who were about to attack a place).
I'm not anti-gun. I just think that having a gun in a classroom, especially one with young kids, could easily lead to unintended consequences if the correct precautions aren't taken.
Teachers could afford to keep the thing in a safe or behind any other kind of lock.
I don't expect teachers to be on SWAT or military levels, I just want deterrence and an alternative to having kids wait like so many targets.
I understand your concern. IMHO kids should be familiarized and taught to respect guns from a young age, but the common ground for pro/con gun arguments is usually a feeling of scared helplessness where any answer that makes people feel safer is considered a valid option. If the gun is in a safe, how useful will it be when the shooter bursts in the door? If the teacher isn't trained, how will they work a lock while terrified and pumping adrenaline, then ready a weapon and respond with speed and precision, without hitting any kids, while making sure they don't over penetrate beyond the target and hit someone in another class or the halls? Guns aren't magic and life isn't a video game where the bullet goes where the dot is 100%. Most people have never shot under pressure and overestimate the average persons ability to perform let alone even pull the trigger on a child you know, who just yesterday was telling jokes in class. That's a lot to process fast with light or no training.
I never said they wouldn't be trained. Just that it should be an option. And while keeping it in a safe will slow down teachers, I don't want them to seek out the shooter, I just don't like that the only current option to lock the door and pray.
Think about the cost of putting a safe in every classroom, providing a specific combination or key to every teacher based on the provided safe, purchasing a firearm, ammunition, weapons training and certification, periodic training and drills, liability insurance, it goes on and on. Unless the state or federal government provides grants and funding, the cost to implement everything would be too great to put on a school district.
Veteran volunteers is a great idea, given they are willing. It could provide a job for them. Trained people, because not all people who sign up for being a teacher are signing up for defending the school.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/5c/e9/fe5ce9249939e9ffc9c9092adc166cd8.jpg
I don't expect teachers to be on SWAT or military levels, I just want deterrence and an alternative to having kids wait like so many targets.