Parkland Shooting Time Line

IMHO, asking Uber drivers to start screening passengers is several orders of magnitude dumber than arming teachers...
Click to expand...
I have to agree with this; it's not a well-thought-out idea. What, exactly, is Uber's policy supposed to be? To prohibit passengers carrying guns at all? That would be their right as a private company, but I hardly think it's something supporters of the 2nd Amendment should encourage. Short of that, what standard applies, and how are drivers to enforce it? Or are they just supposed to intuit that something is "off?" This isn't a reasonable burden to place on contract workers who in many cases are making less than minimum wage.

These are rhetorical questions. Uber's role is off-topic for this thread, as it's unrelated to law enforcement's handling of the shootings and to the timeline linked in the OP, so let's leave it there, please.
 
buck460XVR said:
The fire doors are not the exterior doors, they are generally inside the exterior doors or in hallways leading to the exterior doors. They are generally always open and most folks don't notice them. They cannot be locked from the inside, even when closed(think panic bars), like most commercial exits and are generally held open for travel in both directions, by magnetic catches that automatically release when the fire alarm goes off.
Click to expand...
I know what you're talking about. IIRC the reason for these doors is that, in lieu of installing automatic fire sprinklers, older editions of the fire and building codes allowed buildings to be subdivided into small non-sprinkled sections separated by 2-hour(?) rated firewalls with doors that automatically shut when the alarm is triggered.

AFAIK it's been a matter of decades since this type of construction was allowed in most places, and most newer schools do not have such doors; only grandfathered installations do.

I suppose there are valid arguments for installing impenetrable partitions solely for security reasons, but there are also valid counter-arguments:
  1. Cost of installation and maintenance;
  2. Some schools—particularly high schools—have large open common areas that would be physically difficult to partition off;
  3. There would need to be adequate fire exits within each section, which could be problematic to implement in multi-story buildings with a limited number of stairwells;
  4. At least some of the fire exits would need to lead to a safe escape route away from the building(s), rather than an interior courtyard that could form another "kill zone;" and
  5. Speaking of "kill zones," isolating the shooter in a small subsection of the school could be seen as a perverse encouragement to kill as many people as possible within that section, which could lead some administrations and parent groups to strongly resist this concept.
 
Fredvon4: I was actually serious that Uber has some responsibility in allowing people with guns to get in to the cars.
Click to expand...

Absurdity. If Uber is culpable for allowing guns in their cars, then business that allow guns will also be culpable for allowing in bad guys with guns as well. Absolute absurdity.
 
Uber. A company that exists by skirting and very technical readings of ways around laws requiring taxi licensing in several cities and states and has devalued that once valuable commodity (licensing) by showing one can sneak around the laws through a very technical reading of it is now going to start enforcing some standards? Really? Each one of their "independent operators" is going to be given even more specific criteria to follow? That risks them becoming employees and not independent contractors which risks the entire Uber business model. Allowing Uber to enforce the law is a troublesome concept to me.
 
The blame lies purely in the shooter, and the system we have in place to prevent this.

The response was the response, good or bad, that does need to be re-evaluated. The response didn’t work, but on the surface it is irrelevant IN MY OPINION, the shooter shouldn’t have gotten a gun based on the rules we have. He was a candidate for firearms denial.
They will probably strengthen the mental health aspect of gun control. I also predict that it will get abused.
 
rickyrick said:
IN MY OPINION, the shooter shouldn’t have gotten a gun based on the rules we have. He was a candidate for firearms denial.
Click to expand...
While in retrospect it's obvious that he should not have had access to firearms, based on the rules we have just how should he have been barred? He had no felony or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, he had not been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, and there were no protective orders on him.

It's probably the latter that could have offered the avenue to disarming him ... IF the sheriff's office had followed up on the myriad of reports that the kid was a menace in the making. But, even if the sheriff's office had followed up, due process still applies and we can't know how that process might have played out since it was never initiated.
 
Rachen
By this moment, I assume everyone would have seen that HE was the shooter. Why was he even allowed to travel for so long and remain out of custody for so long? Didn't anyone scream out to the officers: "That's HIM...HE is the one...GET HIM!!!". He would have been tackled to the ground and cuffed as soon as he emerged into the sunlight.
Click to expand...

I'm betting that no one saw him ditch the backpack and rifle (except the cameras) and so probably no one in his vicinity outside associated him with the shooter. Also, memory and fine cognitive functions are incredibly flaky when adrenaline dumps into the system. Probably everyone who saw him simply classified him as "not shooting person."
 
I’m thinking that it would be difficult for someone to be disarmed in this situation without trampling on the rights of others. To me, he was obviously mentally Ill before hand and should have been diagnosed as such.
He was reported to the authorities for threatening this.
I bet if I called and reported that I had some unsavory dirt on the president from 20 years ago, an agent would be over to talk to me pretty quickly.

It’s not going to be an easy solution.
Either increase security in schools or take all the guns away.
The first solution will cost school districts millions the second will cost the Feds.

Basically, someone won’t feel so free if we solve the problem. Children will feel like they are in prison, or gun owners will loose the guns.

Don’t think we’ve seen the end of gun control. It may take another 100 years, but the US will be AR free. People my age weren’t indoctrinated to hate the conservative viewpoint; today the kids are being exposed to progressive political rants that go on for hours... all the way through college. My kids and some others have recorded what’s going on in the schools I’ve heard it.
They are going to march in the streets, they will be voting next.
Just over a year ago, they rioted against conservative values.

I know we can’t touch partisan politics on this page, but gun rights is a partisan issue.
In the end, progressive ideas (some are good, some aren’t) will win out. Gun ownership is not a progressive idea.
 
