You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stop school shootings...
- Thread starter adamBomb
- Start date
The public will not trust an armed teacher.
The public believes that only highly trained professional officers or other governmental types can operate a gun effectively
Not long ago, most states made no provision for concealed carry and one commonly heard, sometimes from gun writers, that only the trained should be armed.
I would exercise caution in speaking for the public in such firm terms.
FireForged
New member
That doesn't sound much like a school to me
one has nothing to do with the other.
Its the same tenets used to protect just about anything. Been to a rock concert lately? How about a sporting event?... do they look like a supermax prison? A prison is more a (care-control-custody) type of mission and that can be substantially different than "protection".
The question was- how to stop school shootings? You do that by mitigating the act and you do that through a good protection program.
madmo44mag
New member
You can't protect yourself or others from "crazy or stupid"
The "crazy and/or stupid" will find a way to act out their plan.
Just my two cents worth.
The "crazy and/or stupid" will find a way to act out their plan.
Just my two cents worth.
one has nothing to do with the other.
Its the same tenets used to protect just about anything. Been to a rock concert lately? How about a sporting event?... do they look like a supermax prison? A prison is more a (care-control-custody) type of mission and that can be substantially different than "protection".
The question was- how to stop school shootings? You do that by mitigating the act and you do that through a good protection program.
Whether a security program alters a school setting in ways at odds with the purpose and character of a school pertains to whether a security measure is reasonable in light of the risk. Not every measure that prevents a school murder will be a reasonable response to the risk.
We could strip search students and staff every Monday and only release them on the weekends, but one might validly object that you had changed the character of the school without sufficient reason.
A school with locked classroom doors in which students are buzzed in each time they enter a classroom may be very secure but he price of that security may be the comfort and convenience of the students and teachers.
buck460XVR
New member
Murder in schools is uncommon. Pouring money and people into making a school resemble a supermax prison doesn't really serve the primary mission of a school, education.
Allowing staff a modest defensive option seems much less disruptive and allows a school to retain an educational character.
The primary mission of a school is to provide an education within a safe and healthy environment. If it takes certain security measures because of the current climate we have in our country, it must be done to protect the children. During our two days of training this year, the LEO giving the training stated he felt very strongly that the U.S. needed to take the same stance as the Israelis do, arm and train teachers and staff. But this "modest defensive option" you speak of is not yet possible in most areas of our country, thus the use of the other options. Most modern schools already resemble prisons in appearance because they lack large exterior windows in classrooms. Making them as secure as prisons is not that hard and what is being demanded not only by parents and the public, but needed at this time, just to ensure the safety of our kids. Even if it ever comes down to teachers and staff having weapons, the other measures will still be in place.
We can discuss many things, although I would like to point out that "arming teachers" is the wrong term to use. ALLOWING teachers the choice is what we want, not forcing anyone to be armed.
The real world drawback to allowing teachers to be armed is the likelihood of those in power to demand extreme and excessive requirement be met, like they did with the idea of allowing pilots to be armed. Put enough hurdles in the way to stop Olympic track teams and then abandon the idea because it is "unworkable".
They did it before, they will try to do it again.
here's a thought, why not co-locate police and the schools? It would seem to me that moving a police substation onto school grounds would be an effective
deterrent to these spree killer attacks, and provide a constant presence of at least some officers for security. And its more socially acceptable than barbed wire, machinegun nests and flak towers (and cheaper).
Note that they choose schools where they know there is no one armed, that in the vast majority of these cases, the spree killers kill themselves as soon as the police show up.
It might even have the benefit of letting children learn who the police really are, and what they really do, rather than only knowing what they see on tv.
The real world drawback to allowing teachers to be armed is the likelihood of those in power to demand extreme and excessive requirement be met, like they did with the idea of allowing pilots to be armed. Put enough hurdles in the way to stop Olympic track teams and then abandon the idea because it is "unworkable".
They did it before, they will try to do it again.
here's a thought, why not co-locate police and the schools? It would seem to me that moving a police substation onto school grounds would be an effective
deterrent to these spree killer attacks, and provide a constant presence of at least some officers for security. And its more socially acceptable than barbed wire, machinegun nests and flak towers (and cheaper).
Note that they choose schools where they know there is no one armed, that in the vast majority of these cases, the spree killers kill themselves as soon as the police show up.
It might even have the benefit of letting children learn who the police really are, and what they really do, rather than only knowing what they see on tv.
