An OUTRAGEOUS Solution to School Shootings

[lionking]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

So, because it happened a long time ago, we should just say **** it and give up all our rights?

No, I'd rather you said something like "the 2nd amendment was framed long ago. Let's look at 21st Century reasons to own powerful semi-automatic weapons and not a old piece of paper (however holy it is)"

[DJW]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The thing is that passive security can be used just as effectively, if not more so because you don't need to put anyone in danger to use it, and you don't have to worry about the extra issues that adding more guns creates.

Unfortunately not in the CT killings. Passive security failed, miserably, but please don't misunderstand and think that I'm opposed to passive measures. I'm not. We're just exploring an alternative idea.

Quad's initial idea was about arming some number of adults in schools. BStrong's idea was to enlist the efforts of willing, perhaps retired, law enforcement officers. I can see this working, but the anti-gun rhetoric makes it difficult to concentrate.

I wonder if there's already a pool of teachers with CCP's who have enough vetting to join BStrong's LEOs?

[beren]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Here's the entire post.





Nessie is a vocal opponent of America's 2nd Amendment right. He has, on more than a FEW different occasions, suggested that we're wrong, and that we need to follow the UK's and other countries footsteps and get rid of damn near every weapon, put heavy restrictions on them, and things will be rainbows and butterflies.

I mentioned that one of the main reasons my forefathers LEFT that country, and started their own, is because of the government control and oppression. It may not have been specifically gun laws, but it was the government and their oppression and heavy handed regulations.

As I've said before, many of England's gun laws would be ruled unconstitutional here in the US.

And England didn't give us our rights, we fought and died for them. We earned them.

Does this help you understand what my point was, and why your post was, at minimum, irrelevant? Or do I need to explain it further?

I am not the won who used the word given first.

Do you admit that England current gun laws are in no way whatsoever related to the revolutionary war.

That the laws would be unconstitutional seems is evidence that we got it wrong.

Furthermore, your grasp of American history is rather shallow.

[Ambrosia]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Nessie is a vocal opponent of America's 2nd Amendment right. He has, on more than a FEW different occasions, suggested that we're wrong, and that we need to follow the UK's and other countries footsteps and get rid of damn near every weapon, put heavy restrictions on them, and things will be rainbows and butterflies.

Up until 1920 we had the same rights here as well (as provided to the US by the 2nd Amendment) based on the 1689 bill of Rights (which in turn inspired the US Bill of Rights) The Firearms act of 1920 used the "as allowed by law" wording to give the Home Secretary veto over this, and in 1937 the HS ruled that self defence was no longer a good reason for a civilian to own a gun, sometime later here we all are today.

Quote:

I mentioned that one of the main reasons my forefathers LEFT that country, and started their own, is because of the government control and oppression.

Actually it's more probable that the first colonists to sail to the US were chasing free land. The war of independence came about because England tried to impose tax on stuff that the Americans thought they had no claim to. (At a time when they were busy stealing an entire country from it's indigenous population, and stealing natives from yet other countries to be slaves, go figure.)

Your history seems a little romanticised from here.

Quote:

As I've said before, many of England's gun laws would be ruled unconstitutional here in the US.

This is true. The gun laws we have here in the UK wouldn't work at all in the US for a great many reasons. The country is different. The people are different. The geography is different. The culture is different.

What might prove useful is to look at other countries gun control laws, and incorporate some of the more useful policies they use into your own gun laws.

I happen to like the gun laws we have here. I like the fact that our police is mostly unarmed, and that violent crime involving guns is almost unheard of.

I hope that my American friends can improve their gun laws, and reduce the amount of death and destruction that guns cause to their society. Though copy pasting another countries laws would be about the 3rd worst* option imo.

(*The worst would be to arm everyone, and the 2nd worst would be to disarm everyone)

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by lionking

No, I'd rather you said something like "the 2nd amendment was framed long ago. Let's look at 21st Century reasons to own powerful semi-automatic weapons and not a old piece of paper (however holy it is)"

What part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you?


I've asked before, maybe you'll answer now. What do you have against a semi-automatic weapon?

[DJW]

Originally Posted by lionking

No, I'd rather you said something like "the 2nd amendment was framed long ago. Let's look at 21st Century reasons to own powerful semi-automatic weapons and not a old piece of paper (however holy it is)"

The second amendment was framed long ago. However, the constitution of the U.S.A is up for interpretation and indeed amendable.

