An OUTRAGEOUS Solution to School Shootings

[Caper]

I have an equally outrageous idea.

The main reason I think the above solution wouldn't work is because at least once a year a teacher would go nuts and shoot a bunch of kids..... or somehow a gun accidentally discharges.

But I have an equally OUTRAGEOUS idea... so outrageous I can't say I really support it. I also think it would drop the rate of suicides in general.... but again.. I just don't think I can support it. What if.... what if... we desecrated the bodies of these school shooters. Put silly make up on the guy... make puppet shows with his body and put them on the internet.... EVERYONE laugh and laugh and laugh at them..... I don't know but I think part of the fantasy of being a school shooter... or even a suicide victim (many times) is achieving some kind of final respect.... even if it's in pure hatred (maybe respect is the wrong word for a school shooter, but I can't think of the right one)... If we laughed at them in death... don't you think it would dampen the fantasy?

[DDWW]

Originally Posted by tsig

You whip out your Colt 1911 .45 and blow away a police officer who thought the shooter was in that office.

BTW: you get ten years.

Fail; Police officer doesn’t shoot through doors. Police announce themselves so they do not get shot. 911 operator still trying to determine if there is an emergency, I am in cover and can see who is coming through door, etc. etc. etc.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

While technically true, removing Suicides does change these figures somewhat.

I'm pretty sure it would move "you" into the number two slot.

If you include injuries instead of just deaths, I'll bet "you" would jump back to number one. Most accidental discharges aren't fatal. However, I don't know that for sure.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I honestly can't put an accurate number on that. I am somewhat abandoning the arming of teachers though in favor of either having LEOs or ex military volunteering their time or PhantomWolfs idea.

Is this because of the practicality of trying to keep someone well-trained in firearms along with training for the other duties expected of teachers?

Or is it because you consider arming teachers could cause as many problems as they solve?

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Depends on the location of the shooter and the location of the individual with the gun in the safe when he is alerted to the presence of a shooter. You could not figure that formula out on your own?

So, if this teacher is well trained enough, and doesn't panic and freeze up despite his training, and isn't one of the first ones killed when the shooting starts, and is close enough to get to and open the locked safe where this gun is held and get to where the shooter is before the shooter manages to kill too many kids and others, and is fortunate enough to be able to get a clear shot at the shooter without risking anyone else, and is lucky enough to actually hit with that shot despite trained fulltime police officers missing 78% of the time, then maybe he can stop the shooter. Maybe.

And you honestly think is this worth the risks of storing firearms on school grounds, with access given to underpaid, stressed teachers who are extremely unlikely to be given the bare minimum training needed for this, much less the optimum training to make them effective?

[DDWW]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Smith .460 or Ruger .480 ?

Won a Smith .460 at an Friends of NRA dinner. Too much gun for me. Would not want to be in front of it.

BTW: You live.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I believe you have managed to say absolutely nothing in this post. You have no facts about guns. You have no statistics about guns. You have nothing to say at all.

Which makes this post smarter than your average post.

People can make statistics say just about anything they want to. For example, medical errors in hospitals kill more people then guns do each year. Therefore, we should not go see our doctors because it is too dangerous:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Unfortunately, you seem completely ignorant about how they actually are used, because the most likely person to be killed by your gun, is you. The next most likely is someone you live with. Sorry. It's not an opinion. It's statistics.

This article explains why this is a slightly twisted fact. Take out suicides, and the numbers aren't actually in favour of the argument. So technically true, if you count suicides, but not true if you don't.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Is this because of the practicality of trying to keep someone well-trained in firearms along with training for the other duties expected of teachers?

Or is it because you consider arming teachers could cause as many problems as they solve?

The first one. I don't think it would cause a bunch of problems at all.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Caper

What if.... what if... we desecrated the bodies of these school shooters. Put silly make up on the guy... make puppet shows with his body and put them on the internet.... EVERYONE laugh and laugh and laugh at them..... I don't know but I think part of the fantasy of being a school shooter... or even a suicide victim (many times) is achieving some kind of final respect.... even if it's in pure hatred (maybe respect is the wrong word for a school shooter, but I can't think of the right one)... If we laughed at them in death... don't you think it would dampen the fantasy?

