Stop school shootings...

It's staggering to me that the leaders of the United States, individual states, and schools and institutions cannot or simply refuse to see the obvious answers.

Good guys with guns. It really is that simple.

We guard EVERYTHING that's important with trained, armed good guys.

Is the POTUS surrending his armed guards to show how effective gun control and gun free zones are? Of course not.

We guard the POTUS, congress, banks, businesses, you name it with guns.

Schools have become the soft-target of choice in the last 15 years because they are blatantly anti-gun and gun free, no guards, with near certainty of disarmed young people who cannot and will not fight back. It's the dream of a deranged person wanting to commit mass murder.

So the answer in the short and long term, is to allow concealed carry holders to carry, and to employ armed guards (a very small cost for colleges, which tend to be flush in funds).

Why not employ the national guard and reserves as training exercises to guard schools and colleges?
 
I hear that its a mental health issue brought up alot. Its no secret that there are a number of shootings, not just the highly publicized mass shootings where the shooter is receiving some sort of treatment whether its seeing someone on a regular basis or pharmaceutical.

There has got to be a way to incorporate that kind of info into a background check without invading peoples medical privacy, without automatically disqualifying anyone from buying a gun who is receiving treatment of any kind. Maybe if there was a database of people that were on these prescriptions that NICS could tie into that if you are one one of the anti psychotic pills, it would automatically pop them into a waiting period, not an outright denial.

The pharmacies kind of already have this capability, have you tried to buy good cold medicine lately? They are all tied into a system that tracks whos buying how much of the types that can be converted into meth. I'm not advocating that the government tracks our every move and knows everything we consume. This database would be a simple, if they are on one of these drugs, they show up in the database, it does not disclose what they are on only that they are on something.

Perhaps if they show up in the anti psychotic drug database and get a certain number of NICS checks done within a certain timeframe it raises a red flag and triggers an automatic denial.

I know these are kind of broad strokes without a whole lot of detail, its just ideas. Whether it would stop anything at all I cannot say.

What I do know is these shootings keep happening with more and more frequency. Its just a matter of time until people who normally would not be on the side of gun control start to say maybe its time to explore some of the anti gunners suggestions. I don't want to see that day come but you guys have to admit that whats going on in this country is just insane. I would much rather see our side come up with possible solutions that may actually help than be told this is whats going to happen to us and watch our rights erode in front of our very eyes.
 
Good guys with guns. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...
Until the politics come into play. Remember Wayne LaPierre's "good guy with a gun" quote? Every time there's a public shooting like this, the opposition mockingly chimes, "where was the good guy with the gun?" They see the lack of effective armed response as a rebuttal to LaPierre's statement.

When we talk about arming teachers or providing armed security, they say we shouldn't be turning our schools into military barracks.

Those are stupid statements, yes. But they're what the public is hearing.

There has got to be a way to incorporate that kind of info into a background check without invading peoples medical privacy, without automatically disqualifying anyone from buying a gun who is receiving treatment of any kind.
Click to expand...

This is my idea: place the burden on the doctor. If he decides a patient is troubled enough to go on psychotropic drugs, he needs to inform law enforcement. The patient needs to be monitored, preferably by regular visits for evaluation. No more writing prescriptions and brushing the matter off. If he doesn't want the burden, perhaps the doctor needs to reevaluate how often and casually he's prescribing these drugs.

If the patient doesn't report for followup visits, the doctor must inform law enforcement, and the patient becomes a disqualified person until he's back on the rails.

If parents have a child in the house on these drugs and they fail to get the child evaluated, they don't get to keep guns in the house.

The rebuttal is that this constitutes discrimination. Not true. There are alternatives to doping people up. If the case is bad enough to require it, then it's bad enough for law enforcement to know about it.
 
First, more children drown in their own pool or bathtub every year. The subject of school shootings have been made political by the disarmament camp, and they are avoiding any comparisons to show what their agenda is.

More children drown than are shot. More children are unattended by an adult on the premises and die by inattention. More children.

Now, what's your problem about schools, which rank much further down the list? Why not address inattentive and uncaring parents who let their kids get into a dangerous situation but don't care enough to check on them? Where are then laws on that. then outcry over the hundreds of deaths.

More teenagers die every year than soldiers in combat, even at the peak of casualties in the last 20 years. No outcry.

I even brought that up on a gun forum and was castigated for the comparison - well, it doesn't change the facts, we let teens get drunk and wreck cars, killing them and their passengers, far more than kids in schools getting shot. Hundreds more.

We don't like school shootings but the simple fact is they aren't as widespread or even as important. Period. We lose far more children to drowning on the property or driving the family car, drunk.

Nobody seems to give a flip. Just another cross on the roadside with bows and flowers. But the politicians, oh my, we have to do something about the shooters?