In fact, the SCOTUS just recently did some interpreting, as did a circuit court in Illinois (I think). Their decisions make it plain to me that the 2nd amendment will have to be amended further to institute the types of gun control necessary to keep the types of guns you're mentioning out of the general population.

I don't see that happening anytime soon, for a variety of reasons. It's not holy to me, lionking, it's just the reality we are dealing with.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I've asked before, maybe you'll answer now. What do you have against a semi-automatic weapon?

They are unnecessary in all but limited situations. So are handguns.

And you will make your (ridiculous) counter "but swimming pools are unnecessary......".

Anyway I heard a US poll result today where 57% supported further gun control (I'll try to find a link). The tide might be turning against gun, er, enthusiasts.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by lionking

They are unnecessary in all but limited situations. So are handguns.

So nothing but your own personal opinion, based on what, I'm not sure.

Gotcha.

Self defense while say....driving in a car, would be difficult with a shotgun. Even a revolver has severe limits.

Originally Posted by lionking

And you will make your (ridiculous) counter "but swimming pools are unnecessary......".

Not if you live in Florida like I do..... (nice try though)

Originally Posted by lionking

Anyway I heard a US poll result today where 57% supported further gun control (I'll try to find a link). The tide might be turning against gun, er, enthusiasts.

I'm not opposed to additional gun laws. What I am against, is sweeping gun bans based on nothing but emotions and feel good laws.

They do nothing. I'm not opposed. But, it cannot be the only step we take. More things need to be done to prevent another Ct. shooting. Banning "assault weapons" "Scary looking weapons" and "SA guns" will do nothing but further restricting my rights.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

What part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you?


I've asked before, maybe you'll answer now. What do you have against a semi-automatic weapon?

They allow one person to kill a lot of people very quickly.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by lionking

No, I'd rather you said something like "the 2nd amendment was framed long ago. Let's look at 21st Century reasons to own powerful semi-automatic weapons and not a old piece of paper (however holy it is)"

Lionking, does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?

Did she die in vain?


On a more serious note, whatever you want to think about the 2nd Amendment, the idea that rights are just bits of paper (in fact, I think the Yank constitution was written cow-hide, so there you go!), plays into the hands of people who would wish to deny yours.

Similarly:

"We had a contract!"

"Just a bit of paper, old boy!"

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by tsig

They allow one person to kill a lot of people very quickly.

So, because it's capable of doing something, (even though the VAST majority aren't used for that purpose) they must be outlawed?

They can also allow me more than 6 shots to defend my family or myself.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by DJW

Unfortunately not in the CT killings. Passive security failed, miserably, but please don't misunderstand and think that I'm opposed to passive measures. I'm not. We're just exploring an alternative idea.

Quad's initial idea was about arming some number of adults in schools. BStrong's idea was to enlist the efforts of willing, perhaps retired, law enforcement officers. I can see this working, but the anti-gun rhetoric makes it difficult to concentrate.

I wonder if there's already a pool of teachers with CCP's who have enough vetting to join BStrong's LEOs?

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.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

I am still amazed about this mindset - holding grievances and justifying owning military-style guns because of something which happened well over 200 years ago. Australia was a colony 200 years ago, and convicts were treated appallingly. I doubt any Australian loses sleep over this at all.

The point is that in Britain, and in most other countries ruled by a monarchy, rights were bestowed upon the people by the king at his whim. No one had any rights that the king did not allow. Even the Magna Carta was just the king's concession to treat people in particular ways. The U.S. is founded on the idea that all citizens have basic rights that do not depend on permission from any government, and the right of self-defense is one of them. There's certainly plenty of room to debate how to fulfill and protect that right without infringing on other rights (like, say, the right not to get murdered in your school), but it doesn't make much sense for the Brits and the Aussies to say "You guys should just be like us." We're not, and we never were.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The point is that in Britain, and in most other countries ruled by a monarchy, rights were bestowed upon the people by the king at his whim. No one had any rights that the king did not allow. Even the Magna Carta was just the king's concession to treat people in particular ways. The U.S. is founded on the idea that all citizens have basic rights that do not depend on permission from any government, and the right of self-defense is one of them. There's certainly plenty of room to debate how to fulfill and protect that right without infringing on other rights (like, say, the right not to get murdered in your school), but it doesn't make much sense for the Brits and the Aussies to say "You guys should just be like us." We're not, and we never were.