I'm actually more in favour of something like this.

I think too many people like to see these shooters as victims and tend to have too much sympathy for them.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Yikes, another individual completely ignorant of guns. So how is this gun stored in a safe going to go on a shooting rampage all on its own?

Exactly. Because all guns are stored safely everywhere, all the time.

I mean, it's not like there's recently been an incident in which a mentally unstable person gained access to someone else's legally-obtained guns.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

People can make statistics say just about anything they want to. For example, medical errors in hospitals kill more people then guns do each year. Therefore, we should not go see our doctors because it is too dangerous:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

I think people can also take the ostrich position with any statistics too.

i.e

Person A: "Lung cancer kills XYZ number of smokers a year."

Person B: "Meh, statistics can show anything. Obesity kills more people therefore we shouldn't eat food, right?"

[DDWW]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

It's pretty ridiculous that we are entertaining an unending game of "what ifs". Can both sides play?

Yes, as long as it does not include vampires. I am sick of the twilight series!

[Cain]

Don't let the fact they were children fool you -- 100% of humans die unirregardless.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

People can make statistics say just about anything they want to. For example, medical errors in hospitals kill more people then guns do each year. Therefore, we should not go see our doctors because it is too dangerous:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

Obviously the solution is to introduce more medical errors into hospitals. That will reduce the medical-error-induced fatalities.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think people can also take the ostrich position with any statistics too.

i.e

Person A: "Lung cancer kills XYZ number of smokers a year."

Person B: "Meh, statistics can show anything. Obesity kills more people therefore we shouldn't eat food, right?"

So the statistic that my gun is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder is accurate for guys like me who live alone? Sorry but with guns, there are way too many variables when it comes to gun ownership.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Obviously the solution is to introduce more medical errors into hospitals. That will reduce the medical-error-induced fatalities.

Still going with the "Nonsense approach" I see. How is that working for you?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

So the statistic that my gun is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder is accurate for guys like me who live alone?

Errr...no. I have not said that. Nobody else did either. I don't see your point.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

If your nephew, who lives with you and who you have let drive your car before, takes the keys and drives it to the mall without your express permission, I assume you'd be on the phone with the cops posthaste to report your vehicle stolen and wanting to file a police report and criminal grand theft auto charges.

I would most likely not. Doesn't mean the definition of stolen has changed according to the law.

My BIL had his car stolen by his daughter. He did in fact file charges. I wouldn't, as my nephew isn't a jackhole criminal, like his daughter is.

It's still a stolen car though, either way.

[Doubt]

We had a police officer at my high school. There was a reason for it:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...,4455351&hl=en

That school is closed and the police department does not even exist anymore thanks to economic collapse. Having a cop around was not a bad thing. Expecting one cop to stop somebody bent on killing might be a bit much to ask for.

This happened 5 years before I started there. The potential threat was not from the outside. If there was actually a threat from the outside, I think the plan was to evacuate the building. That idea still makes the most sense. A live cop making sure people get out is likely to save more people than attempting confrontation while their are still plenty of students in the building.

I am a former solider (combat engineer and later infantry) that grew up in a rough place. I understand guns well enough but was never in combat. My father was a teacher in a different district. He was also former military. If you had suggested to him or me that teachers should be armed you won't be given a lot of credit for thinking through the consequences of that decision.

Guns can be stolen and teachers can get robbed. Buildings get broken into. Teachers are no more in control of their emotions than anybody else. The best defense against somebody trying to kill you is to put as much distance between them and you as quickly as possible.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Ignorant?

You think that all those guns will stay locked in their safes?

Unless it's time to use them, or maintain them for some reason, yes, they should.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

You think those guns will never be accidentally discharged while showing them to another person?

Why is a gun being taken out and "shown" to someone while loaded? Why is a loaded handgun being handled without being made safe?

WHY THE **** is some FOOL in the safe to BEGIN with!

