[R]epresentatives from the Department of Education unexpectedly showed up and announced that they would be conducting a special drill to prepare students in the event of a gunman in the building.... “All the kids were corralled in the block area out of sight, the classroom doors were locked, blinds drawn, and they all had to be quiet. They were so quiet. I couldn't believe it. Obviously they had done it before. Then, the DOE guys came and jiggled the door, kind of pretending to get in, and the kids had to stay quiet through that as well. You would have been really proud.”...
According to my 7-year old, it all felt like a game and was kind of “exhilarating” — her word.
२३ डिसेंबर, २०१२
Are "lockdown" drills traumatizing schoolkids?
Catherine Crawford used to think so.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०२ टिप्पण्या:
I remember all the duck and roll drills in the 50s. That was no big deal when I was a little kid, but later I realized the maneuver wouldn't do much good in a nuclear strike. So then I started to get traumatized.
IMHO the sixties counterculture was in great part an escapist diversion from all that stress. Sort of like heavy drinking was for the WWII gen.
I used to the think that the r/k selection theory was just blogospheric babble, but it actually may help explain the extreme paranoia that parents have.
Peter
The nuclear war drills in the 50s weren't traumatic because none of us thought war was likely to actually happen. I would think the demonstrated ever-present threat of the "crazed gunman" in today's warped society is the proverbial horse of a different color..
What an awful sick reality our children and grandchildren must face in the innocence of attending school and learning. Nothing is sacred anymore. How did it come to this, that children became prime targets for the insane with guns?
It may not scare the children in these classrooms, scares the bejesus out of me.
Well maybe we shouldn't have fire or eartquake drills either for fear of traumatizing them. I mean, no one wants to admit to their children the world isn't perfect, and they shouldn't be obsessing over it, but at the same time, I want my kids to live in REALITY. But I don't think most adults do, sadly, which is all to evident in many, many ways.
Were "duck and cover" drills traumatizing to kids?
I think, like most things, it depends on the kid.
Robert acts of nature have no intent. Crazed gunmen have an intent. As in personally desiring one dead. Makes a difference in perception.
Ah, the old days of the practice air-raid sirens. How come we didn't have the cool sounding ones like those of London in 1940?
In the 50s, in Alabama, when I was in elementary school, we had fire and tornado drills. I don't remember any 'duck and cover drills'. I did not feel traumatized by the drills. I did feel traumatized by actual tornadoes. I had seen them and had nightmares about them.
This is more for the parents than the kids.
Arm the damn teachers.
From WWII through Viet Nam we had "crazed ex-GIs" going on the occasional rampage here and there, but no suggestions that I can remember to "do" something about them.
At my school we have legitimate "Code Reds" everynow and then. Had one a couple of weeks ago. But then inner city kids and children from war zones are of a different fiber than kids from sub and ex burbia. Complete lockdowns with armed cops in the halls are de riguer. No problema. What country do you guys live in?
Nuclear bomb drills would only have been useless if a bomb were dropped right on the school, or within a few miles of it. In any school 5-10 miles away from a nuclear blast, hiding under the desk instead of watching the mushroom cloud through the window would have been the difference between life and death.
Crappy reporting have been with us as long as the printing press, but it used to be more individualized. The ominous thing now is that they seem to have formed a movement of their own and march in lock-step.
I've been in a no-drill complete lockdown in a high school in the Shenandoah Valley. Someone robbed a bank a mile and a half away and escaped on foot heading in our direction. Even if he wanted to take hostages, he would have had to have been very stupid to continue in the direction of the high school and adjacent elementary school, because there were thick woods and houses near the bank, and no cover at all for the last mile on the way to the schools, but they did a complete lockdown anyway. Good practice, and worth doing just in case he was that stupid. Come to think of it, he might have stolen a car and gotten to the school undetected, if that was what he had in mind.
Long division was traumatic. Disaster drills and fire alarms were a welcome break to the drudgery.
Duck and cover. Nothing is new under the sun. The form changes a bit....but same old same old.
We couldn't do much about a nuclear bomb. We CAN do something to prevent more slaughter in schools and malls. Unfortunately, the liberal pussies won't allow the logical solution because it goes against their thoughtless knee jerk ideology. So...more kids get killed. More shoppers get mowed down.
Life is dangerous. Life is hard. It is even harder when you are stupid and refuse to face reality.
Let's blame the NRA for terrorizing our children.