I'll ask you then. Is this right of yours to own semi-automatic weapons worth the cost of murdered children (amongst many others)?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

So, because it's capable of doing something, (even though the VAST majority aren't used for that purpose) they must be outlawed?

They can also allow me more than 6 shots to defend my family or myself.

Do you really think you are going to be attacked by a gang of seven?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I think yews are covered in wool.

Baa!

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

... the idea that rights are just bits of paper ...

The founders wrote in the possibility to amend.

Hell, they wrote in the possibility to re-write it wholesale.

[DJW]

You took the time to reply to me PhantomWolf, so I'm going to do my best to give you a complete response.

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.

Should we standardize building codes to include your suggestions? I can see requiring it for all future structures, but it will cost a lot. I'm not necessarily against the added cost, but I'm not a contractor, so I have no way to assess the feasability. We will also need to consider the retrofitting of all of our existing facilities.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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.

Do we need to make sure that our schools can withstand a bomb blast like Oklahoma city? There was a daycare in that building--btw.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

With putting armed people into the schools, first off you turn them into scary places.

If they weren't already scary, they are now.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Secondly, you need to keep those people trained,

How much will this cost? If it's manageable, then I'm okay with it. Certification is something teachers are familiar with. Maintaining certification isn't difficult or scary. Voluntary training and certification could be rewarded. Possibly? Maybe? Is it worth the discussion?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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.

There are variables here that can be managed with proper training. It's not unheard of in my country for civilians to take a course in close quarter combat/battle tactics. Should we consider the costs of developing a tight curriculum that could be taught to anyone interested in being available "just in case" some maniac breaks down the doors?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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.

Are those outer perimeter guards going to be armed? That might be cost prohibitive. Otherwise, locate, isolate, contain works for me. I definitely like the idea of a direct alarm to P.D., but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't already have schools doing that. I don't know how much it would cost, but it makes sense to have a panic alarm.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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.

I don't think having a vetted CCW holder on the premises of a school automatically makes that school a more dangerous place, but that's arguable, and I accept that people are going to vehemently disagree.

I think that's why Quad4 started this discussion in the first place. I know this makes people unhappy, but we should try to talk about it rationally.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by lionking

I'll ask you then. Is this right of yours to own semi-automatic weapons worth the cost of murdered children (amongst many others)?

There is nothing mystical about "semi-automatic" firearms. They are not machine guns. Most crimes, even murders, do not involve semi-automatic rifles, and criminals who use semi-automatic pistols could accomplish most of the same ends with revolvers (which also fire once each time the trigger is pulled). I think the hazards of semi-automatic firearms could be greatly reduced by simply limiting magazines to 10 rounds -- as the now-expired old assault weapons law did -- and prohibiting private possession of higher capacity magazines.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The founders wrote in the possibility to amend.

Like, er... the second amendment. Yes, I know. And I know it isn't an amendment in the sense that later ones were. But anyway, I am sure we are not disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that it is silly to say "long ago" and "just bits of paper" as though that annuls them.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Hell, they wrote in the possibility to re-write it wholesale.

Like I say, I'm not disagreeing.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The point is that in Britain, and in most other countries ruled by a monarchy, rights were bestowed upon the people by the king at his whim. No one had any rights that the king did not allow. Even the Magna Carta was just the king's concession to treat people in particular ways. The U.S. is founded on the idea that all citizens have basic rights that do not depend on permission from any government, and the right of self-defense is one of them. There's certainly plenty of room to debate how to fulfill and protect that right without infringing on other rights (like, say, the right not to get murdered in your school), but it doesn't make much sense for the Brits and the Aussies to say "You guys should just be like us." We're not, and we never were.

In fact, the British have made a number of forced concessions from the monarch and I mentioned the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights before.

Besides, I am not telling you to be more like us Brits (I know there's no teaching that kind of class ), I think I actually know and agree with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and that's not what I am criticizing on this thread: I think the idea of arming teachers and staff and having children trained in defending themselves from random nutcases if they break into their high security learning facilities is the sad thing.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The very first hit will be this story, about a woman who died after she hugged a copy, and his gun went off.