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

You think that no one will ever mistakenly fire at someone perceived to be a threat, but who in reality is playing a joke?

Then it's their own damn fault for doing something foolish. Tragic, but foolish.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

You think that no child will ever manage to get at that safely secured gun because teachers will always follow proper procedures for use and storage of their guns?

Why is the safe not locked? Why was it opened? Is it being used for self defense? Why is someone in the safe without a good reason?

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Ignorant? Yes, there is at least one person in this thread who is completely ignorant about guns.

I have a feeling you'll get this wrong....

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Well, not completely ignorant. I'm sure you know a great deal about guns.

Figures.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm sure you can describe their proper use, and how to load them and fire them. I'll bet you're a wealth of knowledge about how they can be used and how they should be used.

I can too. Most gun owners can.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Unfortunately, you seem completely ignorant about how they actually are used, because the most likely person to be killed by your gun, is you. The next most likely is someone you live with. Sorry. It's not an opinion. It's statistics.

So, please explain how I've fired no less than 1,000,000 rounds, and never once fired at something I didn't intend to destroy.

Imagine that, the statistics can be wrong.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Still going with the "Nonsense approach" I see. How is that working for you?

It was far less nonsensical than your "medical errors in hospitals kill more people then guns do each year therefore we should not go see our doctors because it is too dangerous" non-sequitur reply to Meadmaker citing some statistics that are quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Doubt

We had a police officer at my high school. There was a reason for it:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...Jp1RAAAAIBAJ&s jid=w2wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4930,4455351

That school is closed and the police department does not even exist anymore thanks to economic collapse. Having a cop around was not a bad thing. Expecting one cop to stop somebody bent on killing might be a bit much to ask for.

This happened 5 years before I started there. The potential threat was not from the outside. If there was actually a threat from the outside, I think the plan was to evacuate the building. That idea still makes the most sense. A live cop making sure people get out is likely to save more people than attempting confrontation while their are still plenty of students in the building.

I am a former solider (combat engineer and later infantry) that grew up in a rough place. I understand guns well enough but was never in combat. My father was a teacher in a different district. He was also former military. If you had suggested to him or me that teachers should be armed you won't be given a lot of credit for thinking through the consequences of that decision.

Guns can be stolen and teachers can get robbed. Buildings get broken into. Teachers are no more in control of their emotions than anybody else. The best defense against somebody trying to kill you is to put as much distance between them and you as quickly as possible.

Hi Doubt. That seems to be a broken link.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Doubt

The best defense against somebody trying to kill you is to put as much distance between them and you as quickly as possible.

Use the same tactics as the Marines.

1) Locate - Find and identify your gunman. Done either by manned entrances or security camera, preferably both.

2) Isolate - Keep the gunman away from potential targets. Close off the parts of the school that have students so the gunman can't get to them. Lots of solid objects that the gunman can't get through, or will take time to get through are just as good as distance is.

3) Contain - Use the same security systems that isolate your gunman from potential victims to contain your gunman until the Police arrive to deal with him. If he can escape the containment, make sure that it is out and away from potential victims.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Hi Doubt. That seems to be a broken link.

Fixed it.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Doubt

Fixed it.

Thanks. It is things like that that I was thinking of when I wrote this...

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think, in a way, the idea is naiive, anyway. I mean, I wonder what people's ideas of school classrooms are. Rows of precious angelic faces listening to a dutiful and wise teacher reading Little Women? Err...no. I think that in a lot of school environments introducing guns to the classroom could create more problems than they solve. As others have mentioned, rage killings very often happen at the workplaces of people. Having teachers flip out and shoot the kids who have been harassing her all year or having a teacher disarmed by a student who hates the teacher is surely not beyond the realms of probability.

And besides that, how are children supposed to travel to school? In armoured cars? What about school trips? What about non-school environments, shopping malls, cinemas, Sikh Temples, Holocaust museums, office blocks?

...which appears to have been ignored. Boo hoo!

