An OUTRAGEOUS Solution to School Shootings

[surrogate]

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.

Relying upon thousands of volunteers for security doesn't strike me as feasible or sustainable.

[Warrior1461]

A safe prevents unwanted access. I do think the federal government needs to impose a national standard on gun safety devices the same way it does with automobiles.

[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?

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Ok but the only reason the guy said he didn't shoot is because he did not have a clear shot, which actually reinforces that idea that a concealed carrier is not going to shoot a bunch of innocent bystanders. If he had in fact had a clear shot, no it does not take an guy from an action movie to achieve a hit. Your story about you owning a handgun only reinforces my belief that you are completely ignorant of guns.

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I still fail to see how it is just a fantasy. The only reason he didn't shoot is because he did not have a clear shot. If we change the scenario ever so slightly, and let's say he has a wall as a back drop within 5 feet of him and no one in his path, do his bullets not do any damage to the shooter because that only happens in movies?




Ah, I found the problem. You are completely ignorant of firearms and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It all makes sense now. So you say there are ONLY two possible options. Either take the shot and hit innocent bystanders, or do nothing. That is what we call a logical fallacy and a massive failure (And a bit embarrassing to be completely honest). And you are faulting him for hiding behind cover? Wow you truly, truly are ignorant. FYI, that is what all military and law enforcement officers are trained to do when bullets start flying. Find cover.


Yikes. Probably best that you stop while you are, well not ahead obviously, but stop before you make any more ignorant statements. It's for the best.

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I copied your post and pasted it into Microsoft Word so I could see how many words there were. 186. 186 words strung together to make one of the most ignorant posts about guns that has been posted yet (Even worse then Bens I beleive). I believe congrats are in order. More accurately, I think the following emoticon is in order:

Just calling other posters ignorant isn't much of an argument.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Cain

Alexander Cockburn forwarded a way better idea in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre: "Put a gun glass case on each hallway: break in case of emergency." Before you say anything, it triggers the fire alarm. Even if some crazed killer grabs one of these guns, there will be, like, ten more in the building.

Cockburn also thought it was a good idea for colleges to have student militias. I don't see why we can't institute this idea for elementary schools. Before you say anything, no, I'm not suggesting we arm first graders. It'll be restricted to fifth graders.

That will make it difficult to tell which one is the crazed killer.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by DDWW

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.

If you can see thru doors then you can use your X-ray vision to melt the gun.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Cain

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

I'm good 'cause I'm avoiding unirregardless.

[tsig]

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?



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



Figures.



I can too. Most gun owners can.



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.

People aren't perfect.

[linusrichard]

One of the best things about this idea--arming teachers, training them in the use of arms, and installing gun safes in classrooms--is that it will help school districts deal with those pesky budget surpluses they're always complaining about.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

It isn't quite that simple.

Metal door frames (AKA hollow metal frames or HM frames) are standard for nearly all commercial or institutional construction. One reason is that overall they can be less expensive.

Whether they are fire rated or not is a different story, but they only need to have a rating equal to the rating of the partition (wall) they are installed in. The corridor wall in a school is probably going to have a 2hr. rating, if it's rated at all.

The funny thing is that generally all HM frames can pass muster for a two hour rating, since it costs less to make them all out of a heavy enough gauge to pass than to have different production runs. Normally the only difference is that someone with a UL certification pop-rivets a tag to the ones which are sold as rated.

As far as security is concerned, it is the door itself which is usually the weak point. HM doors are not commonly used in most interior applications. A wood veneer door can easily carry a two hour rating (even 4hr., with a gypsum core). When the door is kicked in it is the door which fails, not the frame.

Direction of swing will make a bigger difference, because of the stop built into the frame. If a door is 'reverse swing' (swings into the corridor instead of into the room) it will be much harder to break down if you're trying to get into the room, but it will still probably be the door that fails, not the frame.

Most room doors are regular swing. All that has to fail is the material around the lock assembly.

As to my earlier post on the access, doors and good things at least newer schools in my county have, the doors do open into the corridor!!!!!

[Nursefoxfire]

Don't know if anyone saw this, but one school district in Texas (of course) allows and encourages armed teachers:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...or-protection/

[Travis]

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?

Obviously it is is a threat when someone is misusing it. And humans, the fallible and stupid things we are, will definitely misuse them.

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Ignorant?

You think that all those guns will stay locked in their safes? You think those guns will never be accidentally discharged while showing them to another person? You think that no one will ever mistakenly fire at someone perceived to be a threat, but who in reality is playing a joke? 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?

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

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

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.