Buncha' pussy civilians. One week at my inner city school. Hahaha...beyond PTSD. Combat Pay for experiencing gunfire/gunplay and Hazardous Duty Pay just because you show up for work every day unarmed. What universe do you guys live in anyway?
Really, a 7 year old called it "exhilarating?" Call me "skeptical." Yeah, it's real exhilarating to cower in a classroom waiting to be shot. I'm sure the shooter would jiggle a door knob and then, slightly peeved, move on to the next classroom. Escape would be exhilarating.
When at all possible, go out the windows, out the doors, etc. Run like hell until a good guy with a gun can protect you. Build new schools with this in mind, update older schools as you can.
The nuclear war drills in the 50s weren't traumatic because none of us thought war was likely to actually happen.
Not sure how old you are, but I sure as hell thought it could happen. Living within the thermonuclear blast range of Oak Ridge, TN, where they make weapons grade uranium (still do) and considered one of the top 2-3 targets in the country, I believed it. Not just from the classroom activities, but from maps printed in the newspapers showing missile ranges from Cuba, blast ranges, etc. Many of the buildings having Civil Defense signs and supplies. The downtown YMCA's youth lobby had supplies stacked nearly to the 20 ft. high ceiling.
they seem to have formed a movement of their own and march in lock-step.
Seem?
The oldest use of the word "exhilarate" (which has the same root as "hilarity") is:
"1540 R. Morison tr. J. L. Vives Introd. Wysdome E vj b, A cleane and a pure conscience maye exhilarate the mynde."
none of us thought war was likely to actually happen
Speak for yourself. But yeah it depends on the kid..with one hapless parent and a lot of TV, I recall that Hollywood's relentless fear mongering about WWIII had an effect on me. Especially when I was 12 and the Cuban Missle Crisis was on TV every night.
i would think the drills israeli children have to go through leave them traumatized
I went through those "duck and cover" drills myself, as a young kid in elementary school in New York City back then.
It didn't traumatize us. But we kids all thought it was a dumb waste of time. We had all seen the photos from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And we all knew that New York City was going to be a major target. So we didn't think that crawling under a desk or huddling against a wall was going to save us.
We considered it to be just one more of those things an adult makes a kid do "Because I said so, that's why!"
What an awful sick reality our children and grandchildren must face in the innocence of attending school and learning.
I'm not certain school attendance was ever "innocent." There was a reason why the county had a squad car parked outside my son's high school.
duh...
Emergency drills should not be too psychologically damaging. As long as they're accompanied with extremely shrill unearthly sirens that drown out all other sounds.
Kids should be safe as little kittens behind double fence topped with spirals of razor wire, the space between patrolled by German shepherds and other child friendly canine patrols. Unperturbed because the looming turret towers suggested by NRA executive VP Wayne LaPierre have slides! Curly slides with a tunnel.
And they practice, not just hiding and cowering, but hiding and shooting, with paint guns.
There are hidey places all over. Kids love hidey places. Hide from adults,
AND SHOOT THEM
with paint guns. That's the drill.
Think McDonalds fun house with hidey holes and things to throw, and slingshots and paint guns. Are you kidding? Drills are the best part of school.
Come to think of it, have not most of the districts that have police officers assigned to them, called for the officers to protect the teachers from the kids"
Lockdowns just gather students in a single room, immobilized on the floor, to make killing easier.
Worse, lockdowns are the same everywhere - so the careful plans of the lunatics who do the shooting are always successful.
Let's keep drills down to fire and weather related emergencies and arm our teachers. If we learned anything from aircraft hijackers, it is that resistance is not futile.
Oh, and when we arm the teachers, make sure that some of them have some testosterone. In other words, all-women staffs, as in Newtown, are not a good idea.
Oh, and when we arm the teachers
I don't we're going to arm the teachers. A few districts might do that (some already do) but most people won't to be persuaded by arguments that it would work.
If you could put a cop in every school that would be better than arming teachers the majority of whom would probably never be competent in their first firefight no matter what kind of weaponry or training they had. They're probably just as likely to lose their weapon to an unruly or psychotic student or parent or colleague than use it to prevent a mass shooter (or any shooter).
Even a cop in every school has its limitations. So you study and figure out the routines of the cop for a short while, then you easily get the drop on her. You walk away with his service revolver.
I'm all for debating these ideas why and why not, but I don't think we're going to see armed teachers in the schools. That creates its own problems.