I think I found your problem. The clones are always stupider than the originals.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by iknownothing

I think a shooter who goes to a school is specifically wanting to kill kids. If he can't do it at the school, he can find groups of kids in lots of places. It will just mean that massacres of children take place in locations other than schools.

Should we therefore do nothing to protect children in school, because the killer could find his victims elsewhere?

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The founders wrote in the possibility to amend.

Hell, they wrote in the possibility to re-write it wholesale.

True. It will be hard, but if the American people make it a priority it can happen.
I've already called my Congresscritter...(Gerry Connolly) his people say he's
on board.

-z

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by DJW

Should we standardize building codes to include your suggestions? I can see requiring it for all future structures, but it will cost a lot. I'm not necessarily against the added cost, but I'm not a contractor, so I have no way to assess the feasability. We will also need to consider the retrofitting of all of our existing facilities.

My suggestions are just my suggestions, but if I was in charge, I'd certainly get a group of experts together and figure out what was needed to hold an attacker at bay as long as it took the police to get there, and then action those suggestions.

Quote:

Do we need to make sure that our schools can withstand a bomb blast like Oklahoma city? There was a daycare in that building--btw.

I certainly hope not, the Murrah Building didn't do a very good job of withstanding the blast. That was the reason that all Federal buildings were strengthened afterwards. I don't think that schools need to be build to withstand a carbomb either, I'd suggest that with as paranoid as the US is about Carbombs, if someone was building one, they'd have a pretty good chance of getting caught.

Quote:

If they weren't already scary, they are now.

I disagree with this. While at the moment things are a little more tense, I would doubt that those kids returning to schools around the US after Christmas will be thinking about school shootings, and finding school to be a scary place. Have armed people roaming the halls and you can't help but slam that notion in their faces, that they aren't safe there. How do you promote learning in a place where the kids don't feel safe?

Quote:

How much will this cost? If it's manageable, then I'm okay with it. Certification is something teachers are familiar with. Maintaining certification isn't difficult or scary. Voluntary training and certification could be rewarded. Possibly? Maybe? Is it worth the discussion?

Without someone costing it out, we have no idea what either would cost. I suspect that both answers are "a lot". In the short time I suspect that installing workable passive security systems into new schools, and retro-fitting them into older schools would be more expensive. However once it is in, other than maintenance, it's pretty much a one time cost. Training hundreds of thousands of people with on-going training to keep their skills up and ready is a truly on-going cost and in time would be far more than putting in good security.

Quote:

There are variables here that can be managed with proper training. It's not unheard of in my country for civilians to take a course in close quarter combat/battle tactics. Should we consider the costs of developing a tight curriculum that could be taught to anyone interested in being available "just in case" some maniac breaks down the doors?

Except that even you know this isn't true. The military spend huge amounts of time, far more than could be spent on training these sorts of people, on close quarters combat and battle tactics, and yet we see friendly fire incidents, incorrectly identified targets, shots missing targets and hitting bystanders and so on from these professionals. Police likewise are trained for these sorts of situations, yet their hit rates are only between 20% and 30% of shots fired, and this gets worse the more stressed they become (generally by having bullets coming back at them.) It is famously said by soldiers that any battle plan lasts exactly as long as it takes to engage the enemy, but somehow we are expecting amatures with hardly any of the training to do it better then the professionals have proven they can.

Quote:

Are those outer perimeter guards going to be armed? That might be cost prohibitive. Otherwise, locate, isolate, contain works for me. I definitely like the idea of a direct alarm to P.D., but I wouldn't be surprised if we don't already have schools doing that. I don't know how much it would cost, but it makes sense to have a panic alarm.

Personally I'd say no, if they where to spot a potential threat they should be activating a lock down and then getting the heck out of Dodge, not trying to act the Hero (Do you know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed. - Zoe Washburne)

I'd suggest that any school that didn't have some sort of monitored alarm, be it with a security firm or the local PD, would be a rarity today.

Quote:

I don't think having a vetted CCW holder on the premises of a school automatically makes that school a more dangerous place, but that's arguable, and I accept that people are going to vehemently disagree.

I think that's why Quad4 started this discussion in the first place. I know this makes people unhappy, but we should try to talk about it rationally.

I don't know that it would automatically make the school more dangerous, though I did read a study that found that people who carried guns were more likely to be shot than those that didn't. But I would say that it does increase the potential number of risks. It also forces teachers to become militerised, and I honestly don't think that is a good thing. I don't even thing that it's good that our international airports are crawling with armed police. (yes it's necessary , but it's not good.)

