Another School Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see the confusion. You indicated that Woodham was reloading when Myrick stopped him. That was not the case and is not supported by the People article you cited. Myrick watched Woodham shoot a kid and the start reloading, but he didn't stop him at the time.

"He was so cool and calm. I saw him shoot a kid, and he ejected the shell," says assistant principal Joel Myrick. "He was walking along, thumbing fresh rounds into the side port of the rifle."

As swiftly and inexplicably as it began, the rampage was over. Woodham turned and headed back outside while Myrick, 36, a commander in the Army reserves, sprinted to his own truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there.
Click to expand...

Glenn was right. Myrick retrieved his pistol and stopped Woodham from fleeing. That is backed up by the article you cited.
 
So what I have learned from this thread is that you cannot stop a shooter with a gun, and the only way to stop a shooter is for uniformed officers to be visibly present so the shooter will dispatch himself. Armed staffers or CCWs would only trip over their own feet and shoot themsleves.

I guess we can all analyze and over analyze the mind of a psycho killer and come up with different opinions, but for me it comes down to one thing. If the only thing standing between a gunman on a rampage and my child is a teacher or janitor, I hope that staffer person is armed and disciplined.

At Sandyhook a teacher is being praised for her courage and heroism for using the only thing she had, her body, to shield students from gunfire. I find it outrageous that she was denied other options whther she wanted them or not.
 
Shooters get stopped with guns all the time, just not commonly at schools and not commonly mass or attempted mass shooters. Sometimes the shooters are good guys and sometimes they are bad guys. Often is the case that when they are at mass-type events, the responding good guy party is actually police or military trained (if not the actual police). Mark Wilson in Tyler was actually a firearms instructor and had owned a gun range.

The Sandyhook teacher had other options available to her, even if firearms were not on the list. She did not make use of them as most people are inclined not to do. Knowing that they cannot have firearms at work, most people will not bother to resort to getting any sort of addition defensive training, invest in alternative defensive gear, etc. Most won't even bother trying to change the rules or get an exception made.

So you can be outraged, but you probably aren't doing anything either to help your child's school be a better place defensively either and you are trusting you child's school to protect your child knowing what you know. People like to complain after the fact, but often fall short when it comes to working actively to effect changes.
 
Glenn E. Mayer said:
Every crying mom, coach, student friend - gives a portrayal of pain. That is what the shooter wants to think will happen after their action. It is called vicarious reinforcement. It actually lights up pleasure centers in the brain.
Click to expand...
And the beat goes on. I found this on the web site of a Connecticut television station: http://www.wtnh.com/news/fairfield-cty/home-could-be-torn-down-for-new-school-driveway

Summary: The town of Newtown ("Sandy Hook" is part of Newtown) has demolished the Sandy Hook school and will build a new one. Apparently, they decided to use a new and different driveway, in order to make the new school completely different from the old one. However, it seems they went ahead and designed an entire school around a driveway configuration for which they DON'T own the property. Now they're trying to make the owners of a house and a business they need to buy look like bad people for not rolling over and agreeing to sell. (No mention of whether or not the Town's offers were even remotely reasonable.)

It's sickening. By the time a new school has been completed there won't be a single student left who was attending Sandy Hook Elementary at the time of the shooting. It's entirely unnecessary to create an entirely new entrance drive on top of building a new building. If they want to do that, of course, it's their right. But to go ahead with a design before buying the land is just plain stupid. It seems to me that it continues to demonstrate the idiocy driving the nanny-state reaction to these events.
 
So what I have learned from this thread is that you cannot stop a shooter with a gun, and the only way to stop a shooter is for uniformed officers to be visibly present so the shooter will dispatch himself. Armed staffers or CCWs would only trip over their own feet and shoot themsleves.
Click to expand...

That has not been said. Typical overreaction, to be blunt, when you give deeper analysis of an incident.

Another nasty bit which I didn't mention. After the incident, there are public displays of grief. The school or institution has a candle light vigil. The teams come in uniform and the cheerleaders lead the group in the fight song.

Why?

1. The obvious answer is the legitimate sharing of grief and support.

The usually not thought of:

2. It is a display of marking your territority as defensible. We see primate groups and tribal cultures going to their boundaries and making a display. It indicates we are still strong. Unfortunately, that has no reality but might be built into us.

