Gary Slider
New member
http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...ol-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
Dave Grossman states it like it is. A must Read!
Dave Grossman states it like it is. A must Read!
Must Read on Stopping School Shootings.
- Thread starter Gary Slider
- Start date
- Status
Walther22lr
New member
Thanks for posting that. Very informational and I hope the right people see it, and take the advice given.
TheNocturnus
New member
Lot of stuff to thunk about, what a good read.
Gary, . . . thank you. Very pertinent, . . . informative, . . . and a definitely "today" discussion.
I'm a "prepared" pastor of a local church, . . . hoping I never have to find out how well our preparations were, . . .
There are some ideas there that just may get integrated into our "plan".
May Go bless,
Dwight
I'm a "prepared" pastor of a local church, . . . hoping I never have to find out how well our preparations were, . . .
There are some ideas there that just may get integrated into our "plan".
May Go bless,
Dwight
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
I can't say as I agree with the general tone and statements of that article.
Obviously, every child killed is tragic but to act as if its near epidemic proportions and you're practically sending your kids to wanton slaughter by sending them to school every day, that's a bit overboard.
"Hundred of times more likely", nope. Sorry. If fires kill zero and one child is shot, that's INFINITELY higher (1/0), actually it's undefined.
We shouldn't use tragedies to make political points any more than the other side should and when we make points they should be accurate and honest, not sensationalized for effect.
There are some good points and certainly situations and ideas to consider in that article but I tend to ignore anyone from either side if they start making up numbers and sensationalizing for dramatic effect.
Obviously, every child killed is tragic but to act as if its near epidemic proportions and you're practically sending your kids to wanton slaughter by sending them to school every day, that's a bit overboard.
"Hundred of times more likely", nope. Sorry. If fires kill zero and one child is shot, that's INFINITELY higher (1/0), actually it's undefined.
We shouldn't use tragedies to make political points any more than the other side should and when we make points they should be accurate and honest, not sensationalized for effect.
There are some good points and certainly situations and ideas to consider in that article but I tend to ignore anyone from either side if they start making up numbers and sensationalizing for dramatic effect.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
That was awesome...I really wish he would speak publicly on this matter. Amazing analogies and comparisons to put it in perfect perspective for those who appose.
I emailed the link to a few close friends.
I emailed the link to a few close friends.
Double Naught Spy
New member
This ^^^^
I see the author is playing the Sally Struthers card..."Do it for the children!"
Never mind the adults killed in fires or the adults killed by gunpersons. We don't like it when the opposition sensationalizes issues in a negative manner and blows things out of proportion and we should not embrace it when it is done by our side either.
Grossman makes some good points, but makes some points that are unrealistic as well. That he wasn't firemen going in after after shooters with firehoses is outright stupid. Yes, being blasted with water will make it hard to shoot effectively. However, water muzzle pressure isn't the same as water impact pressure (just like with muzzle energy and impact energy) when the target isn't right at the muzzle. Last I checked, the range of even small caliber pistols is much greater than that of water hoses.
Maybe when he says to use the fire service, he doesn't mean using firemen. He means having the police train as firemen to charge in with big, heavy water hoses to search and find the gunman. Oh sure, water hoses are safer for the "children" but who protects the police operating the hose? If they can't fire with their firearms for some reason, then water brigade officers are at a serious disadvantage compared to the shooter.
He does make a good point. If you put officers at schools for the full day, the probability of there being a mass shooting, any shooting really, goes down dramatically. If one does occur, the scope of the carnage will likely be reduced significantly if the officer performs well.
It should be pointed out that while there may not be any children killed in fires in the last 50 years, from 2003-2005, one person was killed for about every 1100 fires at schools.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v8i1.pdf
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
As much as I'd love to have real, badged, ready police officers at every school in America, the finances are simply and completely unrealistic.
It's a nonsense proposition. There's positively no way it could be done. The first two questions to ask are, is it a good idea and, if it is, can we afford to do it? If the answer to #2 is no, it doesn't matter if #1 is the best idea ever.
The small town (village) where I went to school has barely 400 kids K-12, in two buildings. The town has NO police force. They "borrow" state police officers to patrol the town. The state-wide average salary for all ranks of New York State Police is (a staggering) $112,000.
Imagine if we assign the newest, greenest, lowest paid officers who might make half that figure, at $60,000. You'd need two, every day. Two every day means, realistically, four, to cover vacations and sick time and what-not.
That means a cost of $240,000 a year, conservatively. The entire school budget is about $4,000,000. That would means a 12.5% increase in school taxes.