I do think that the presence of guns on school premises, for the prevention of rage killings which are actually statistically a small chance, would likely increase other kinds of gun-related deaths, as you also point out. I don't see how the proponents of this idea can guarantee the safe keeping of these guns or the exemplary behaviour of teachers.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by DGM

Although I see your point, I disagree for other reasons.

I don't believe it would be good for the kids to see the place they have to go everyday as a dangerous place that needs armed guards. Passive methods would really be just as effective without the emotional stress involved with armed guards.

Tell me don't feel just a little nervous going to the airport past the state troupers with their guns, now do this everyday.

You don't need to have guys geared up to run the airport road w/ plate carriers and M4's, you could have operators in suits like any other EP job. There's no reason to have anybody disturbed by their presence or appearance

I'm probably one of the worst examples on the planet to ask that particular question. I've spent most of my life in one kind of uniform or another carrying one type of weapon or another - if I see guys that look and act like pros, I get to relax.

My idea is simple, but again, it's a no-go.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

This article explains why this is a slightly twisted fact. Take out suicides, and the numbers aren't actually in favour of the argument. So technically true, if you count suicides, but not true if you don't.

Not so fast. I don't think the article backs up the claim.

First, I said what happens if "you" buy a gun. Although I was unclear on this point, I was speaking to most of us here, to the typical, law abiding, gun owner. I am talking about people who are not intending to use their gun for criminal behavior, either with the intent of shooting someone, or for use as a robbery, or as a protection while selling drugs, or anything else. I'm talking about people who buy guns for target shooting or for self defense.

Who are those guns likely to kill? If you include suicide numbers, that's easy, and the articles says it. By far, the answer is you. Now let's exclude suicide numbers.

ETA: Rats. accidentally hit submit. Not done posting. Back later.

ETA:


What, then, can we say about who will be killed with “your” gun, if you don’t commit suicide.

Well we can’t say much, because “your” gun won’t be used to kill somebody while you rob a liquor store, and “your” gun isn’t going to shoot back at a car in a drive by shooting. I want to exclude those numbers, because they aren’t going to include “your” gun. If you buy a gun for self defense, who is likely to be shot with that gun? The article doesn’t help much. If “the large majority” of homicides involve someone else’s gun, there’s still several thousand homicides that involve your own gun. Also, it’s unclear. If you use your gun to shoot your wife, is he including that in the large majority shot by “someone else’s gun”, or is “someone else” intended to mean “someone outside your family.

So, it appears that if you exclude suicide, and you exclude guns that are purchased by thieves, drug dealers, and other ne’er do wells for use in criminal activity, your gun is more likely to kill someone else than it is to kill you, but “someone else” is still very likely someone who lives with you.. That’s why I said “you” moves to number two from number one, if suicides are excluded. The article doesn’t give enough information to be sure. “you” might still be number one, or it’s conceivable that you might actually manage to kill someone that you don’t know, and you meant to kill, and you really were defending yourself. Maybe.

I’d believe it when I see some statistics other than word counts.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Doubt

Fixed it.

How inappropriate is that cigerette ad?

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How inappropriate is that cigerette ad?

That was 1972. A few years later we were wearing leisure suits. It was not a decade of good judgement.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Unless it's time to use them, or maintain them for some reason, yes, they should.



Why is a gun being taken out and "shown" to someone while loaded? Why is a loaded handgun being handled without being made safe?

WHY THE **** is some FOOL in the safe to BEGIN with!



Then it's their own damn fault for doing something foolish. Tragic, but foolish.



Why is the safe not locked? Why was it opened? Is it being used for self defense? Why is someone in the safe without a good reason?

They should and why and why and gee and how could that possibly happen?

It happens all the time outside of schools. You think it won't happen inside schools? Here's a tip. With some exceptions, teachers aren't geniuses or saints. They do all of the same stupid things the rest of the world does.

[Battman]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

<snip> Also if the school implemented, proper lockdown drills and students laying on the floor, crossfire would be negligible.

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.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

What kind of logic do you expect from someone who proudly has a killing tool as an avatar.

Even the NRA was smart enough to not shove their guns in our faces for a few days after their toys were used to murder children.

