...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8450

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Not to add yet another secondary reference but I like this site for discussions like this.

http://www.etymonline.com/

It's a shame for Henson they don't do Hebrew.

Just read an article on Huffington post where armored backpack sales have sky rocketed. You know there is seriously something wrong with the country when children need to carry armor in their backpack to school

Here is the article if you want to read it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/armored-backpack-sales_n_2...

If the school were adequately 'protected' (and what is the definition of adequate here?  What are we guarding against? Do we need a rent-a cop, an armed forces veteran, perhaps a serving special forces soldier or maybe even a small squad in case the first one gets shot?)

The seriously mentally disturbed man who did this would have gone somewhere else to do his killing; a different school without 'adequate' protection, a sports club, a shopping mall close to christmas, etc.  Do we put armed guards on everywhere?  Just because one deranged person in over 300 million has a some sort of episode should we live our lives in fear and mistrust?  No, because the huge majority of people do not go around shooting other people, and long should it remain so.

The alternative, with armed guards everywhere, keeping watch for possible threats, with government approval and pay, seems suspiciously similar to China and Stalin's USSR and might be called a police state...Okay, maybe a bit over dramatic but you get my drift.

Your suggestion seems to imply overt (uniformed and openly carrying) security, and I agree that would be insanely expensive.

How about simply allowing ordinary people who meet the state's requirements for a concealed handgun permit, do this work, as part of their ordinary every day business?  It may not perfectly prevent such rampages, but there's plenty of evidence that it somewhat discourages them and can lessen their severity when they do happen. (See my next top-level reply for a very recent example!)

Since the firearms are concealed, it's extremely difficult for the wanna-be-rampager to know whether there is security or not.  As it is right now, he knows that various places other than schools could have someone "packing heat" there, but that firearms at a school are strictly verboten (other than cops).  That is precisely why these shootings happen at schools and post offices, because they are gun-free zones, and the rampager knows it.  He just has to find a school with no cops at it. 

Well guess what, if we did what you seem to think we are suggesting (trying to put cops everywhere), the rampager could continue doing precisely that--look for a place where there are no cops.  That is why I for one am not suggesting this!  I am advocating allowing people who have a concealed handgun permit to carry in places (schools, post offices) where now it is forbidden.

I think "adequately protected" isn't a working standard, since it can only be applied retrospectively. What's wrong with a more workable one like "better protected"? This school was the softest of soft targets. Their "security" consisted of a show ID and sign-in system. He didn't bother to do either presumably, and certainly didn't need to. 

Would he have gone somewhere else? Perhaps. We're trying to save THESE people. What happens elsewhere is up the Plan B location.

But need he actually know that the school has an armed person on board. Perhaps advertising your security measures is a bad idea, since it just has the bad guy planning on the best way to neutralize or work around that defense. 

Any resemblance to China or the USSR is strictly on the surface due to the total difference in purpose, unless you think oppressing mass killers is some sort of civil rights issue. If so, the killers could complain to their congressmen.

One can look at how other people are guarded. Military camps, embassies, even police stations. How do we value our children? As well as our soldiers, our diplomats, our police themselves? Apparently to many, if you can't provide perfect security, and save every single child on every occasion, why bother?

And if the man had gone elsewhere to do his shoot-em-up, we have at least moved the problem away from the school and onto someone else's doorstep. Hopefully, they will have taken better precautions.

Regarding security everywhere. I think we should legitimately ask ourselves what that would look like. What does a socially conscious police state look like on the ground? When cops are everywhere, what are we thinking is going to happen? Judge Dredd? "Dramatic" to say the least.

I missed it. Who is touting the idea of "security everywhere"?

Well THIS is interesting in the light of the original question:  whether armed security [I have been advocating undercover, via concealed carry programs; I don't know if Unseen has this in mind] would have cut down the casualty count.

Remember that shooting in Oregon just a couple of weeks ago?  Where "only" a couple of people died?

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-...

A person with a concealed carry permit and exercising it, is the reason.  Who knows how many would have died without this.

Explain to me, again, why this is such a bad idea?

Because for every case where ONLY a couple die in a shootout interrupted by a civilian with a CCW, many more toddlers shoot themselves by accident. The problem is that there is a problem and rather than be proactive about it, the cure proposed by some is to be reactive and wait for the bullets to start flying. And when we reach that point, how do untrained people even grasp what the situation is? Am I shooting at a crazed gunman or another bloke like me who has drawn his weapon and is returning fire on a crazed gunman?

I have a CCW and about 70% of the people in my CCW class were probably not qualified to handle a firearm, let alone handle one in an active shooter situation. They all received their permits because it is so ridiculously easy to get one that a blind man could pass the test. Literally, a blind man could pass the test, including the shooting portion. So now I get to worry about crazies with semi-automatic weapons using high capacity magazines AND legally carrying dipshits that are untrained and very bad shots. And possibly the occasional blind man.

Unfortunately these situations depend on the circumstances and hard to tell how they will come out. The person carrying the CCW, depends on the training the person has received or the reaction of the person under live fire situations. Most people hear gun shots, run for their lives in whatever direction they can without ever thinking about whats going on next to them. People that are trained in live fire situations know that you must hit the ground, find cover, and locate the direction of the fire. Now if the person is not really trained and starts shooting from where he hears the sound of fire is coming from, mix in random civilians running around in chaos, you got a whole lot of blue on blue contact, and the situation might get worse. On the other hand you can have situation where the CCW user is highly trained and can actively take out the shooter with minimum collateral damage.

So these situations are very hard to say. Could go both ways, bad or good.

Yea I already mentioned that in one of my earlier posts. Unfortunately that was NYPD too that caused the 9 other people to be injured.

Like I said situation like that can go either way.

RSS

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service