Why not the negligent adults who are obviously ill prepared to deal with raising children and who need the support? Don't we need to do something about them?

You have hundreds and hundreds on one hand, and less than a hundred annual on the other, but the few so outweigh the many we need to address that? I'm going to suggest that someone is taking up the discussion on the anti gunners turf and it's not going to go well. They are setting the ground rules of the discussion with the scales weighing against common sense. After all, they are working with a sensationalist agenda and ignoring the others - throwing them under their political bus wheels.

The anti gunners lack of acknowledging how many more children die in the home or family car is the outrage. Accepting their terms of discussion is even worse.

Stop the drownings and drunken driving deaths first - I suspect there will be a direct cause and affect that will reduce school shootings, too. Why? Because we will then be addressing the problem - that parents don't care about their children, and that will defuse their children growing up confused, distressed, and angry about their parents obvious lack of attention.

More children die from uncaring parents who enable them. Stop that first.
 
The identity of those who do these things should never be made public, nor discussed. Most do it for attention, take that incentive away and many, not all, will be eliminated.

All of your suggestions other than arming teachers is already in place in most places. Some do allow certified teachers to carry.

Most public schools already have a School Resource Officer (SRO) on campus. I wasn't sure I wanted cops in schools at first, but as a retired teacher I worked with 3 during my career. They do a lot more than guard the school. Teachers aren't trained investigators nor legal experts. The SRO's aren't lawyers, but are required to complete training before being hired for the job. They are truly a resource, a link between the schools and the DA. They have information on what kids are doing on the streets and away from school, which are involved in gangs, drugs etc., and prevent a lot of issues before they ever get to the schools.

Many public schools are already hardened with doors that are harder to get into. Doors are locked and in some places you have to be buzzed in. Some issue ID's to teachers and students requiring you to scan in order to open doors.

There are drills and plans in place. Far more complex and thought out than many know.
 
Here's how I see it.

There are many crimes, but really only a couple of classifications of criminals. Those with malicious intent, and those without. Maybe better classified as the rational and the irrational.

For the rational criminal (no malicious intent), they use guns as a tool to protect themselves in the completion of the crime. IE, A home invader who carries "just in case," but has no intention of harming. Or the corner store robber who uses a gun as a show of force to gain the intended result, but has no desire to pull the trigger. Crime in this fashion is much more likely to be pulled off when the opposing variables are limited and predictable. However, when the public is allowed and encouraged to arm themselves, this is an added variable that the common non-malicious criminal will have to take into consideration. Crime in turn decreases by design.

For the malicious criminal, such as a school shooter or a military base nut job, the additional variable of guns could be a welcome addition to the crime itself. They already know that most mass shootings end in death for the shooter. For one reason or another, they have welcomed this end. Arming the public has little effect on this type of criminal. Unfortunately, without a great understanding of mental health, the general public has no idea how to identify such threats. Education is important, but for those "loners" who don't spend enough time around other people to be identified as threats to society/humanity...well, there will always be mass killings.

I would add to this classification those who may or may not be malicious by nature, but commit heinous crimes as a result of alcohol or drug induced distortion of their mental state. There may be no social precautions to take in this instance.

We cannot stop them all, but by allowing and encouraging the public to be armed, we have the potential to limit the death toll.
 
Last edited:
Missouri and Arkansas allow their teachers (High School and Below) to receive training and carry concealed firearms.

Arkansas
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/arkansas-school-arming-teachers-article-1.1412540

Missouri
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/11/us-usa-missouri-concealed-carry-idUSKBN0H62JO20140911

Utah
http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/armed-teachers-aim-to-defend-k-12-schools/

According to the last article 28 states allow adults to carry concealed firearms in K-12 schools.
 
Every time there's a public shooting like this, the opposition mockingly chimes, "where was the good guy with the gun?" They see the lack of effective armed response as a rebuttal to LaPierre's statement.
Click to expand...

The good guy is usually separated from his gun because he is law abiding, and obeying the "gun free zone" signs.


According to the last article 28 states allow adults to carry concealed firearms in K-12 schools.
Click to expand...

Ohio allows it at the dsicretion of the local school board, and that is the biggest obstacle here.
 
School shooting where a crazy guy starts shooting people just because he can rarely happens. The media blows this way out of proportion.

We live in a nation of over 400,000,000 people. About .0000028% loose their lives in a school shooting where a crazy guy randomly tries to kill people every couple of years, or less.

Compare this to .010% deaths due to just automobile accidents in 2013 (using 2013 statistics from Wikipedia). That is about 3,570 times more deaths by automobile than by random school shootings.