3. Such group displays try to bond with the families of the victims - you are one of us. We love you - this will put great social pressure on them not to file lawsuits or denounce the institution. Nasty - heard this analysis at a techy seminar on the psychology of the aftermath.
 
So you can be outraged, but you probably aren't doing anything either to help your child's school be a better place defensively either and you are trusting you child's school to protect your child knowing what you know.
Click to expand...


Wow. And you base this opinion of me on my posts supporting school staff's right to carry at school? Thank goodness my local Board of Ed. are more receptive.
 
Let's not bicker.

The discussion is to what is useful but we should stick to reasonable analyses and not overblown statements pro this or anti that.
 
Double Naught,
I posted the article simply to give some idea as to the depth of this shooting rampage..It is not completely accurate on the order of events, Luke was not finished, he was hunting from a list supplied to him from someone else.... Joel stopped it. But, Not before having to go get his gun from
OFF campus. I didn't entend to start a Peeing Match:)

So you can be outraged, but you probably aren't doing anything either to help your child's school be a better place defensively either and you are trusting you child's school to protect your child knowing what you know. People like to complain after the fact, but often fall short when it comes to working actively to effect changes.
Click to expand...

We did, In Mississippi we now have two different CCWs. The only places you cannot carry with the Enhanced Permit is federal buildings (federal law), courtrooms DURING proceedings, police/sheriff/hwy patrol station or detention facility, prison, jail, and places of nuisance.
 
what, under your law are " places of nuisance. "? Who decides what they are, and when?

Just curious...


I am sick and tired of studies that don't prove anything, other than that those doing the studies have found a way to keep themselves fed on our dime.

I am tired of people demanding "something be done" and at the same time refusing to allow the only things proven to be even partially effective...

I am also rather tired of the (apparently fairly modern) refusal to accept facts without some kind of "study" to "prove" the facts are facts.

I am also tired of "studies" being used as justification for all manner of things, as if they were holy writ. They talk of this influence or that one, particularly the "influence" of a gun (image, violence in entertainment, gun in the house, etc., etc., -and seemingly always its negative effects-). Study all you want, as long as you aren't reaching into my pocket to pay for it...

But don't come off all high and mighty about your studies of this influencing that being the reality of the world when the evidence to the contrary is right in front of all of us, every day.

Tell me how, if your studies are right, that a gun is a bad thing and makes people do bad things (and essentially they nearly all boil down to that), explain to me how, if you are right, that age old mystery of how two children, same family (DNA) and same environment in every way, how one of them grows up to be a normal law abiding citizen, perhaps even a pillar of the community and the other becomes a career criminal or even a mass murderer? (or even, a politician?:eek:)

IF you can do that, AND convince me, then I might be willing to listen to your recommendation for a solution. Convince me that I should meekly accept your rules for living MY life, because of the possibility of someone else, who you cannot control, either, might do something bad.

Punishing (including vilifying) the entire group to create peer pressure on the bad apples only works in a structured environment, where the peers actually know the identity of, have contact with, and influence on the bad actors.

The whole platoon getting extra details because one guy failed inspection will create peer pressure. The whole class getting extra homework because little Johnny was a jerk in class, same thing.

But once you get outside these kinds of structured systems, it just doesn't work. It does not, can not, and will not work in a free society. Yet it is the chosen tactic of the gun banners, and the only solution they are mentally prepared to accept.

It has been known for thousands of years that no threat of any kind will deter those who do not fear death. And those who do not fear death are the most difficult to stop, physically. Mass shooters (those with that intent, regardless of the actual body count they acheive) killing themselves proves they don't fear death, what they fear is life, and punishment in this life.

No law can or will ever change that.
 
I am tired of people demanding "something be done" and at the same time refusing to allow the only things proven to be even partially effective...
Click to expand...

I so agree. When I made that point at our run, hide, fight work video show - the powers that be were not thrilled with me.

Also, the TX legislature's failure to act on campus carry - despite the fact it would probably pass and Gov. Blowhard Perry's support (but did nothing) - is in the same vein.
 
I agree that something should be done but at the same time I do not believe that (2) Officers walking around inside a 400,000 foot school is anything other than a half measure. That is not to criticize the Officers or their ability but only to acknowledge that a Policy, Technology, Communication, Support personnel, Proper facility design and a adequate number of Protectors is what is needed.