I know we can’t touch partisan politics on this page, but gun rights is a partisan issue.
Click to expand...

Less so than some would have you believe. Polls usually show something in the neighborhood of 1/3 of one party's voters opposing increased gun control, and similar numbers of the other party supporting it. Similar things happen on other issues, of course, but with different numbers; there is almost never a zero or a 100% by party on any poll question. Personally, I would like to see the NRA become less overtly partisan, and accept and encourage help from all quarters that offer it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I don’t think the bill of rights should be divided along party lines.

There are failures, the incident should not have happened. It shouldn’t be easy to get into a school with a gun. In the event it does happen, the police response should be swift and decisive.

I don’t know if the officers responded like they should have, doesn’t matter if they followed whatever rules they were supposed to follow or not; whatever they did was wrong. The most disappointing thing is that there was an officer on scene.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately, the shooter is responsible. That doesn't change the fact that "the system" that was supposed to prevent such incidents failed miserably.

For example: This school is so big that it's a multi-building campus. One of the early articles noted that the individual buildings aren't locked, because students (and staff, I suppose) have to move from one building to another. "Security" was supposed to be provided by a fence around the perimeter of the campus, and gates that are locked during the day.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the school on Google Maps, and went into street view. This perimeter "security" fence appears to be nothing but a 4-foot (or less) high chain link fence that almost anyone under the age of ninety could easily jump. Plus -- street view showed me a personnel-sized gate facing the street that was wide open.

As I believe I've said before, we don't need gun control -- we need stupid control. Until school boards and administrators start taking school security seriously instead of just paying lip service to it, there will be no such thing as school security.
 
rickyrick said:
Either increase security in schools or take all the guns away.
Click to expand...

Even if you sidestep things like the 2nd Amendment and civil liberties, you won't be able to get rid of all the guns. You might be able to largely eliminate private gun ownership but criminals will still keep their guns and/or get more illegally. Generally, you'll be confiscating guns from people who aren't the problem in the first place. A complete deflection of personal responsibility and poor public policy, IMHO.

rickyrick said:
Don’t think we’ve seen the end of gun control.
Click to expand...

True. Little to none of the current gun control laws will go away and a lot more will be added, little by little. Death by a thousand cuts. Politicians know they can only pass so much at one time and the courts don't seem inclined to take into account other laws already on the books, which is a disastrous recipe for all our rights.
 
Generally, you'll be confiscating guns from people who aren't the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...
That’s the end goal.

You can get most of the guns, but it would be an expensive and monumental task. After they go ransacking everyone’s home, business and every inch of ground in the USA we’d have to seal off every border and inch of coastline. Then you’d have to have home inspections every week. Also would have to have significant patrols through wilderness areas to make sure no one is smuggling guns... and so on.
I’m sure the public would enjoy the 90% income tax, and borrowing trillions from the rest of the world.
So that leaves us with spend somewhat less but still a hugely expensive task of securing the schools. It will happen some, but not enough.

It’s never about ending gun crime. Gun control is not about those who break the law, it’s about controlling those who can be controlled.
 
I'm back after a brief power outage. Just as the lights went out, I was in the midst of posting that I went back and took a longer look at Google's street view of the school. Upon further study, I'd say the chain link fence may be 6 feet high rather than 4 feet ... but I'm pretty certain it's not 8 feet high. And I did confirm spotting a personnel gate that was wide open.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I'm back after a brief power outage. Just as the lights went out, I was in the midst of posting that I went back and took a longer look at Google's street view of the school. Upon further study, I'd say the chain link fence may be 6 feet high rather than 4 feet ... but I'm pretty certain it's not 8 feet high. And I did confirm spotting a personnel gate that was wide open.
Click to expand...

Did Google Earth say what time of day the photo was taken or what day of the week? Most High School become "community" buildings once school is out. Because of sporting events, band concerts, dance/music recitals, etc., the buildings and parameters are unlocked. So unless one can verify the picture was taken on a school day during school hours, seeing it open is a moot point. These times when a building and/or it's grounds are open to the community is when I fear the most for an attack, especially from persons outside and unfamiliar with the school. How does one secure a football field and it's bleachers. same with the High School soccer/baseball fields. Folks crowded in a small area and a soft target, especially for longer range weapons(think Las Vegas). I don't know the exact procedures that the Florida School used, but for the most part, most High Schools are very secure during school hours. Those kids that attend those schools however, know what doors are open at what time and any accesses that may be unsecured or jimmied/propped open, either by themselves or others.

BTW, by coincidence, just worked for two days with our alarm company repairing several firedoors at our High School. We had to redirect a main traffic route thru the school temporarily, because the doors, by default, have to be shut if they do not close be themselves when the alarm sounds. I was told firedoors and the way the work, are virtually in every school in the area they cover(3 states).
 
most High Schools are very secure during school hours.
Click to expand...

In my experience this varies wildly. "Security" around hear means you either have to walk past or through the office. In some cases (but not most) you have to be buzzed in. THE line of defense in most places is the secretary if he or she happens to be at her desk. I kid you not the secretary at one school, when I asked about it, dug around in her desk and after a minute or so showed me the hornet spray she could use to spray at someone trying to get by without permission.
 
Lohman446 said:
In some cases (but not most) you have to be buzzed in.
Click to expand...
That was the system (newly installed) at Sandy Hook. They were very proud of it -- until it failed completely in the face of an actual assault.
 
Last edited:
That was the system (newly installed) at Sandy Hook. They were very proud of it -- util it failed completely in the face of an actual assault.
Click to expand...

A lot of times around here the newest and greatest will be installed, at great expense, and then turned off or not used because its inconvenient for the staff and those entering and exiting. I think sometimes the point is missed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top