On the issue of gun policy, I fully believe we (pro gun people) are on the right side of the issue, but gun policy does not address the root causes of rampage shootings. Our opponents claim that if we had very stringent gun laws like other countries these random mass shootings wouldn't happen; we counter with more guns in the hands of the good guys would discourage or stop them. These arguments only look at the immediate problem at hand, as if the violent acts are just a given, and do not look at underlying issues. Let's take a look at our opponents position of "too high of availability of guns" is the problem. I'd like to make the 1920's a case study. During this time lots of guns were available. There were not yet any federal gun control laws (1934 NFA, 1968 GCA); gun control laws were local. Mass production of firearms had been in place well over a half century. Many military surplus weapons were on the market from the First World War. At that time you could privately mail order machine guns and have them shipped to your house; weapons like a BAR (full auto 30-06 with 20 round magazines). In the 1920's, if you wanted a gun you could easily get one, including high power and high capacity. So where were the mass shootings? Sure, there were cases like the St Valentine's Day Massacre, that was one criminal gang targeting another criminal gang. Where was the random targeting of innocent people in mass shootings when guns were so available?
So what has changed between then and now that a person will become so imbalanced that they will shoot and kill a bunch of random innocent people?
Note: I am aware of black people being targeted in Jim Crow / KKK attacks during that period, but that was not random, it was driven by a specific ideology.
So what has changed between then and now that a person will become so imbalanced that they will shoot and kill a bunch of random innocent people?
Note: I am aware of black people being targeted in Jim Crow / KKK attacks during that period, but that was not random, it was driven by a specific ideology.
9x18_Walther
New member
It would seem to me that moving a police substation onto school grounds would be an effective
deterrent to these spree killer attacks, and provide a constant presence of at least some officers for security.
Virginia Tech, like most big universities has a campus police department. It took them three minutes to respond to the Virginia Tech shooting. General proximity can only help to a degree.
FireForged
New member
You can't protect yourself or others from "crazy or stupid"
sure you can.. to what degree depends on what effort you are willing to put toward that task. You can build a house of twigs and paper or you can build it of steel and brick. Can you eliminate all risk.. probably not but you can sure as heck make it hard for a badguy to carry out his plan.
buck460XVR
New member
You can't protect yourself or others from "crazy or stupid"
sure you can.. to what degree depends on what effort you are willing to put toward that task. You can build a house of twigs and paper or you can build it of steel and brick. Can you eliminate all risk.. probably not but you can sure as heck make it hard for a badguy to carry out his plan.
We have been very fortunate, all of our school shootings have been a random rare occurrence carried out by basically untrained people with no legitimate motive other than to make a name for themselves or because they are the last virgin remaining at the school. Mostly only by a single active shooter. At some point we have to realize that our children can and may become a target of terrorism. These folks will have weapons/devices to breech locked doors. They will not just walk in and empty a mag in a few classrooms, but throw grenades into every classroom and office. They will be a well trained group of people, heavily armed and willing to die for their cause. Their attack will be well planned and practiced and their target observed for all of it's weaknesses.
Pond James Pond
New member
If you want to stop "school shootings" you have to understand the causes, so that you might target them and eliminate them. I do not understand them.
I think Tom Servo's early post rightly stated depression, sense of failure and rejection, disaffection, lack of self worth and a yearning for that morbid Warhol-esque moment of fame are all symptoms and possible drivers.
The use of guns and the choice of schools are also symptoms.
Whilst it may not reduce shootings, somehow breaking the connection between schools and the "glory" aspect the shooters seem to crave might at least make kids a less likely target.
Ultimately, school shootings make the news because they revolt us so. They are an attack on the very group in society that merits the greatest detachment from danger and harm: our children.
As one member pointed out (Tirod, I think) school shootings, as a cause of death, are relatively low on the scale of numbers.
It is on the scale of shock and outrage that they reign supreme.
Finding the answer will probably require digging deep and rewriting many aspects of modern society: this is something that goes against the contemporary desire for simple explanations and quick solutions and thus the bane of the "elected official".
Until people are willing to drop the slogans and simplistic proposals in preference for the actual issues, the problem will, IMHO, continue sadly.
I think Tom Servo's early post rightly stated depression, sense of failure and rejection, disaffection, lack of self worth and a yearning for that morbid Warhol-esque moment of fame are all symptoms and possible drivers.
The use of guns and the choice of schools are also symptoms.
Whilst it may not reduce shootings, somehow breaking the connection between schools and the "glory" aspect the shooters seem to crave might at least make kids a less likely target.
Ultimately, school shootings make the news because they revolt us so. They are an attack on the very group in society that merits the greatest detachment from danger and harm: our children.
As one member pointed out (Tirod, I think) school shootings, as a cause of death, are relatively low on the scale of numbers.
It is on the scale of shock and outrage that they reign supreme.
Finding the answer will probably require digging deep and rewriting many aspects of modern society: this is something that goes against the contemporary desire for simple explanations and quick solutions and thus the bane of the "elected official".