Also, consider this: In 2011-2012, there were 98,328 public k-12 schools; 30,861 private schools, and 7,234 post-secondary schools (title V, which means there are a bunch more private schools unaccounted for). That's way more than 130,000 schools. Now, how many schools shootings were there in 2012? Only one where a murderer randomly targeted people just to see how many he could kill. I used 2012 statistics because that's what I could easily find.

When you truly compare the numbers involved, its still hard to comprehend just how rare mass school shootings really are.
 
Leading causes of death for kids 1-14 years of age.
#1 AUTO ACCIDENTS ...by far. Are we banning cars?
#2 DROWNING...are we banning pools

And there is NO constitutional RIGHT to have a pool.

Every school has fire extinguishers and alarms, because there is a higher chance of there being a fire, then a school shooting. The media makes this out to be a larger problem then it is.

Im not saying its not an issue, but we need to keep a proper perspective.

If we want to save childrens lives, lets invest in Auto Safety upgrades. Lets figure out how to keep kids from being pulled from car wrecks, DEAD

Lets figure out a way to keep kids from drowning in pools

That will save many times the number of children killed in school shootings
 
For snits and giggles, I did a search and wound up finding Wikipedia's "school shooting" list.

It consists of incidents in which a firearm was discharged at a school infrastructure, including incidents of shootings on a school bus. This list contains shooting incidents that occurred on the campuses of K-12 public schools and private schools, as well as colleges and universities. This list also contains incidents in which a person intentionally shot him or herself in a suicide or suicide attempt.
Click to expand...

There are approximately 400 such shootings starting in 1764.

That's right, 1764, while we were still English colonies.

The list ends with the Roseberg Or shooting last week.

It includes many shootings where no one was killed, and some where no one was hurt. Many of the shootings were done by FACULTY (or former) members.

It makes for some interesting reading.
 
which would you choose.?

firearmfools21_zpsy8jrosd8.jpg
 
The media should stop publishing the 'nuts' names and background information. These characters are looking for publicity and their perverted glory and fame. Denying it will cut back on copycats.
Click to expand...

One of the least expensive things that can be done to curb this whole thing is for the media to quit publishing the guy's name. If they give no attention to the guy himself then it will cut at least half of these guys out. That is also one of the hardest things to accomplish.
Click to expand...

1) Bingo. Our gubment and media must commit to this. Now? A mass shooter is guaranteed notoriety, his photo and story and will go down in the history books. This is an enormous part of the problem.

2) We as a society in America, are never going to make the 'icky' guns and 'icky' mass shooters go away. There needs to be a deterrent: make the gun free zones no longer gun free (!!), the criminal is now in fear of the unknown.

3) Same goes for movie theaters and shopping malls etc.

I stood armed guard for my Navy ship in port and at sea. It was my job to protect our ship and our crew. The fact that I can legally do nothing to protect our children at school makes me ill.
 
As a student in the public school system, these lock down drills are idiotic,IMO. The students hide behind a desk or in the corner of the class room in every drill, lights go off in EVERY ROOM, so the shooter knows there are kids in the rooms, half the kids are on their phones/cutting up with friends, and they announce that there is going to be a drill most of the time. We're like cattle.
Click to expand...

ALICE Training has become the norm for most schools in the U.S. It teaches that hiding in your room is only one option and not the first option teachers should think of. This is unlike previously when the standard procedure was to lock the door, huddle in the corner and wait for the police. Most schools, as of yet, do not instruct the students in this form of training, only the teachers and staff. While effectiveness has been argued, at least it gives the victims a fighting chance once they know there's an active shooting in the building. http://www.alicetraining.com/what-we-do/respond-active-shooter-event/


Classroom lights typically stay on all day. If a classroom is empty, who's going to turn off the lights in that room?

Ergo: Lights off = Occupied
Click to expand...

In our schools and most schools in the area, "lights out" is standard procedure whenever a room is unoccupied. This is for energy conservation and also safety. Most rooms in our High School have motion sensors with timers, so even if the teacher/staff forgets to turn off the lights, within ten minutes or so of no activity in the room, the lights go out. Lights off during an active shooter makes it harder to see into rooms with windows in the door, thus an active shooter looking for the most easy victims they can, will probably not take the time to break down the door if they think it is empty and will move on. In our school system, classroom doors are always locked, whether the room is occupied or not. The only exception is the rest-rooms. Teachers are reprimanded if their doors are found unlocked during classes.

The biggest problem with most High Schools is that during non-school hours, they are a community center. Volleyball games, youth athletic tournaments, School and Community plays and musicals. Many time outside businesses rent the auditoriums for general meetings. This is the time when entry doors are unlocked and large amounts of folks are in one confined area, instead of only 20-30 behind every locked door.
 
which would you choose.?
Click to expand...
I can tell you right now that no school district is going to post that sign. We may get a chuckle out of it, but the plain fact is, LaPierre guessed wrong.