I dio think that it should be discussed, but part of that discussion should be "is it actually better than other methods of achieving the same result?" If it isn't better then surely we should look at those options that are first before adding more weapons to the situation.

[gumboot]

The problem with this idea is two-fold. Firstly, there's the issue of cost. No matter what you might claim, any sort of improved security measures will ultimately cost the school, and that means not every school will want to do it. Which is really already the situation; schools that perceive themselves at risk from violence already have elevated security measures in place. There's a reason these school shootings consistently happen in small towns.

The second problem is that those who attack schools tend to meticulously plan their attacks over long periods of time. In many instances they're either former or current students, and intimately familiar with the layout of the school and any potential security issues. Even if you passed legislation requiring all schools to have armed guards on site, attackers would merely factor this into their plan.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Bob001

The point is that in Britain, and in most other countries ruled by a monarchy, rights were bestowed upon the people by the king at his whim. No one had any rights that the king did not allow. Even the Magna Carta was just the king's concession to treat people in particular ways. The U.S. is founded on the idea that all citizens have basic rights that do not depend on permission from any government, and the right of self-defense is one of them. There's certainly plenty of room to debate how to fulfill and protect that right without infringing on other rights (like, say, the right not to get murdered in your school), but it doesn't make much sense for the Brits and the Aussies to say "You guys should just be like us." We're not, and we never were.

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.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The problem with this idea is two-fold. Firstly, there's the issue of cost. No matter what you might claim, any sort of improved security measures will ultimately cost the school, and that means not every school will want to do it. Which is really already the situation; schools that perceive themselves at risk from violence already have elevated security measures in place. There's a reason these school shootings consistently happen in small towns.

This is why it needs to be a federal program, funded by the feds. Then the schools can't say they can't afford it.

Quote:

The second problem is that those who attack schools tend to meticulously plan their attacks over long periods of time. In many instances they're either former or current students, and intimately familiar with the layout of the school and any potential security issues. Even if you passed legislation requiring all schools to have armed guards on site, attackers would merely factor this into their plan.

While I understand what you are saying, it's also a little defeatist. You might as well paint a welcome sign for them, because if they can eventually figure out how to beat any security, what is the point of having any security?

The real point of security is two fold. First, if the target is hard to get into, the attacker might go somewhere else. Second, if the attacker does attack, you make it as hard as possible, so that even if he knows the systems perfectly, he still can't get through them before the police respond.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Pulleys are for sissies.

Same thing for carbon fiber shafts.

Real bows and arrows are made of wood.

Unless you want to hit something you mean?

Don't shoot compund myself, I am Recurve but outdoors I use Carbon Arrows. I use sights and long rod as well, my limbs are carbon and foam and my riser forged alloy.

To use anything else would be like a target rifle shooter insisting on a musket.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

The thousand post thread about the recent school shooting has brought a number of things to light for me. Everyone wants something done to STOP the school shootings. I do as well. Banning guns is not the solution. Whether you like it or not, there is too much support for guns in our country, and even if they were banned, the country is so saturated with guns that there will always be a relatively easy way to obtain one. Some of the evidence presented in the other thread also shows that even in countries with a very low amount of guns per person, the violence is significantly higher. It has also been pointed out that it can be nearly impossible to identify someone crazy enough to execute a mass shooting before they do it. Additionally, Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but yet a mass shooting still occurred.

So what is the answer? I still don't know, but I have an absolutely OUTRAGEOUS idea that will upset quite a bit of people on this forum, but I am going to throw it out there anyways. What if instead of being completely helpless in a school shooting scenario we prepared the teachers/faculty to defend themselves? What if, and this is a very big hypothetical, in the elementary school in Connecticut there were about 5 or so teachers/faculty members who had been trained in the use of firearms and also trained in reacting to an active shooter scenario? And also, what if each of these teachers/faculty members had a vault in their classroom with either a shotgun or a handgun inside?

Absolute LUNACY, I know, but I think it is still worth looking in to. Given the surprising amount of ignorance about guns in our country, this will probably never happen. Now anti gun nutters, let me go ahead and address some of your comments before you post them, because I know they are coming. NO, the guns do not just start going off all of a sudden killing everyone once they get inside of a school. Also no, the teachers are not going to shoot a bunch of kids instead of the shooter if such a scenario occurs (Hence the training). Ok everyone, go ahead and pile on.