"If you could put a cop in every school that would be better than arming teachers the majority of whom would probably never be competent in their first firefight no matter what kind of weaponry or training they had. They're probably just as likely to lose their weapon to an unruly or psychotic student or parent or colleague than use it to prevent a mass shooter (or any shooter)."
Most cops are never in firefights. Not ever. I mean... seriously... my uncle was the county sheriff and didn't have more than one murder mystery in his career (granted, it was a doozy). The mystery murders (sure, there were murders, just never mysterious ones) and shoot outs and all that are pretty much on television. The cops in Albuquerque are constantly being investigated for shooting people but that's not NORMAL.
So, realistically... any cop in a school facing a shooter will be facing their first firefight.
So, realistically... any cop in a school facing a shooter will be facing their first firefight.
I don't disagree with you. I don't think cops in schools are a "solution" either. I do presume a police officer's training in self-defense would be more rigorous (there's not a lot of time for teacher in-service training on their subject matter or instructional methods let alone for intensive and ongoing combat training).
Teachers' guns would have to be loaded, too, or as far as I can see you may as well forget it. You won't have time to load your weapon when Adam comes shooting his way into your classroom. Go now or forever hold your piece.
Teachers with loaded guns. Around crazy parents, crazy students, crazy colleagues. I don't think it will fly.
If I'm Adam or Dylan or Kliebold, and I know Sheriff Taylor is guarding the school I'm going to spend some time figuring out the routines. I'm going to get the drop on the Sheriff and it's probably not going to be any more trouble than if he wasn't even there.
Doesn't seem like much of a "solution" to me.
phx - you sound like you have this mass murder thing all worked out.
Alex, well I've never even fired a gun in my life but it takes just about a minute to arrive at some pretty commonsensical conclusions. But definitely let me know where my logic is flawed.
You'll have to do better than the NRA though.
Kids love this kind of thing. They love the excitement, and each kid loves to daydream of scenarios wherein he is the hero who saves the day.
Right now, how many kids are imaging up fanciful ways that they would thwart a gunman with their wiles.
First, I throw that big, metal trashcan at him...
I'd start by tipping up my desk and charging him...
If I were to practice, I could throw pencils like darts. I'll keep all my pencils good and sharp...
I'd pretend to be dead, and then, when he's riiiight by me, I'd...
I'll grab the scissors and...
Probably the most creative and excited they've been in their minds all year.
Kids love this kind of thing. They love the excitement, and each kid loves to daydream of scenarios wherein he is the hero who saves the day.
SOME kids, even most kids may love that kind of thing. But it's not likely all kids do. Some may even have very poor responses. I'd suggest we have to learn more about that rather than being certain of our assumptions.
Phx wrote:
If I'm Adam or Dylan or Kliebold, and I know Sheriff Taylor is guarding the school I'm going to spend some time figuring out the routines. I'm going to get the drop on the Sheriff and it's probably not going to be any more trouble than if he wasn't even there.
couldn't you say the same thing about any security anywhere? like say a bank. You case the place out, figure out the cops security guards routine, then go in and take out the cop.
So....should we stop putting cops in banks?
""A cleane and a pure conscience maye exhilarate the mynde.""
Who among us features such.
"... about a minute to arrive at some pretty commonsensical conclusions."
Usually, in deadly confrontations, one has less than a few seconds to respond. As you are reaching for your non-gun approach, what thoughts will be running thorough your head?
So....should we stop putting cops in banks?
Actually most banks don't have cops and even choose not to have security guards.
Dylan and KLiebold did face cops when they attacked the school, something they didn't plan for. They returned fire with the cops, but the cops missed. When they went back into the schools, the cops, following protocol did not in fact enter after them. Allowing them to continue killing.
But, this is the point you're missing, that is laid out in the article posted. These security guards will act as speed bumps until SWAT arrives. Best case scenario they take out the assailants. Worse cases they are the diversion so that the shooters are trying to kill them and not the teachers.
Phx wrote:
So....should we stop putting cops in banks?
Actually most banks don't have cops and even choose not to have security guards.
not answering the question I see.
But ok. Lets say you want to assassinate the president. So you follow his routine, and figure out where the security is going to be. Then you take out the secret service agents.
So... Should the president not have a security detail?
Here's a link describing bsnk security procedures. You'll find that in many cases security guards are required. If not though, banks have to lay out their security procedures so that banks can show they are secure.