I copied your post and pasted it into Microsoft Word so I could see how many words there were. 186. 186 words strung together to make one of the most ignorant posts about guns that has been posted yet (Even worse then Bens I beleive). I believe congrats are in order. More accurately, I think the following emoticon is in order:

What exactly is the ignorant part?

He notes that the guns will not always be in the safe. They won't. With several hundred thousand teachers armed some of them will take the guns out when they are not supposed to. What will happen then?

Well a certain percentage of them will play around with them and accidentally discharge them. Another percentage might use them for suicide. Another percentage of them will be in the throws of a drug trip and who knows what they do to kill the demons they think are flying around. Yet another percentage will just up and flipout for no apparent reason and use the gun in an act of aggression.

Acknowledging this is not acting on "ignorance" it is demonstrating awareness of how humans work. As I mentioned in another thread I know a doctor who has to treat several people a month who have accidentally shot themselves while cleaning their own guns. Now let us pretend they are teachers and this is in a classroom.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

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.

That's fabulous that you are so safe with your guns. Unfortunately there are guys who the complete opposite. As I've noted elsewhere I have seen homes where loaded guns are just left out on coffee tables near kids. I know one guy (who has a concealed carry) who routinely shoots his own house up.

[Warrior1461]

I am in favor of hiring an armed guard, posting a police officer or a ccw to a trusted senior facility member who gets training on how to deal with active shooters.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by tsig

That will make it difficult to tell which one is the crazed killer.

Simple. The killer is a man. The killer is always a man, so we should train women to shoot these guns and confront rampagers (yay for equal rights). Second, he's probably ugly. Third, he wears dark clothes. And I don't think anyone has gone on a rampage wearing shorts. So if you're a female, grab a gun. If you're wearing shorts, grab a gun. If you're a pretty mother-******, grab a gun. If you're all three, then come to my house.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

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.

Well, if the world was made up only of triforcharitys then maybe this scheme would work, although it would clearly be unnecessary to begin with. But, when you factor in all of the other people, even trained cops, who do things like leaving his gun in his cupholder for his children to play with, or people who abuse drugs, or students who may try to get into the safe and various other forms of negligence, then you will realize the scheme is far from fool-proof. There are all kinds of traffic restrictions that people shouldn't break but do all the time. There are all kinds of safety regulations that get breached all the time. There are rules about the ways that teachers must behave in schools, including rules about physically harming students, and yet they get breached all the time.

Pointing these things out doesn't make people ignorant of guns.

[Warrior1461]

Arming every teacher is a bad idea. But posting a police officer in a school, hire a trained ccw armed security guard or a ccw to a trusted senior facility member. Have the rest of the school start implementing security procedures, secure access and install a silent alarm that will alert police simular to what banks have. I am for intelligenly arming people in school and reasonable firearm laws not outright bans. Because the either extreme idea is bad. But policy based on best ideas from both sides is better.

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

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

Can't be bothered to read the entire thread, but just in case it hasn't already been said....

What if one of the trained teachers with free access to the guns goes loony after a stressful year and a protracted period of chronic depression.

Agree with your "Absolute lunacy" comment at the end.

[rikzilla]

Just a quick note:
The irony of seeing RW gun "enthusiasts" (charitable I know...) coming up with big government solutions ie; mental health care, training and arming of teachers (that BTW they are still trying to portray as union ne'er-do-wells), locking down facilities, extra police protection, etc... while studiously whistling past the graveyard and ignoring the glut of militaristic anti-personnel weaponry in the hands of...basically anyone who wants one because of lax laws that the NRA has defended...well, if not for dead children it'd almost be funny.

So who's going to get to pay for all these solutions that don't work?

-z

[rikzilla]

Ermagerd!!!! Sersherlizm!

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by tsig

Just calling other posters ignorant isn't much of an argument.

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

[Quad4_72]

I don't know if such a statistic exists, but the police force has access to guns 24/7. How many shooting rampages happen every year from one of them going crazy and killing everyone in their office?

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I don't know if such a statistic exists, but the police force has access to guns 24/7. How many shooting rampages happen every year from one of them going crazy and killing everyone in their office?

Not sure,....but police officers were shot yesterday in Atlanta and Harrisburg. I guess we need to start arming police so they can defend themselves. o_0

-z

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I don't know if such a statistic exists, but the police force has access to guns 24/7. How many shooting rampages happen every year from one of them going crazy and killing everyone in their office?

Type the phrase "off duty cop kills" into google. You'll find stories about off duty cops breaking up robberies, and you'll find stories like this one -

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/22...-for-intruder/

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

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/08...un-police-say/

[tsig]

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.

Sadly many posters in this thread care nothing for the lives of others as long as their precious gun rights are preserved, dead children are just collateral damage.

