...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I suppose one could bar entrance with a fortified entrance that had a metal detector a good 20 feet away from the bulletproof reception module (modeled after the one you'd likely find at the entrance of a branch of the Federal Reserve).
Kids in other rooms would be led out of the school or into safe(?) hiding places by their teachers. Only someone intervening with lethal force could deter an active with kids trapped in a classroom. It would be nice if time was bought to let anyone else in other vulnerable areas escape.
In the case of Sandy Hook, he simply shot his way in. Their "security" (showing ID and signing in) might have prevented most ne'erdowells, but not someone like this shooter who simply shot his way in until someone killed him. So, the sooner someone could kill him the better.
What's the cost of bullet-proof glass vs an armed guard onsite 40 hours per week?
You'd still need the guard because the attacker might choose another entry point.
Whatever the cost is, multiply by 125,000, that's how many schools there are in the U.S.
Of course some of those already have BP glass and armed guards.
It would be a lot cheaper just to replace all the "Gun Free Zone" signs with signs the say "Employees are Armed".
but to be unprepared to the point of "Let him shoot the kids without interference till the cops get there" is just insane.
Yes it IS insane yet that is exactly what we are seeing from most of the people here, in some form or another. noGod forbid a law-abiding citizen should keep and more importantly bear arms, either at home or in public--to serve as deterrent or possibly active defense against a thug.
I just read a comment by someone who maintained he was pro-gun, but then offered to ban semiauto rifles (which he called "assault weapons" whatever the hell that undefined term actually means), or at least their ammo... immediately after quoting a statistic that shows they are used in a small fraction of all murders using firearms. I saw someone else, when higher violent crime rates in other countries (Canada, UK) were pointed out, claim that if we had fewer murders because of fewer guns (as if guns cause murder), our frustrated would-be murderers would resort to violent crime, and our rate might go up to match theirs. Presumably an improvement, but the problem is this individual did not realize that the violent crime rates include murders... so converting our murders to (lesser) violent crimes would not affect our violent crime rate!
The ONLY way these people can make their case is to ignore the violent crime rate and focus on homicides using firearms, which of course will tend to be higher in a country with a lot of firearms. But there are plenty of places out there with higher murder rates and very strict gun control (albeit not in the so-called "first world"). It's dishonest as hell to fixate on firearms-related deaths to the exclusion of other violent crime, and ignore the proportions of these that were justifiable (self defense) or between gang-bangers who would just find other ways of killing each other. It's dishonest to ignore the fact that crime goes down when and where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry a firearm either concealed (preferable, when it's a minority practice) or openly. And it's dishonest to ignore the fact that these mass shootings only seem to occur where firearms are expressly prohibited. That right there is a strong indication that Unseen is at least somewhat correct. But just go ahead and ignore it because you hate guns, and your hatred is more important than facts.
In fact he doesn't go nearly far enough. I don't think the death toll would have been smaller if employees of school systems were allowed to be armed discreetly. Rather, I think the incident would not have happened at all. But federal law prohibits this practice even in states where it is legal everywhere else. As long as that federal law remains unchanged, we will see this happen again, and again, and again, because we have made schools into "soft targets." And the calls will be out to, basically, make the rest of the US a soft target for these maniacs. It's one thing to keep repeating what does not work, it's another to not only persist in it but insist on expanding its scope.
have seen rationalization after rationalization here on this thread. They don't hold water and they amount to "I don't like guns so I don't think you should have any and I don't want any around kids." And we've already seen how well that works, but no matter.
I thought we were rational people here.
A law abiding citizen with a firearm is not a problem. Period. It might make gun-phobic people squirm, or it might offend someone, but it's no real problem. And it simply does not matter what kind of firearm it is, there is no rational reason to restrict his or her access to it. All you are doing is punishing them for the actions of another. (Gee we all seem to understand that that is wrong when it shows up in the bible...)
Just insane, indeed.
The ONLY way these people can make their case is to ignore the violent crime rate and focus on homicides using firearms...
Not really. As I have already done in this thread, at least for the Canadian statistics, one can point to source of those the statistics and the definitions used to generate them. This will reveal that Canadian stats are dramatically overstated because they include categories of offences such as assaults in which there was little or no physical harm or sexual assaults in which there was minimal or no physical contact.
Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom have different definitions for crimes and different institutions and methods for gathering statistics, which makes such comparisons difficult and of questionable value, imo.
LOL Stop it Blaine, you're making me laugh.
I myself would prefer neither, that's why I carry a gun, but each to his own.
I'd recommend Logan Heights if you really want to find out what a good assault feels like (I can't guarantee it won't end up a homicide).
The most likely difference between outcomes between the UK and US is that in the US you won't be the victim of a violent crime you would have been victim of on the UK. The chances of you being murdered in the US (by any means not just gunfire) where you would not have been in the UK are far smaller.
Put it to you this way I'd feel safer in the US.
While an assault weapon ban wouldn't have kept the weapon used in this shooting away from the shooter because (a) it isn't really an assault weapon and (b) he got it from his mother, most gun crimes are actually done with guns that can't be banned: pistols and shotguns.
Now this, I believe, everyone here can agree on.