An OUTRAGEOUS Solution to School Shootings

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I agree, and in some ways a school shooting scenario is like a terrorist on an aircraft; once they're in it's too late. For security to be effective you have to stop the perpetrator ever entering the site.

The problem with that of course is that there is no practical way to secure every school in the USA like that; even the most basic measures would cost billions upon billions of dollars.

I personally feel school shootings are a red herring, and the high level of mass shootings in general (relative to other countries) is symptomatic of a wider gun violence problem. The only effective and meaningful measure is to address the broader problem of gun violence. If this is reduced, mass shootings will naturally decrease as a result.

Thank you.

This was the major source of disappointment I had when the reactionary stance of many after Sandy Hook was "ban assault weapons!!" I think there is genuine willingness to compromise on the pro-gun side, and talk of new restrictions (as opposed to regulations) wasn't conducive to anything but defensiveness.

In the "Don't Mention Guns" thread the discussion swung briefly toward how in general in the US homicides by gun are mostly related to criminal activity. When suicides are factored in that covers nearly all gun deaths.* IIRC, Canada has more guns per capita than the US. The issue is social. It's bigger than guns, or even a near complete lack of mental health care. The problem is that social issues are, for politicians, like, hard maaaaan!






*Accidental deaths should be the simplest to counter, since education is a lot easier than social reform. (Of course, simple doesn't necessarily mean easy.)

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Polaris

In the "Don't Mention Guns" thread the discussion swung briefly toward how in general in the US homicides by gun are mostly related to criminal activity.

No they aren't. 50% of gun homicides are a result of escalation of an argument. Only about 25% of gun homicides are a result of commission of a crime.

This is the fundamental problem with gun violence in the US; the main reason so many people are shot is because so many guns are kept loaded and easily accessible. This is because the US is the only western country that permits use of firearms for self-defense.

Gun violence is not going to be reduced if firearms are allowed to be carried for self-defense. There's exactly one gun control law that would make any difference whatsoever, and that's repealing the 2nd Amendment. And I can't see that happening.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

You continue to dodge the question. Why? Do you believe that the president should have armed guards, as well as his kids?

The President should have armed guards, armed with the best military arms; an advance team of snipers and bomb squads; and an antiaircraft missile battery on his roof. (And he does!)

This has a good effect (protects the president from a known collection of threats), and does not create any bad side effects. Note, for example, that "The President is protected by antiaircraft missiles" does not have the side effect "anyone can have an antiaircraft missile on his roof". The President therefore enjoys an asymmetric advantage over anyone who wants to harm him. Advantage: President.

This is in stark contrast to "guns in the home" self-defense. You want to own an AR-15? Good for you, but the store that sold one to you also sold one to the angry and erratic drunk next door. You want to own a 100-round magazine? Good for you, but the store that sold one to you also sold one to anyone who walked in the door. Advantage: no one. And so on.

[gumboot]

This might be a minor nitpick, but neither the President nor his family are protected by "armed guards". They're protected by armed federal law enforcement officers who receive extraordinarily high levels of training and psychological screening before being certified for the job. Comparing them even to regular police is ridiculous, let alone security guards or general public with firearms.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by gumboot

No they aren't. 50% of gun homicides are a result of escalation of an argument. Only about 25% of gun homicides are a result of commission of a crime.

This is the fundamental problem with gun violence in the US; the main reason so many people are shot is because so many guns are kept loaded and easily accessible. This is because the US is the only western country that permits use of firearms for self-defense.

Gun violence is not going to be reduced if firearms are allowed to be carried for self-defense. There's exactly one gun control law that would make any difference whatsoever, and that's repealing the 2nd Amendment. And I can't see that happening.

Looking at the FBI crime statistics, only about 25% of murders committed with a gun are the result of an argument.

Of course, there's a lot of wiggle room in there, of the 12,664 cases, 4,812 have unknown circumstances.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The issue wasn't one of Passive Security failing, it was one of the passive security simply wasn't up to the job because it wasn't designed to do it. They did not have blast proof windows, automatically locking doors, a "no-man's land between the outer and inner levels of security. Simply putting locks on the doors and saying "job done" isn't enough. Look at what the Federal Govt did to its buildings after Oklahoma City, they didn't just slap on some fire resistant paint and say, she'll be right. With doors and windows designed to withstand a barrage for 2-3 minutes, he would never have reached the children and staff before the police arrived.

With putting armed people into the schools, first off you turn them into scary places. Secondly, you need to keep those people trained, thirdly, if there is an attack, it becomes a shootout and how many people get caught in the cross fire? You also put those people in danger, and should the attacker prove to be better at picking them off than they are at getting the shooter, then you hand a whole lot more guns to your killer.

Locate, Isolate, Contain. That is the way to do it. Use security cameras and outer perimmeter security guards to locate. Once a threat is identified and located and being monitored, isolate them from the potential victims, lock the place down with doors and windows they can't just shoot and kick their way through in a hurry. Finally, contain. Use the same security that isolates the potential victims from the shooter, to contain the shooter and prevent his easy passage until police arrive. No fuss, no mess, no shoot outs at the O.K. Elementary School.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

There are more than 67,000 elementary schools, and the cost to make each of them passively secure is unknown but suspected to be significant.

We can ask NEA-AFT to fund same but I don't see that happening.

Thanks anyway.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by gumboot

This is really silly. The US is really little different to a Constitutional Monarchy. The only difference is how easy it is to amend the body of rights. In a Constitutional Monarchy parliament can change what rights you have by simple majority (contrary to your claim above, the sovereign has little to do with it). In the US it takes a bit more to change what rights you have, but nonetheless, it's still the elected government that decides what rights you have.