So lets say I want to rob their bank and see these procedures. I guess by your logic they should do away with the procedures, since by me seeing them I will instantly be able to rob that bank. No?
http://www.hgexperts.com/article.asp?id=7655
Apply this same logic to any door lock, alarm, or camera. I, being the person who wants to bypass the security can merely case the joint out, then get around the security. So then why have the security?
Your best and worst case scenarios don't address any of the issues I raised about the presumable ease it would be for an assailant to stalk the single cop and get the drop on him or her in no time at all. I would like to know if you are going with a single armed cop or security guard scenario how you are going to protect against a stalker/planner.
Your scenarios also don't consider the issue(s) I raised of having armed (and arms loaded presumably) teachers or other personnel in school. You have to assume that in at least some cases their inexperience in a fire fight and lack of training may actually make some situations worse. Also they're in danger of forever losing their loaded weapons. Schools are sometimes very volatile places and I don't think the presence of loaded combat weapons are going to always bring peace. Suddenly the stakes may be much higher for a lot of routine fights and physical disputes - things that happen all the time in high schools and even middle schools.
Ask yourself why banks usually don't want armed security guards - or even any security guards.
"Actually most banks don't have cops and even choose not to have security guards."
This is because most banks have separated the public space from the money place, or at least my local branches.
A thick wall of bullet proof glass comes between me and my teller, perhaps you live in less dangerous territory.
There is no security system that can't be cased. It doesn't mean that those casing the security will be successful though. But if that's the argument for why there should be no cops, it could similarly rule out any security anywhere.
Do you think the cops at a school are going to be asleep on the chair in front of the school as a matter of course? Is it possible that they might see a Dylan Klebold running towards the school prior to them entering with assault rifles? or maybe the assault rifles set off the metal detectors and the cops are able to find a position of cover before they get their guns out?
There are an almost infinite ways an attack on a school COULD go. Having the shooter know some portions of the security, doesn't guarantee success at all.
I don't know the answer to that myself but I can think of some interesting possibilities.
Also it seems not so well advised to make too much of an analogy between having armed guards at banks and at schools. Very different kinds of threats are involved.
There are an almost infinite ways an attack on a school COULD go. Having the shooter know some portions of the security, doesn't guarantee success at all.
Know you are right it doesn't guarantee success at all. It does guarantee a bit of a challenge for a meticulous planner though - seems like that's something these guys like to do. Some may be deterred, some may not.
As I said I don't think it's a "solution."
You'd be best just lying low here, phx.
If we do end up putting armed cops in schools I want it funded by a tax on weaponry and ammo. Like a sin tax.
You'd be best just lying low here, phx.
Why is that XRay?
That's an extraordinarily stupid drill. It will only result in more dead kids.
If you have a kid, you might choose not to discuss the issue with your kids at all - that would be rational given how rare mass shootings at schools are. But if you do discuss it, tell your kids that in an active shooting, they should run like hell, make sure that the teacher/administrators don't herd them into groups convenient for the shooter to find, and if cornered to fight like f*king hell with no holds barred.
Phx wrote:
Your best and worst case scenarios don't address any of the issues I raised about the presumable ease it would be for an assailant to stalk the single cop and get the drop on him or her in no time at all. I would like to know if you are going with a single armed cop or security guard scenario how you are going to protect against a stalker/planner.
how are you presuming to know this? If the guard is standing outside the schoo like the Queens Guards and never moving then you could pick off the guard since he's just standing there. But it almost never that simple. If the security guard is inside, the assailants would have to get plast the doors which might have metal detectors.
How are they getting past those? If they are on the outside of the building, how do they know what's happening on the building? for them to stalk security to the extent where they would know their routine down to the minute, they'd have to do an awful lot of stalking. How do you know that the cop wouldn't notice the same kids following him around for hours at a time.
If they took the cop out before he got to school for example, that would trigger alarms as well. Why isn't he at work. If he was shot in the parking lot, did someone hear the shot. Dd they fire at the cop but miss allowing him to return fire? And this allowing the people inside the school to lock the door and call the Police. Any number of variables could be in place that would change the dynamic from "gunman knows security therefore takes out the cop/security"
You can't argue that a cop will automatically be successful,dealing with an assault on a school (or ban robbery, or president ail assassination) but you would be hard presses to argue that the odds wouldn't be better if someone were able to return fire.
Your simplistic notions notwithstanding.