Until people are willing to drop the slogans and simplistic proposals in preference for the actual issues, the problem will, IMHO, continue sadly.
Last edited:
Honestly, all we can do is speculate. Most of these guys don't survive (or intend to survive) the incident. We're left poring through their manifestos, which may or may not be a reliable source of insight.It's more like "I blame society and society forced me to do this" it's a twisted way to project the offenders depression or mental state on the rest of the world
A couple have recently been arrested. Problem is, can they be trusted? They're already a mess, and they've constructed a belief system that doesn't necessarily encourage them to be cooperative with doctors or authorities.
Even if they were, one shooter's motives aren't the same as the next. What drove the Roanoke shooter will be different than what drove the Newton shooter. The Naval Yard and Fort Hood shootings appear similar on the surface but are inherently different.
The media lumps them all together under the category of "mass shooter," but we won't get far if we leave it so broadly categorized.
Pond James Pond
New member
It's not really glory the perpetrators seek.
It's more like "I blame society and society forced me to do this" it's a twisted way to project the offenders depression or mental state on the rest of the world
I'm not so sure.
The fact that so many choose to apply the same M.O. suggests to me a strong aspect of emulation of those that came before.
People often copy or re-enact because they want to gain a sense of association or belonging in relation to those they've chosen as inspiration.
However, I am sure that, if confronted with the facts, they will often find a perverted logic to deflect any responsibility.
buck460XVR
New member
Honestly, all we can do is speculate.
Here is an interesting study of "why?".
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-united-states-mass-shooting-20150824-story.html
Tom Servo said:Honestly, all we can do is speculate. Most of these guys don't survive (or intend to survive) the incident. We're left poring through their manifestos, which may or may not be a reliable source of insight.
Even if we do speculate with perfect accuracy about the motive of past murderers, how does that help us anticipate future harms?
Lots of people are genuinely nuts and many more possess a constellation of nutty ideas. Almost none of them ever hurt anyone physically.
zukiphile
If any of us could predict the future, we would not be on this thread, we'd be making money in Wall Street commodities futures.
The process is akin to building bridges. Look at the number of bridge failures in england back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Metallurgy was a new process, engineering to accommodate the increasing stress of trains and vibrations was new. Bridges failed. Once you started discovering how Bridge A failed, you could fix that problem, or engineer a solution to accept the new variables. When bridge A1 failed, a cursory exam could rule out failure cause related to failure of Bridge A and you could begin to investigate in search of a new root cause. Progress is always a method of looking over your shoulder while walking forward.
Unfortunately, all of our legislative fixes for past failures continually apply the same action: tightening access of firearms at the source. This doesn't seem to work when people with generally clean records (but evil in their hearts), pass background check after background check.
The next step will be either a further tightening of access from the source as the general populace will decide to give up rights to be safe, or society will be forced to recognize that singular points of control are not as effective as a mobilized citizenry that accepts both the existence of risk AND recognizes the need accept responsibility for themselves and each other.
This problem isn't going to go away soon.
Even if we do speculate with perfect accuracy about the motive of past murderers, how does that help us anticipate future harms?
If any of us could predict the future, we would not be on this thread, we'd be making money in Wall Street commodities futures.
The process is akin to building bridges. Look at the number of bridge failures in england back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Metallurgy was a new process, engineering to accommodate the increasing stress of trains and vibrations was new. Bridges failed. Once you started discovering how Bridge A failed, you could fix that problem, or engineer a solution to accept the new variables. When bridge A1 failed, a cursory exam could rule out failure cause related to failure of Bridge A and you could begin to investigate in search of a new root cause. Progress is always a method of looking over your shoulder while walking forward.
Unfortunately, all of our legislative fixes for past failures continually apply the same action: tightening access of firearms at the source. This doesn't seem to work when people with generally clean records (but evil in their hearts), pass background check after background check.
The next step will be either a further tightening of access from the source as the general populace will decide to give up rights to be safe, or society will be forced to recognize that singular points of control are not as effective as a mobilized citizenry that accepts both the existence of risk AND recognizes the need accept responsibility for themselves and each other.
This problem isn't going to go away soon.
Like so many I got caught with my pants down following sandy hook. I think many of us learned a valuable lesson which is be prepared. Many of us now have a nice "reserve" if there is a next "panic". I think we got a taste of the new prepardness of the current gun enthusist. I for one have since embarked into handloading so I am far more independant of the panics vs. your typical enthusist that needs to purchase factory ammo. Like i've commented before they will never sucesfully take our guns, but they can take our ammo... Same as in the world of volatile investing : "STAY THE COURSE , KEEP YOUR EMOTIONAL FEAR OUT OF BUYING AND SELLING DECISIONS"