Yes, most people would think that throwing gasoline on a fire to put it out was madness yet every time this happens we see otherwise rational people suggesting that the solution to gun violence is more guns.

[Quad4_72]

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.

Will the constant reference to "Assault" weapons ever stop? Again I ask how many school shooting would have been stopped in the past had "assault" weapons not existed?

[Warrior1461]

Banning all guns is not the answer neither is arming all teachers. Better security measures, they do not have to be expensive scanners but simple measures like locked doors and alarms monitor with radios to alert of suspicious actvity. Maybe one armed guard or a trusted senior facility member witb a ccw.

Two words you need to remember vigilance and deterence. If you look at columbine and sandy hook. The best people who could have prevented both events were the parents. These attacks were planned, means there was time for a parent to discover it and stop it. If some violent entertainment is affecting a childs mind it is because it is the only influence in their life. Why are kids getting obese? Because we have parents letting them eat nothing but fast food and junk food. If all you consume is violent media at an early age it will have a detrimental effect.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Caper

I have an equally outrageous idea.

The main reason I think the above solution wouldn't work is because at least once a year a teacher would go nuts and shoot a bunch of kids..... or somehow a gun accidentally discharges.

But I have an equally OUTRAGEOUS idea... so outrageous I can't say I really support it. I also think it would drop the rate of suicides in general.... but again.. I just don't think I can support it. What if.... what if... we desecrated the bodies of these school shooters. Put silly make up on the guy... make puppet shows with his body and put them on the internet.... EVERYONE laugh and laugh and laugh at them..... I don't know but I think part of the fantasy of being a school shooter... or even a suicide victim (many times) is achieving some kind of final respect.... even if it's in pure hatred (maybe respect is the wrong word for a school shooter, but I can't think of the right one)... If we laughed at them in death... don't you think it would dampen the fantasy?

I am fine with that!!! Run it up bigger flagpoles and see who salutes there!!!!!

[iknownothing]

Originally Posted by Caper

But I have an equally OUTRAGEOUS idea... so outrageous I can't say I really support it. I also think it would drop the rate of suicides in general.... but again.. I just don't think I can support it. What if.... what if... we desecrated the bodies of these school shooters. Put silly make up on the guy... make puppet shows with his body and put them on the internet.... EVERYONE laugh and laugh and laugh at them..... I don't know but I think part of the fantasy of being a school shooter... or even a suicide victim (many times) is achieving some kind of final respect.... even if it's in pure hatred (maybe respect is the wrong word for a school shooter, but I can't think of the right one)... If we laughed at them in death... don't you think it would dampen the fantasy?

I have had the same thought.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

They should and why and why and gee and how could that possibly happen?

It happens all the time outside of schools. You think it won't happen inside schools? Here's a tip. With some exceptions, teachers aren't geniuses or saints. They do all of the same stupid things the rest of the world does.

I didn't say it won't. I'm saying that it shouldn't. A gun, kept in a safe, is not a threat to anyone, minus a criminal.

I've kept guns in my house for no less than 20 years. I've never had any kind of accident, because I keep my guns secure when not in use. Even then, I've never had an accidental discharge. Ever.

Here's a different solution. Allow any adult who already has a concealed weapons license, to carry at the school. The vast majority of those people are responsible gun owners, and know how to safely handle a firearm.

Make it simple. Got a permit? Carry it to school if you want.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I'm actually more in favour of something like this.

I think too many people like to see these shooters as victims and tend to have too much sympathy for them.

The ONLY time I would see murderers like that as victims is IFF they only killed the people who had specifically harmed them in ways that were clearly and certainly wrong (child sexually/otherwise abused by parent(s)/foster parent(s)/relative(s)/priest(s)/pastor(s)/teacher(s) - and by that I do not mean "were not given everything they wanted" "loved my brother (insert other(s) better) " etc.
Harm the innocent and you are just dead meat. Lanza is just dead meat (just the short/immediate list).

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Yikes, another individual completely ignorant of guns. So how is this gun stored in a safe going to go on a shooting rampage all on its own?

So how is this gun stored in a safe going to stop a shooting rampage?