You haven't actuall fired a weapon right? so how do you know how easy it will be to lay siege to a school?
if you read the essay linked there is another link where he talks about unrealistic expectations of people when it comes to shooting. He recalls the case of one guy in one of his classes who was insistent that the shooting would go exactly the way he thought it would go in his mind. He would shoot the person coming at him in the leg. Te author, was instructing students on various scenarios and tested out this guys ideas. The instructor stood about fifteen feet away and charged the guy. Not only didn't the guy shoot the instructor in the leg, he couldn't even get his gun out of the hold
Ster. The instructor simulated stabbing him a few times and for good measure took his gun away from him as well. Tis is merely suggestive that people saying this will happen the way they envision it will happen, hasn't basis in reality. For every plan laid by a Dylan and Klebold there will be an infinite number of details they won't account for. So you saying that they could just take out the cop is simplistic in the extreme.
Cause you're not displaying your best.
Phx wrote:
Know you are right it doesn't guarantee success at all. It does guarantee a bit of a challenge for a meticulous planner though - seems like that's something these guys like to do. Some may be deterred, some may not.
having no security is like shooting fish in a barrel. If you or your kids are those fish in a barrel how secure are you felling?
A meticulous planner will note the lack of security. D you think having security who are potentially armed will add or subtract to the challenges faced by the next Klebold/Harris.
Well XRay, my challenge from 7:18 still stands. Let me know where my logic is flawed.
Well, if 7:18 is your best, then never mind.
No 7:18 where I asked where the flaws in my logic were. I assume if there are any flaws you don't know where they are.
I thought I had addressed this, your 7:18. I guess not.
Your logic works well, when it is confined to your beliefs.
I prefer the real world.
It appears that the school that Obama's kids attend has armed guards, and not just the ones required for Secret Service protection.
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gregory-mocks-lapierre-proposing-armed-guards-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html
Phx, for someone who hasn't actually attacked a school let alone fire a gun, let alone defend against someone attacking a school. You seem to have an awful lot of assumptions about the ease with which people can do things, as if it always worked that way in real life.
As I mentioned. The other article I might as well quote from it:
These are just a few examples of assumptions caused by My Gunfight.
One of my personal favorite students of all time was hung up, not only on carrying chamber empty, but he also had a belief that he would "easily" be able to neutralize the bad guy by shooting them in the leg. No, I kid you not. He brought this up repeatedly during class, even after I pointed out that it could be just as fatal only slower, the same lethal force in the eyes of the law, and with the added benefit of not being nearly as effective at incapacitating an actual threat. What did I know? I was only the guy he was paying to teach him this stuff.
During the role-play, he was lucky enough to get a scenario that I use to demonstrate the principles of a Tueller drill. Without going into too many details, I'm playing the part of an obviously dangerous threat, interrupted in the act of committing a forcible felony on a third person, with the ability and opportunity to cause him serious bodily harm, and I just happen to start twenty-one feet away with a rubber knife.
I charged. He went for his gun. Not only did he fail to rack the slide and shoot me in the leg like he had talked about, he managed to draw the gun, fumble, and actually tossed it across the room. I stabbed him a few times, and as a happy bonus, picked his gun up before I fled the scene.
His Gunfight had not taken into account things like speed, adrenalin, or confusion. Last I checked, he was carrying a chamber loaded Glock, in a good holster, and practicing a bunch.
That was an extreme example, but I think all of us need to watch out for the decisions we make based upon our assumptions. Be smart, be realistic, and don't be afraid to keep an open mind. Just because My Gunfight makes sense to me, doesn't mean that the world cares one bit.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/45671-My-Gunfight-quot-Thinking-Outside-Your-Box-quot
You write:
If I'm Adam or Dylan or Kliebold, and I know Sheriff Taylor is guarding the school I'm going to spend some time figuring out the routines. I'm going to get the drop on the Sheriff
ah, so you're going to figure out the routines and then get the drop on the sheriff. So easy. Does the sheriff not have any say in the matter?for you to get the drop on the sheriff requires you to actually do that. I won't say you can't do it, but I am saying that merely because you say it can be done in the abstract means that you'll be able to do it.
Well, yeah, but Sidwell has kids of parents who are really, really important.
Plus it's a Quaker school so they are peaceful guns. Peacemakers, if you will.
Freeman Hunt said...
Kids love this kind of thing. They love the excitement, and each kid loves to daydream of scenarios wherein he is the hero who saves the day.
Finally someone remembers what kids are like.