No. Government does not grant rights in the US, and to change the constitution requires 3/4 of the states to ratify suggested changes. Agreed state legislators are elected, but they do sometimes listen to those they represent and the second amendment is a third-rail issue.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...w/articlev.htm

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Multivac

I agree that your idea is outrageous and absolute lunacy.

It's a good thing you will have no say in this matter.

[NWO Sentryman]

Originally Posted by ben m

This is in stark contrast to "guns in the home" self-defense. You want to own an AR-15? Good for you, but the store that sold one to you also sold one to the angry and erratic drunk next door. You want to own a 100-round magazine? Good for you, but the store that sold one to you also sold one to anyone who walked in the door. Advantage: no one. And so on.

You are aware that gun shops in the US who behave like that can and do find themselves in a deep fat fryer of trouble for stuff like that?

[ben m]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

You are aware that gun shops in the US who behave like that can and do find themselves in a deep fat fryer of trouble for stuff like that?

Is that so? Some guy walks in and passes the waiting period/background check---why can't he "claim his 2nd amendment right" to buy a gun? Not only does the dealer not get in trouble, the NRA lobbied for a law specifically to prevent the dealer from getting in trouble. It's called the "Protection of lawful commerce in arms" act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105

I feel like this happens a lot.

Regular folks: "Geez, guns kill lots of people and the NRA is horrible."
Regular pro-gun folks: "Don't blame me for this tragedy involving a drunk felon buying grenade launchers at a gun show. I'm just a regular ol' duck hunter. I'd better donate to the NRA to protect my gun rights."
NRA: "Thanks for your donation. We'll keep protecting the rights of drunk felons to buy grenade launchers with no waiting periods. Don't thank us, thank the Founding Fathers."

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by ben m

The President should have armed guards, armed with the best military arms; an advance team of snipers and bomb squads; and an antiaircraft missile battery on his roof. (And he does!)

This has a good effect (protects the president from a known collection of threats), and does not create any bad side effects. Note, for example, that "The President is protected by antiaircraft missiles" does not have the side effect "anyone can have an antiaircraft missile on his roof". The President therefore enjoys an asymmetric advantage over anyone who wants to harm him. Advantage: President.

This is in stark contrast to "guns in the home" self-defense. You want to own an AR-15? Good for you, but the store that sold one to you also sold one to the angry and erratic drunk next door. You want to own a 100-round magazine? Good for you, but the store that sold one to you also sold one to anyone who walked in the door. Advantage: no one. And so on.

That's great. But I'm a law abiding citizen, and if there's a law that says I have to turn in my guns, I've properly registered them, complied with the law at every step of the process, the powers that be know I have them, and when they come knocking on my door asking for them I have no choice but to comply and disarm. The erratic drunk next door bought his from his equally erratic brother in law, who traded some drugs for it from someone who stole it from a law abiding citizen just like me. No one is going to come knocking on his door asking for it back, because no one knows he has it. Advantage; erratic drunk guy with an AR-15.

[Quad4_72]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but it looks like Utah thinks my idea is good:
http://news.yahoo.com/group-offers-w...173649952.html

Quote:

More than 200 Utah teachers are expected to pack a convention hall on Thursday for six hours of concealed-weapons training as organizers seek to arm more educators in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

Looking at the FBI crime statistics, only about 25% of murders committed with a gun are the result of an argument.

Of course, there's a lot of wiggle room in there, of the 12,664 cases, 4,812 have unknown circumstances.

That's total murders, not firearm murders. Not that I was talking about murder anyway, I was talking about gun homicide.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

That's great. But I'm a law abiding citizen, and if there's a law that says I have to turn in my guns, I've properly registered them, complied with the law at every step of the process, the powers that be know I have them, and when they come knocking on my door asking for them I have no choice but to comply and disarm.

In other words, if you've thought of a stupid way to do it, let's not do it that way.

My preferred gun-control policy is to allow citizens to band together and register as "well-regulated militias", then strictly restrict gun ownership (home storage, purchasing of guns or ammo, etc.) to members thereof.

However: I repeat that I disagree with your scenario, which I would describe as paranoid. If your drunk neighbor has a gun, and if he indeed hasn't shot someone with it, this probably has nothing to do with his fear of your AR-15 (drunks/thugs/etc. aren't particularly rational actors) nor with your prowess in fending him off with superior tactics (vanishingly rare in real life). It has to do with luck. The gun-owner attitude "I see gun deaths in the news, but I'm still alive because of my trusty Glock" is like a drunk driver saying, "I see drunk-driving deaths in the news, but I'm still alive because of my lightning reflexes and my legendary booze tolerance ... hic!" It's just taking ordinary statistics, which apply to everyone, and giving yourself special credit for it.

The President's situation is not "ordinary statistics". He's the commander-in-chief of a major military power, he gets actual threats, which get actually and demonstrably averted by a military-level protection system. I repeat, there is no side effect to this system---there is no danger that the antiaircraft missile operator will get into a drunk argument with a passing pilot. By comparison, the "every idiot has their own one-man army" system (the one the NRA thinks is protecting the public, a statement there's little non-fraudulent evidence for) has a side effect of 10,000 gun murders and 20,000 gun suicides. That's a horrible side effect, and we shouldn't put up with it.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Every time I see someone start by characterizing their opponent's position 'in other words' I get ready for a deluge of straw. I was not disappointed.