That, and it's assuming that there are actually enough officers on the force to do it, which there aren't. That means hiring thousands of new officers, and training them, a cost of 10s of millions more.
That, in a state that already is broke and already has some of the highest taxes and highest unemployment (particularly of lower-educated people) in the country.
Now, add all this to an event, that while horrific beyond imagination, kills about 15 kids a year, average. There are 52.8 million children aged 5-17 in America. That means that the odds are 0.00002840909% that any given child will be a victim. Yes, 28 millionths of one percent.
There are an average of 600 kids killed every year in "other than bus" school vehicle accidents. Where would the money be better spent? You'd save far more lives and money by buying and running enough buses that no kid was ever transported without one.
It's a nonsense proposition. There's positively no way it could be done. The first two questions to ask are, is it a good idea and, if it is, can we afford to do it? If the answer to #2 is no, it doesn't matter if #1 is the best idea ever.
The small town (village) where I went to school has barely 400 kids K-12, in two buildings. The town has NO police force. They "borrow" state police officers to patrol the town. The state-wide average salary for all ranks of New York State Police is (a staggering) $112,000.
Imagine if we assign the newest, greenest, lowest paid officers who might make half that figure, at $60,000. You'd need two, every day. Two every day means, realistically, four, to cover vacations and sick time and what-not.
That means a cost of $240,000 a year, conservatively. The entire school budget is about $4,000,000. That would means a 12.5% increase in school taxes.
That, and it's assuming that there are actually enough officers on the force to do it, which there aren't. That means hiring thousands of new officers, and training them, a cost of 10s of millions more.
That, in a state that already is broke and already has some of the highest taxes and highest unemployment (particularly of lower-educated people) in the country.
Now, add all this to an event, that while horrific beyond imagination, kills about 15 kids a year, average. There are 52.8 million children aged 5-17 in America. That means that the odds are 0.00002840909% that any given child will be a victim. Yes, 28 millionths of one percent.
There are an average of 600 kids killed every year in "other than bus" school vehicle accidents. Where would the money be better spent? You'd save far more lives and money by buying and running enough buses that no kid was ever transported without one.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
To expand on LTC Grossman's Thoughts:
I am a retired Special Agent of the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID), and for the past thirteen years, have been Director of Advanced Force Tactics, Inc., a company devoted to providing training in judgmental use-of-force and gunfighting tactics to law enforcement and armed security agencies nationwide.
Like all Americans, I was heartsick to hear of the tragic mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It is especially poignant to me, because for years I have trained the Fairfield University Department of Public Safety in nearby Fairfield, Connecticut.
As a consequence of this tragedy, there have been calls for a new ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. That won’t prevent future tragedies like Sandy Hook. There are tens of thousands of these weapons and hundreds of thousands of these magazines in the hands of law-abiding Americans, and these are the very types of weapons that our forefathers envisioned our having when they ratified the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
The ONLY effective way to stop an active shooter bent on killing is IMMEDIATE armed response. It is a truism that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. That was never truer than at Sandy Hook. Some propose allowing teachers and school staff to carry concealed weapons in schools, if they have concealed weapons permits. This might well stop an active shooter, or, if made known, dissuade a potential shooter from even attempting a mass murder. But allowing teachers to carry their concealed weapons would open the possibility that unauthorized persons could gain access to the weapons if left in a purse, briefcase, or desk drawer. Moreover, the responding teacher would be at a severe disadvantage in using a pocket pistol to confront a gunman with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, possibly wearing body armor. Finally, there would be a severe risk that a teacher attempting to intervene in an active shooting incident would be shot on sight by responding law enforcement officers.
Based on my training and experience training law enforcement agencies all over the country, I believe there is a better solution to effective immediate armed response while minimizing the risk to the armed responder. A fellow law enforcement trainer has accurately called active school shooters “monsters.” Every school building in the country has fire extinguishers to enable teachers and staff to fight fires, should they occur. I believe that schools should also have “monster extinguishers” strategically located throughout the campus – a securely locked container holding an easy-to-use rifle, such as an M-1 Carbine or AR-15, plus an armored and distinctively marked “raid jacket” that would instantly identify the responder to law enforcement responders and provide some modicum of protection from the shooter. Specially trained volunteer teachers and staff members would have keys to these containers, and would be able to respond instantly with effective lethal force to terminate the threat. The rifle is much easier to shoot accurately in an emergency than a handgun, and would penetrate all but the most cumbersome body armor.