Taht would be like me saying the way to beat the Chicago Bulls back when MJ was in his prime was to figure out their defense then practice really hard and triple team MJ. You could SAY that that's all that's required, but something tells me what will actually determine whether you beat the bulls is that you actually play the game well enough to beat the bulls. Does MJ have no say?
D you think having security who are potentially armed will add or subtract to the challenges faced by the next Klebold/Harris.
Tell me more concretely what you are proposing and then maybe we can have an interesting discussion around your question. Talking about security added or subtracted depends on the situation - a local armed police presence in schools? Security guards from licensed agencies, armed? Allowing school personnel to carry loaded firearms? A combination of some or all of these?
There are different arguments for these different situations as I've shown. I'd rather pick one of them and discuss just that at first.
In terms of "security who are potentially armed" what specifically are you advocating?
I'm with gadfly and Robin. I told my kids years ago if they were in this type of situation they had my permission to get the heck out in the most direct way possible, no matter what the teacher or "authority" had to say about it. Don't wait around hoping the guy doesn't come your way. Even if they should inadvertently run toward the shooter, a moving target is harder to hit.
Phx,
What does it matter? The point is having someone able to confront a shooter is almost always better then letting people be at the mercy of someone trying to kill them.
Ideally i would say you could run security the way Obamas kids school runs there. They have 11 security guards, a few of them cops AND because of the president a secret service detail. Most schools will never be that lucky. Bt you can't suggest to me that somehow Obsmas kids would be safer with zero security guards.
Yes, if a team was dedicated enough to try to get Obamas kids they could probably figure out security, and bring enough guns to kill all the security guards. But having 11 security guards to deal with that threat would certainly offer more protection than having an open door and no security at all except for a teacher without a gun.
"... what specifically are you advocating?"
Do your minutia of details really make a difference to the overall discussion.
Do you have a preference?
Well we're not gonna have 11 security guards at all schools. And Obama's school definitely has "special needs."
The specifics do matter in terms of what we want to advocate. Your argument sounds like nothing more than "more armed personnel." (I'm not sure if you're advocating arming teachers or school personnel - principles, secretaries, janitors). I understand. A lot of people are arguing that and that's all that they're arguing.
I just don't think, which is what I started off saying, people are going to want to open up their schools to a lot of armed people.
I just don't think most people really want a lot of people with loaded weapons running around in their schools.
That's not the same as having one or two armed security guards or cops. That raises different issues.
Take for example the massacre at Lubys restaurant. There, the shooter drove his car through the window, got out and the methodically started pointing his guns at the customers and started firing. What stopped him? ultimately, when cops arrived on the scene and exchanged gun fire with him.
One guy got away by jumping throu a plate glass window and opening an venue of escape for others, and the shooter let a woman and her kid go. But most people were just fish in a barrel waiting for the shooter to point his gun their way and then end their life.
One of the victims, was a woman who lost both her parents. She actually had a gun in her car, but didn't bring it in because the laws had changed making it illegal. She said, she couldn't guarantee that she would have said her parents but it would have leveled the odds.
Without that gun she had to look on helplessly while the shooter shot her parents rightninfront of her. What if she had her gun. Wat if another customer had a gun. What if one of the workers had a gun? What if the guy behind the counter drew a gun and while the shooter turned to deal with him another customer drew their gun and pointed it at the shooter.
You can imagine any number of scenarios, but the one scenario that would guarantee maximum casualties would be the one that played out. And that was the one that played out according to the variables set by the shooter. He has the gun, he gets to say who lives or dies, and he points the gun at you. And you die. Then he moves to your kid and does the same.
"I just don't think, which is what I started off saying, people are going to want to open up their schools to a lot of armed people"
Of course they aren't going to want to. Because most still believe in the Unicorn of denial.
But, if we are serious, isn't the Israeli solution something to consider. It has worked there. Why should we deny such to our children?
I'm not saying I like it, just that it seems, so far, to be highly effective.
Phx wrote:
Well we're not gonna have 11 security guards at all schools. And Obama's school definitely has "special needs."
what special needs. Are kids who aren't Obama's not as worthy of having someone protect their lives?
You might argue that a school doesn't need 11 guards, but since when would that be suggestive that a school shouldn't have any? Principally, why does Obamas kids schools have any guards at all?
If you acknowledge the need there, then you've essentially ceded the point. The only way that your argument would be consistent would be if you argued that The School Ovama's kids attends shouldn't have guards either. If they do though, you recognize the value of having guards protecting kids, whether they are a celebrities or the presidents or otherwise.