I agree that your idea is outrageous and absolute lunacy.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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.

I think all of these things were actually done at Sandy Hook. There probably were no security guards.

It's true that he could shoot and kick his way through the doors, but there are practical limits on what is possible. Sure, we could build elementary schools with doors that looked like bank vaults, but it wouldn't make any sense. I think a calm, rational, analysis of the situation at Sandy Hook was that they took reasonable precautions.

Unfortunately, they faced an unreasonable threat. This crazy dude was well armed and determined to do some killing. There's only so much one can do in the face of such a threat.

The debate that is resuming in America today is whether you can lower that guy's access to weapons so that he isn't such a threat in the first place.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Until the teacher goes insane and shoots people himself.

Exactly. It would be surprising if armed teachers didn't shoot the kids.

"What do you mean you forgot your homework again?"

BANG! BANG! BANG!

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Very well put. The anti gun nutter crowd always likes to spin these types of discussions as if people like myself are advocating a "Wild West" style environment. They also like to propose that there is no possible way that an armed individual in a school could make a bit of difference, and that every bullet they would shoot would hit an innocent bystander. It's just speaking from ignorance, but no solution to the problem is going to be found if individuals on both sides of the argument are not rational and honest.

Just out of interest, do you think that everyone who is anti gun is a nutter?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

They can also allow me more than 6 shots to defend my family or myself.

I remember in a previous debate asking for an example of any case where anyone in America ever fired six or more shots in a successful effort to defend himself.

I'll try to look up that thread and see if there was an answer.


ETA: Here was my post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...95#post6783295

One person responded that he had thought he knew of one case where one shopkeeper fired 20 rounds.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

ftfy.

By the way, a study into NYPD officers over a ten year period found that of the times they were involved in shottings (77% of which were with only the officer(s) shooting) they missed their target 78% of the time. That's close to 4 in 5 shots missing when fired by trained police officers who a lot of the time are not being fired back at. Now looking at other departments, NY is actually a little low, but not by much. Most average between just 20-30% for hitting their target when they open fire. Studies have found that the greater the danger to the Officer, the worse his/her accuracy is as well.*

You are suggesting that an poorly trained school admin, or Joe off the street, should be able to do better while under fire.



*Hitting the Target (or Not): Comparing Characteristics of Fatal, Injurious, and Noninjurious Police Shootings (Michael D. White) Police Quarterly 2006; 9; 303 DOI: 10.1177/1098611105277199

http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/303

That is a seriously worrying statistic.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally Posted by Multivac

Exactly. It would be surprising if armed teachers didn't shoot the kids.

"What do you mean you forgot your homework again?"

BANG! BANG! BANG!

And given the still highly unlikely in-school scenario more guns would supposedly solve, there are in my mind too many things that could go wrong.

And probably would. Others have suggested cross-fire hitting students, or a struggle for the weapon, or friendly fire killings, and these objections ring truer than "If someone had a gun they'd have stopped this". The potential for disaster outweighs the potential benefit, IMO by quite a bit.

Too many things could go wrong when only one thing could go right.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Battman

Teach the kids how to survive in a war zone? This, to me, is an extremely sad commentary on the gun culture. Makes more sense to get rid of assault weapons, but this has probably been covered ad nauseum in the previous threads.

Agree completely and, yes, this has been discussed to death in other threads but some posters still think that the solution is "more guns".

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Sadly, many of the posts/posters in this thread have been nothing but ignorant (you included, obviously), so my comments are warranted.

Do you really think that calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant" is going to help persuade them that you are right?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Self defense while say....driving in a car, would be difficult with a shotgun.

Seriously?





If you actually think you might have the need to engage in a running gun battle while driving a car, you are crazy. I don't mean "wrong". I mean crazy.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

And given the still highly unlikely in-school scenario more guns would supposedly solve, there are in my mind too many things that could go wrong.

And probably would. Others have suggested cross-fire hitting students, or a struggle for the weapon, or friendly fire killings, and these objections ring truer than "If someone had a gun they'd have stopped this". The potential for disaster outweighs the potential benefit, IMO by quite a bit.

Too many things could go wrong when only one thing could go right.

Exactly.