Speaking in the most general terms, I do not support the arming of teachers for a couple of reasons. One being that Teachers occupy the central interior and I think protection should start well into and beyond the periphery. Another consideration is the fact that teachers are not hired for their ability to deal in deadly force and honestly, many of them may be ill suited for the task. Even if there are Teachers who are well suited for deadly force responsibility, I think that protection is important enough to be a singular task and not one where a persons wears half a dozen different hats. If the attacker firing his weapon inside the school is the first indication that danger is afoot, I think that fact is indicative of a substantial failure in security.

Ultimately, if we want to protect our children we will have to design new schools and modify old ones specifically for that task. We will have to accept that security is not convenient, cheap or pleasing to look at.
 
Last edited:
1. Why should teachers be denied the right to protect themselves and have to rely on exterior defenses which are easily breached in any common sense scenario?

2. I can come up with teachers who are veterans including marine recon, rangers and real SEALs. Plus civilians who train.

3. So rather than have fortress schools, I might suggest that if plain old schmoos can carry in the mall - teachers who care about their students should not be left with their thumb up their orifice, waving their IPAD or becoming human shields.

4. If one believes teachers can't carry - then I doubt the doubter should carry either. Why should I trust that person in the mall, parking lot, religious service or anywhere?

Bah. :mad:
 
Why should I trust that person in the mall, parking lot, religious service or anywhere?
Click to expand...

I have asked a similar question and never got much of an answer, more of "what could you be thinking" look.

The question I ask is if am qualified to CC what magic line do I cross when going on a college campus or school grounds that suddenly makes me too dangerous to CC? If those same people are on the CC side of the line with me they are safe but if we cross that line they are not??

On another note I will soon be teaching full time. Based on resent history my place of employment seams to be the place I am most likely to need to CC. Why should I be expected to give up my right to self defense because I crossed that magic line? Do I just coddle students to the point of absurdity so that I do not end up on some kids hit list? Not likely I will do that!
 
I has been my observation that Most teachers don't want to carry.. A supposition on my part indicates to me that if a teacher is designated to carry their union will insist they get more pay. School boards would object to that. Not to mention that the people that are on school boards don't want teachers to have those evil child killing things.
 
I has been my observation that Most teachers don't want to carry.. A supposition on my part indicates to me that if a teacher is designated to carry their union will insist they get more pay. School boards would object to that. Not to mention that the people that are on school boards don't want teachers to have those evil child killing things.
Click to expand...

I am told it will make you a bit of an outcast but I am not yet sold on the teacher's unions. I would gladly forfeit any extra pay if I could CC.

I am generalizing but it has been my experience that the education crowd at large has more non gun people than gun people in it.

Ask me about running a shooting club on a liberal arts campus sometime. :rolleyes:
 
I certainly don't think it should be illegal for teachers to carry in their jobs. But once legal, I wonder how many school districts will still disallow it for liability reasons like other employers?

I can see getting the law changed that will allow them to be able to carry, but cannot see the law because changed to the point that districts must allow teachers (or any adults of proper legal standing) to carry.
 
Chaz88 said:
The question I ask is if am qualified to CC what magic line do I cross when going on a college campus or school grounds that suddenly makes me too dangerous to CC? If those same people are on the CC side of the line with me they are safe but if we cross that line they are not??
Click to expand...

The same question should be asked about any of the other prohibited places. Post Offices, etc..

Chaz88 said:
Based on resent history my place of employment seams to be the place I am most likely to need to CC.
Click to expand...

That's getting a little carried away.;)

Roughly 3/4s of DGUs occur at home. There are an estimates 1-2 million DGUs a year. "Rampage" school shootings average 1 every 18 months or along those lines, probably not even that often.
 
A lot of factors...

rwilson452 said:
I has been my observation that Most teachers don't want to carry.. A supposition on my part indicates to me that if a teacher is designated to carry their union will insist they get more pay. School boards would object to that. Not to mention that the people that are on school boards don't want teachers to have those evil child killing things.
Click to expand...

I can't really fault a union or anyone else requesting that a teacher get paid more because they are designated to carry a handgun at school. There are a lot of costs that go into owning a gun. While I don't advocate a school pay for all of the costs for a handgun that someone already owns, it would be grossly unfair to pay none of it either. There are undoubtedly liability issues too which probably cost more insurance wise than the cost of a handgun, ammunition, training, range fees, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top