[Nessie]

I wonder if home schooling will become more popular as parents decide they do not want to send their children to schools with armed staff.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by iknownothing

Exactly. And how is that better?

Sorry for the late reply.

It is better because than school children will not be shot. Police officers have a higher presence in the general community (unless we are talking about the situation described in this thread in which LEO are at the school) and CC responders are a possibility in the general public.

Remove soft targets. Start with the soft targets that are in large groups and the ones we feel more emotionally driven to protect (children).

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by tsig

Sadly many posters in this thread care nothing for the lives of others as long as their precious gun rights are preserved, dead children are just collateral damage.

If you drive or ride in a motorized vehicle, the same shame belongs to you.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Type the phrase "off duty cop kills" into google. You'll find stories about off duty cops breaking up robberies, and you'll find stories like this one -

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/22...-for-intruder/

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

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/08...un-police-say/

Cops who are trained to do this stuff, trained to spot this stuff, and sworn to uphold the law. No surprise here.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

Just a quick note:
The irony of seeing RW gun "enthusiasts" (charitable I know...) coming up with big government solutions ie; mental health care, training and arming of teachers (that BTW they are still trying to portray as union ne'er-do-wells), locking down facilities, extra police protection, etc... while studiously whistling past the graveyard and ignoring the glut of militaristic anti-personnel weaponry in the hands of...basically anyone who wants one because of lax laws that the NRA has defended...well, if not for dead children it'd almost be funny.

So who's going to get to pay for all these solutions that don't work?

-z

What makes you think locking down facilities won't work? It seems to me like it would be the cheapest and most effective policy change we could make. How many shooters are showing up on commercial airlines these days? For that matter, how many were there in the decades prior to 9/11? There's a reason those guys chose box cutters.

[iknownothing]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Sorry for the late reply.

It is better because than school children will not be shot. Police officers have a higher presence in the general community (unless we are talking about the situation described in this thread in which LEO are at the school) and CC responders are a possibility in the general public.

Remove soft targets. Start with the soft targets that are in large groups and the ones we feel more emotionally driven to protect (children).

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.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Cops who are trained to do this stuff, trained to spot this stuff, and sworn to uphold the law. No surprise here.

Yes, and sometimes professional bus drivers or professional truck drivers cause accidents which kill multiple people. Sometimes those people are kids. There oughta be a law.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by iknownothing

I think 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.

There is a higher chance of a LEO being at those locations, not to mention a higher chance of a responder (open carry or CC) being present.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by iknownothing

I think 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.

If he's going to a specific school because he wants to kill those kids, and he can't get inside, his attempt to do so will identify him as "one of those". If the police can reach the scene faster than the 20 minutes it's reported to have taken in this case, there's a good chance he'll be apprehended (or choose the coward's bow) before he selects a second target.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by zeggman

If you drive or ride in a motorized vehicle, the same shame belongs to you.

That's why in order to have any kind of gun in every state in the union, you you have to take both a written and a practical test administered by the state government in order to be issued a license which then has to be renewed every few years, while no such thing is required for motor vehicles.

[seycyrus]

Originally Posted by zeggman

If he's going to a specific school because he wants to kill those kids, and he can't get inside, his attempt to do so will identify him as "one of those". If the police can reach the scene faster than the 20 minutes it's reported to have taken in this case, there's a good chance he'll be apprehended (or choose the coward's bow) before he selects a second target.

Not to mention that if he really wants to kill "those kids", there are many,many other ways to do it.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

That's why in order to have any kind of gun in every state in the union, you you have to take both a written and a practical test administered by the state government in order to be issued a license which then has to be renewed every few years, while no such thing is required for motor vehicles.

No one needs to get a driver's license to buy a car.

And it seems foolish to assume that requiring gun owners to pass a written and practical test for a license to carry would satisfy the "ban guns" people, even if it didn't violate the Constitution.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by tsig

Sadly many posters in this thread care nothing for the lives of others as long as their precious gun rights are preserved, dead children are just collateral damage.

Who said this?

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by zeggman

No one needs to get a driver's license to buy a car.

You need one to drive it away from wherever you bought it.

Quote:

And it seems foolish to assume that requiring gun owners to pass a written and practical test for a license to carry

Who said anything about a license to carry? You don't need a license to own and use a gun period. Unlike a car.

Quote:

would satisfy the "ban guns" people,

You are aware that there are more choices available here than "ban guns" and "more guns", right?

Quote:

even if it didn't violate the Constitution.

What makes the Second Amendment so unique and special as to be exempt from all the other "yes, but" restrictions that are and have been placed on pretty much every single other constitutional right listed in that document in order to actually create a functional, working society?

[DJW]

Originally Posted by zeggman

No one needs to get a driver's license to buy a car.