Having a guard on hand offers more protection than not having a guard on hand. Which is why Obama is sending his kids to THAT school and not the one that has no security at all.
BTW that last article you quoted from IMO seems to support my position, that it may be easier to overrun the good guys who have guns than you assume. But if I'm drawing an incorrect theme from that let me know.
"What if she had her gun." Yes, what if she and others had their loaded weapons ready to go. Well, here's the thing. Nobody could really say beyond a doubt whether the carnage would been worse or better or not. You seem to think that the presumption should be it's always going to be better.
I don't think that's true. And how much better it will be is something I definitely want to hear more experts talk about, because like you I don't trust the assumptions that are being made.
I see you really want to argue about Obama's school having unfair protection or advantage, and that's not something I'm interested in.
I'm interested in the debate about what we should be doing in the aftermath of the CT shooting.
Shit, you don't trust the assumptions... but trust the experts.
Game over.
Well if we're not going to even listen to what the experts have to say then we are indeed fucked.
Phx wrote:
"What if she had her gun." Yes, what if she and others had their loaded weapons ready to go. Well, here's the thing. Nobody could really say beyond a doubt whether the carnage would been worse or better or not. You seem to think that the presumption should be it's always going to be better.
'
I don't make the assumption that it will ALWAYS be better. A person could have a gun and get shot before he ever drew his gun. What I'm saying is there is no option worse than having no defense whatsoever.
In the Lubys massacre there were many people who had yet to be shot. Suppose the cops never came on the scene or didn't come on the scene till a few minutes later. And all the shooter had to do was move down the line and kill person after person. What's stopping him from continuing to kill people? How is any option worse than letting a killer execute as many people as he is capable of?
Think of the movie Private Ryan when they land on the beach and are barraged with machine gun fire. The medic is trying to help people who are just getting chopped up by machine gun fire. And he Says "give us a fucking chance!" That's kind of like a school shooting with no security returning fire. The students are just there to be shot up by a shooter determined to blow their brains out.
You still haven't answered whether you think school personnel, teachers, administrators, support staff, part-time staff, should all have the right to carry loaded weapons in the school.
Do you agree with me that that's not really a solution? I think it's a bad idea for the reasons I went over. If you read them do you agree or why not?
Phx wrote:
I see you really want to argue about Obama's school having unfair protection or advantage, and that's not something I'm interested in.
I'm interested in the debate about what we should be doing in the aftermath of the CT shooting.
why do you suppose that Obamas school has an advantage? You are in fact acknowledging that they do have an advantage right?
Who is arguing UNFAIR? I'm arguing that there is a protection advantage in having security guards at a school. As evidenced by the fact that when the president sends his kids to a school he sends them to one that has that protection advantage.
If you acknowledge that point you can't then make the argument that having guards in schools won't offer that advantage or that such an advantage can't really be quantifies.
Or that its somehow crazy to suggest that putting a guard in a school would offer a protection advantage.
David Gregory argues against the NRA's position but he sends his kids to Te same school. So someone should turn around and ask him, do you David Gregory feel safer knowing that you have armed guards in the school you send your kids to? Isn't that WHY you are sending your kids to that school and not the local public school?
@phx said...
I don't we're going to arm the teachers. A few districts might do that (some already do) but most people won't to be persuaded by arguments that it would work.
Sounds like you have a personal problem. If teachers cannot be taught to handle guns, then they are not competent to herd children into rooms of death. We know they don't do well as human shields.
Homeschooling is the only other answer because cops arrive after the deaths have occurred - even at Columbine where there was supposed to have been a cop on duty (but he was not at his post when the killing began).
Of course, we could take a serious look at the medical drugs that exacerbate depression in our children. Twenty-five years ago, there were no mass school killings and kids were not fed SSRI drugs.
If teachers cannot be taught to handle guns, then they are not competent to herd children into rooms of death.
Oh, teachers can be taught to handle guns very easily. These are usually somewhat smart people.
Teaching them how to win a firefight without killing innocent people - that's another story.
why do you suppose that Obamas school has an advantage? You are in fact acknowledging that they do have an advantage right?
No. I don't care. That debate doesn't interest me at all.
I've been talking about something else here. Talk about whatever you want but I don't have anything to say about Obama's school. I'm not interested. It doesn't affect the debate at hand.
Phx wrote:
Oh, teachers can be taught to handle guns very easily. These are usually somewhat smart people.