Congress must resist the temptation to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, and to consider this proposal as an effective substitute.
I am a retired Special Agent of the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID), and for the past thirteen years, have been Director of Advanced Force Tactics, Inc., a company devoted to providing training in judgmental use-of-force and gunfighting tactics to law enforcement and armed security agencies nationwide.
Like all Americans, I was heartsick to hear of the tragic mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It is especially poignant to me, because for years I have trained the Fairfield University Department of Public Safety in nearby Fairfield, Connecticut.
As a consequence of this tragedy, there have been calls for a new ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. That won’t prevent future tragedies like Sandy Hook. There are tens of thousands of these weapons and hundreds of thousands of these magazines in the hands of law-abiding Americans, and these are the very types of weapons that our forefathers envisioned our having when they ratified the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
The ONLY effective way to stop an active shooter bent on killing is IMMEDIATE armed response. It is a truism that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. That was never truer than at Sandy Hook. Some propose allowing teachers and school staff to carry concealed weapons in schools, if they have concealed weapons permits. This might well stop an active shooter, or, if made known, dissuade a potential shooter from even attempting a mass murder. But allowing teachers to carry their concealed weapons would open the possibility that unauthorized persons could gain access to the weapons if left in a purse, briefcase, or desk drawer. Moreover, the responding teacher would be at a severe disadvantage in using a pocket pistol to confront a gunman with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, possibly wearing body armor. Finally, there would be a severe risk that a teacher attempting to intervene in an active shooting incident would be shot on sight by responding law enforcement officers.
Based on my training and experience training law enforcement agencies all over the country, I believe there is a better solution to effective immediate armed response while minimizing the risk to the armed responder. A fellow law enforcement trainer has accurately called active school shooters “monsters.” Every school building in the country has fire extinguishers to enable teachers and staff to fight fires, should they occur. I believe that schools should also have “monster extinguishers” strategically located throughout the campus – a securely locked container holding an easy-to-use rifle, such as an M-1 Carbine or AR-15, plus an armored and distinctively marked “raid jacket” that would instantly identify the responder to law enforcement responders and provide some modicum of protection from the shooter. Specially trained volunteer teachers and staff members would have keys to these containers, and would be able to respond instantly with effective lethal force to terminate the threat. The rifle is much easier to shoot accurately in an emergency than a handgun, and would penetrate all but the most cumbersome body armor.
Congress must resist the temptation to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, and to consider this proposal as an effective substitute.
Thanks, Gary.
I believe that it would not be financially realistic to have a trained LEO in every school, I do believe that teachers should be permitted to carry with proper training and a willingness to do so.
Accordingly, I emailed Gov Martinez to that effect. She is for 2A, but does oppose CHL i the schools. I also do not believe that CHL should be allowed without restrictions, but that teachers should be permitted.
We, in this nation, are in for a tough time these next months. I feel sure the AW ban will be renewed.
Jerry
I believe that it would not be financially realistic to have a trained LEO in every school, I do believe that teachers should be permitted to carry with proper training and a willingness to do so.
Accordingly, I emailed Gov Martinez to that effect. She is for 2A, but does oppose CHL i the schools. I also do not believe that CHL should be allowed without restrictions, but that teachers should be permitted.
We, in this nation, are in for a tough time these next months. I feel sure the AW ban will be renewed.
Jerry
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Jerry, that is logically inconsistent.
Anyone who is a threat couldn't give a damn what the law is and anyone who isn't a threat... well, isn't a threat.
The gun that rides safely in it's holster through the entire rest of a persons day doesn't suddenly jump out and start shooting kids because the carrier goes to school to pick up Johnny.
We shouldn't make illogical concessions, particularly when the concession implies that there actually IS something dangerous about carrying a gun.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Since I work in a school environment, havng the guns locked up and having to be retrieved, will not save the first 30 dead or so. Running to a central location or even a nearby station is a time waste.
One needs appropriately trained and motivated teachers to carry on their person.
One needs appropriately trained and motivated teachers to carry on their person.
School shooting by mentally disturbed
Mayhaps what this country needs to do is sort out the dangerous crazies rather than worry about AFTER they get into a crowd. This idiot had a bad history. His mother kept guns and ammo where he could reach them. He'd had a long history of mental problems.
Let's see now ... young male with mental problems ... indulgent mother without a clue ... many firearms in the house ..
Hell, yes - it was the gun's fault!!!!
Get rid of the guns. That will sure cure the crazies ...
Won't it???
Won't it???