When he gave the "good guy with a gun" speech, it was the last thing many people wanted to hear. They were shocked and hurting, and the suggestion of introduce more guns to our schools was tone-deaf and poorly timed.

In fact, that very phrase has become a tool of mockery among gun control supporters.

Had LaPierre not screwed up so badly, we might have had a chance at convincing people that armed resource officers and teachers could help. That ship has sailed.

There are quite a few slogans and ideas that we acknowledge as having merit. But we have to realize when the timing and presentation are right.
 
I don't know that you'll ever stop them. Restrict access to guns? That ship has sailed and sunk. It's ineffective in countries that have done it (see Australia, where they just had a shooting) and impossible to do without nullifying a constitutional right in our country.

Background checks? Almost every single shooter passed a background check for a firearm or, in one case, killed the person who did pass the background check and took their firearms.

Mental health/SSRIs? People with mental issues are stigmatized enough as it is. Those who suffer from mental illnesses are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than they are to be a perpetrator. Roughly 1 in 4 people at some point in time are on SSRIs and rely on their help to function normally. Even if it was decided mental health was the issue, what do you do about it? Forcibly institutionalize everybody who comes off as depressed or bipolar? I know people already today who won't get treatment because they're afraid they'll be denied rights.

It may be a question of how we can better respond to school shootings than how we can stop them. Much like fires in the workplace. You look at the causes and cut down on them (for instance, storing oily rags in airtight containers) but eventually you have to accept the inevitability that something may catch fire. We have fire extinguishers for a reason. Many places have other automated safety features, because finding blame for the fire doesn't help anybody put it out.

I'm a technical college student, and I carry the most efficient tool I can under state law - a 2" CRKT minimalist knife. It's better than nothing. 2" is the largest I can have. Ironically enough, I'm a gunsmithing student and I'm sure there are a half dozen or more guns that could be made operational - but ammunition is kept locked in a separate part of the campus which only one person has the key to. We do have campus security who are armed with less lethal options as well as several specificially appointed campus police who do carry firearms, and it's nice having them there - but the "good guy with a gun" may not stop somebody from at least starting the attack.

Maybe if you turned every school into an armed compound with lights, motion detectors, unmanned aerial cameras, rooftop marksmen, and roving ground patrols you would have enough deterrence to keep people from even trying something. You'd still likely get the occasional shooting - it would just be so heavily balanced in the side of the school "strike team" that there would likely be no casualties except the shooter. Are you willing to accept this hypothetical situation? Because I'm not. Even if shooters know everybody is armed, it's not a guarantee they won't attack that place. Australia just saw a shooting where a gunman shot two people on the street and then fired on a police station, where he was killed by return fire.

You may dissuade some shooters if they know that schools are armed, but schools are also a prime target for their shock value, and a person who's accepted that they're going to die in the fight may well choose the school as a target anyways.
 
The ways to stop this are expensive and will cost resources, and some would be uncomfortable with some of the methods.

The simple plan that most have is to have armed security well trained to handle the situation. Expensive.

Another plan that might work... Expensive

Plans #3-#25... Expensive.

What is not expensive? Rhetoric and UBCs.
Or even placing taxes and permit fees on guns is even cheaper.

There will come a day we turn them all in. Our leaders are pointing to countries with almost total bans. They want it, they'll get it.
 
There will come a day we turn them all in. Our leaders are pointing to countries with almost total bans. They want it, they'll get it.
Click to expand...

Well, I for one am not ready to throw the towel in quite yet.........:rolleyes:

If Gun Confiscation ever does come, it will not come from our few leaders that are anti-gun, but because of the majority of American Voters that agree with them.
 
Tom Servo said:
When he [LaPierre] gave the "good guy with a gun" speech, it was the last thing many people wanted to hear. They were shocked and hurting, and the suggestion of introduce more guns to our schools was tone-deaf and poorly timed.

In fact, that very phrase has become a tool of mockery among gun control supporters.
Click to expand...

It may be a tool of mockery amongst those who are wrong on policy. Why wouldn't it be? If they were wrong on policy, why wouldn't they be wrong about what about that too?

In the hours following the Sandy Hook news, there were some advocates of significantly more firearms restriction who figuratively ran through the blood to get to a camera and push their policy wish list.

LaPierre's observation was factual in that there were staff whose only means of resistance was to soak up a few shots.

Recently Jeb Bush noted that the impulse to make a law isn't always the right one. He has been mocked for that too, but there is more than a little wisdom in it.

Whether people want to hear something shouldn't determine whether it is said, and statements like LaPierre's and Bush's, statement's that frame the issue reasonably, should help the reflective reach a reasoned conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top