And it seems foolish to assume that requiring gun owners to pass a written and practical test for a license to carry would satisfy the "ban guns" people, even if it didn't violate the Constitution.

It gets mentioned on occasion, but never seems to "stick" in the anti-gun mindset, but some of us are already subject to pretty tough gun control legislation.

In Boston, MA it is necessary to take a safety course and pass a written and practical exam to be considered for a license to carry. If the police department allows the application to proceed, the applicant needs to become a member of a gun club (~$150/yr + fees). A qualification has to be scheduled and completed at the Moon Island facility. References have to be submitted. A $100 permit fee has to be paid, and the application can be denied at any time for no cause.

If you complete the process, the LTC is good for between 4 and 5 years (it changes periodically). If you stop your membership to a gun club, you have to surrender your license. When your license is about to expire, you have to start the process over including a letter from the gun club, another trip to Moon Island and another $100.

All this effort yields not a CCP but rather an LTC with "no concealed carry" stamped on it. Since open carry is not allowed and considered a misdemeanor assault...well, it's hard to say what you actually can and cannot do with your shiny new and EXPENSIVE license.

Now, to Zeggman's point above: I don't think 24hrs passed after the CT shooting before Mayor Menino (Boston's Mayor) was calling for more gun control.

Last year I had a terrible fall in which I broke 5 vertebra, 3 ribs and suffered a terrible concussion and brain hemorrhage. The resulting tbi caused me to surrender my LTC. The gun nuts I associate with to a man and woman would have done the very same thing. Safety, education, responsibility were always at the forefront of any gun control discussion at the club.

Quad deserves some credit for this discussion. He, as do we all, wants to find a solution to the problem of soft targets being attacked by lunatics with guns. Dianne Feinstein trots out an old assault weapons ban which has been shown to be ineffective. Not only is that not a solution, but it also prevents discussions like this one from really being able to progress toward a solution.

Sure, I understand that to non-gun people it seems deranged to bring guns to school, but it really depends on who does the bringing. Just because you can't wrap your brain around the concept of law abiding, concerned, capable gun owners doesn't mean we don't exist in large numbers. Some of us are already teaching your children, not to mention occupying many varied professional and technical positions in society.

There are even some of us who see the dangers of maintaining guns with a brain injury. Those of us like Quad and BStrong, et al deserve to be heard on what might work. And those of you who disagree vehemently with them should really try to listen a little harder and adapt your understanding to the situation that currently exists.

I still am finding it quite difficult to organize my thoughts since the injury, so I apologize if the above is confusing. I mostly wanted to get the point across that gun owners already jump through lots of hoops with more to come if we don't look for alternative solutions.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by zeggman

If you drive or ride in a motorized vehicle, the same shame belongs to you.

Cars =/= guns.

Cars are used to transport people or equipment, guns are used to kill people.

Glad I could straighten out your confusion.

Confusing vehicles with weapons seems to be a problem for some, I wonder if someone who suffers from such a cognitive problem should be allowed to own a gun.

[iknownothing]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Not to mention that if he really wants to kill "those kids", there are many,many other ways to do it.

Yes, that's the problem. Focus all the attention you want on building security, guards, etc. -- if a shooter wants to do it, he'll work around those obstacles.

Here's a thought: Nancy Lanza was a regular at the shooting range. She knew a lot of people, and apparently enjoyed talking about the guns she had, and also sometimes talked about her difficulty with her disturbed son. Couldn't some of those people have maybe talked to her about the insanity of having guns around a mentally unstable person? Can't the gun-owning community start to take more responsibility for helping each other stay safety conscious?

Back to what I said before about paying attention when people make threats: the 6th grade boy in Utah who brought a gun to school? Apparently he'd shown it around and the other kids knew about it for hours before one of them finally told an adult (after which it took less than 60 seconds for the gun to be confiscated). What can we do to encourage kids to report threats and weapons right away? It goes against human nature for them to do it, so they need explicit instructions.

For that matter, going back to Caper's idea of mocking the shooter's body. How about this? If parents carelessly allows their child to take a gun to school, let's humiliate them! Let's bring back tarring & feathering! Or put them in stocks and let people point & laugh at them for a few days. Maybe a few examples of public humiliation will wise up a few of the dumbasses so they'll start to take gun safety more seriously. Oh, I know - have a gun store be the location where it happens! Send them a message: "Sure, buy a gun. But you better not be an idiot. Those safety precautions people talk about? You're actually supposed to follow them. For real! Or the consequences will be embarrassing."

Because the truth is that there are a lot of dumbasses out there, and there isn't much stopping them from buying guns. So maybe if they feel the pressure from their fellow gun owners to be safe, maybe it will have more of an impact.