Mayhaps what this country needs to do is sort out the dangerous crazies rather than worry about AFTER they get into a crowd. This idiot had a bad history. His mother kept guns and ammo where he could reach them. He'd had a long history of mental problems.
Let's see now ... young male with mental problems ... indulgent mother without a clue ... many firearms in the house ..
Hell, yes - it was the gun's fault!!!!
Get rid of the guns. That will sure cure the crazies ...
Won't it???
Won't it???
IMO, training and arming willing teachers is the way to go regardless of what our gun laws are today or tomorrow.
Agree with Brian that there are many school districts that cannot afford the constant services of local LE but paying for training and an extra monetary incentive to interested teachers may be a way towards getting things done.
Sadly, we have reached a day in our society that our innocent, unprotected children, while in school, that are noted 'no gun' zones, known even to the twisted minds, have become targets of easy prey.
Surely, history has shown us that there are no laws a 'lawless' person will adhere to when they don't want to.
Prohibition showed us we couldn't get rid of alcohol. People still drank!
The decades of 'the war on drugs" showed us we couldn't/can't get illegal drugs off the street no matter what laws have been instilled. Today,illegal drugs, especially illegal prescription drugs(opiates) are at epidemic proportions unseen in the past by any other drugs.
There are laws against drinking and driving...how many thousands get killed every year by a drunk driver.... How many bank robberies or home invasions???
This list could go on and on but one thing this list will prove is that for every law out there, there an element here in the U.S. that will break it.
Again, we can put a nationwide ban on all guns, but we know for sure that if someone wants a gun, they'll get it and use it for what they want.
Henry Kissinger once said in regards to the U.S. reducing our military:
"We need to be very careful as to the level in which we reduce our military forces because there is a certain point that shear 'brute force' will over-take strategy every time".
I think we've reached the point that we are going to have to have armed personnel in schools meeting force with force.
Agree with Brian that there are many school districts that cannot afford the constant services of local LE but paying for training and an extra monetary incentive to interested teachers may be a way towards getting things done.
Sadly, we have reached a day in our society that our innocent, unprotected children, while in school, that are noted 'no gun' zones, known even to the twisted minds, have become targets of easy prey.
Surely, history has shown us that there are no laws a 'lawless' person will adhere to when they don't want to.
Prohibition showed us we couldn't get rid of alcohol. People still drank!
The decades of 'the war on drugs" showed us we couldn't/can't get illegal drugs off the street no matter what laws have been instilled. Today,illegal drugs, especially illegal prescription drugs(opiates) are at epidemic proportions unseen in the past by any other drugs.
There are laws against drinking and driving...how many thousands get killed every year by a drunk driver.... How many bank robberies or home invasions???
This list could go on and on but one thing this list will prove is that for every law out there, there an element here in the U.S. that will break it.
Again, we can put a nationwide ban on all guns, but we know for sure that if someone wants a gun, they'll get it and use it for what they want.
Henry Kissinger once said in regards to the U.S. reducing our military:
"We need to be very careful as to the level in which we reduce our military forces because there is a certain point that shear 'brute force' will over-take strategy every time".
I think we've reached the point that we are going to have to have armed personnel in schools meeting force with force.
Southern Rebel
New member
I agree that he makes some good points, but some of his suggestions are not realistic. The one point that really hits home, though, is the one about terrorist threats in the future. Isn't it obvious that this one incident has caused more fear, anger, outrage, sadness, etc. than a terrorist could reap from numerous other activities? Gun-free schools are just too easy of a target and the terrorists would need very little manpower or planning to inflict major damage to the psyche of the American people.
The attack on the school has evoked a strong response from the populace to the politicians to "do something". Unfortunately, the dream world of "strong gun controls" provides the buzzwords for the politicians to use to placate the concerned citizens. Unfortunately, the mentally deranged and the terrorists are both willing to die to accomplish their task and punishment for breaking the gun cotrol laws is a laughable nuisance to them. So, we will go about reinforcing the concept of gun-free schools and pushing strong gun control laws and feel really good about ourselves.............until the next attacks.
The attack on the school has evoked a strong response from the populace to the politicians to "do something". Unfortunately, the dream world of "strong gun controls" provides the buzzwords for the politicians to use to placate the concerned citizens. Unfortunately, the mentally deranged and the terrorists are both willing to die to accomplish their task and punishment for breaking the gun cotrol laws is a laughable nuisance to them. So, we will go about reinforcing the concept of gun-free schools and pushing strong gun control laws and feel really good about ourselves.............until the next attacks.
- Status