Teaching them how to win a firefight without killing innocent people - that's another story.
but herding kids into a room and cowering there hoping that the shooter won't kill them, that will save an awful lot of lives.
Did you ever watch the movie Elephant? terrible movie by the way, but it has a scene that kind of shows the futility of this approach.
The movie is about a school shooting.and the shooters in the movie feel picked on, by one kid in particular. At the end of the movie the remaining shooter stalks the guy who bullied him who decides to hide in the freezer with his girlfriend.
There is no way out of a freezer. The killer opens the door, sees the kid he wanted to shoot for the longest and then decides to play eenie meanie miney moe pointing his gun first at one and then the other, deciding who to kill first. The camera cuts away before he kills them. And it is possible that just then a cop stumbled upon the scene and shot the shooter in the head.
But if not, those two kids are stuck in a room that they can't get out of with the killer deciding who to kill first.
That's kind of like the kids in this latest incident.
Just waiting to be killed.
Phx wrote:
why do you suppose that Obamas school has an advantage? You are in fact acknowledging that they do have an advantage right?
No. I don't care. That debate doesn't interest me at all.
I've been talking about something else here. Talk about whatever you want but I don't have anything to say about Obama's school. I'm not interested. It doesn't affect the debate at hand.
of course it does. Because you're arguing as if there would be no advantage in having armed security at a school., or that its ridiculous to suggest we should put a guard there.
Why do ou suppose Obamas school has an advantage? I'm not arguing the dollars and sense aspects of it. i'm saying, why is an advantage to have security guards in the school when it comes to a presidents kids? Or if it weren't the presidents kids, a celebrities kids.
Articulate for us the advantage you think having 11 security guards poses,when it comes to protecting a presidents kids. And then extrapolate that same principle to schools in general.
My plan is to make sure my kids wear seat belts, look both ways before they cross the street, and never take up smoking.
Don't get hung up on Obamas school having security guards.because. I think you're using the fact that I mentioned Obama to deflect this into a partisan issue (it is a partisan issue, but the partisan issue is the hypocrisy of the left calling for,gun control while having security guards and sending their kids to schools with armed security. But I digress)
Lets say instead, important person #1. Why is it considered an advantage, security wise to have those security guards there, but that somehow it wouldn't provide that same advantage were the security guards at another school without important person #1's kids.
For me but not for thee.
And how dare you suggest that the things that keep my kids safe should keep your kids safe too.
You're a monster to ever suggest such a thing.
My kids are worthy of protection. Your kids should die terrified huddled in a corner.
During the 1970's we had bomb scares and I have always viewed bombers as evil since.Trauma-maybe.Awareness for damn sure.
Back in 1991 when I was working as an armed security guard I had a discussion with the Head of Security for the bank involved in taking over a S&L from the RTC.The RTC employees had walked in to a bank to perform a seizure and found out that the only person in the bank not armed were the Feds.The policy of the bank was that if the bank robber only wanted money then give it to him(It's insured).The bank employees strangely enough thought that if they were threatened they weren't going to depend on the cops and FBI to keep them alive.
Back in 1991 when I was working as an armed security guard I had a discussion with the Head of Security for the bank involved in taking over a S&L from the RTC.The RTC employees had walked in to a bank to perform a seizure and found out that the only person in the bank not armed were the Feds.The policy of the bank was that if the bank robber only wanted money then give it to him(It's insured).The bank employees strangely enough thought that if they were threatened they weren't going to depend on the cops and FBI to keep them alive.
Surfed said...
One week at my inner city school.
I guess, like you, I'm also surprised. Armed certified police officers have been standard practice in Detroit Public Schools for years now. DPS has their own police department.
Detroit is pretty rough in the inner city. How different are other urban center schools?
My daughter is fourteen and has always done these drills. In fact, they've been on lockdown for a shooting that was several miles away. She has never been traumatized by them.
Aridog, there is a policemen with a drug dog at my daughters school at all times. It's an upscale school. I do wonder if the policemen is armed. At my oldest daughters high school in Texas there was always armed security, none in the elementary schools though.
Wouldn't the easiest solution be to get rid of gun free zones?
No special arming of everyone. No secret office armory. Just not gun free, making it like most places out in public. People who had permits to carry concealed could do it, but you'd never know who was carrying and who wasn't. No hubbub. Just make it regular.
Ah, nuclear drills in elementary school from the sixties. My classmates and I used to debate whether we'd be vaporized or crushed to death.
Children are far more resilient that society now allows them to be.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा