...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
"Even if a case could be made that this killer MIGHT have been brought down before he killed all those children, which is highly doubtful..."
What's doubtful about it. His spree was 10 minutes long. Even if an armed guard or teacher had found him after 5 minutes, he might have killed half as many kids. Where is YOUR logic that it's doubtful?
Dale, Dale, Dale....on matters of gun control we are definitely at odds. Your vision of the American gun owner being some sort of John Wayne macho type excreting way too much testosterone simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Ninety-nine percent of gun owners in America are responsible law abiding citizens who have no axe to grind. It is blatantly unfair to try to and make myself and others out to be something we are not. The weapon of choice is really irrelevant. People who become psychopathic killers will use whatever is available, gun or not.
I've thought about this for a while now and I think they should look at the air marshal program for guidance. Security that is hidden is harder to anticipate or neutralize.
As I mentioned elsewhere, they could be teachers or they could appear to be adult volunteers. They needn't be obvious cops but plain clothed instead.
Hmmm... I posted a response to this and cannot find it... so if I seem to be repeating myself that's why.
The logic behind concealed carry programs is precisely that not knowing who the armed people are is a deterrent. They do seem to have reduced (rather than increased) crime somewhat, contrary to the hysterical predictions of shootings occurring during disputes over parking lots or for someone writing a check in the express checkout.
We should take time to be thankful for the general status of civility of the people around us. With the level of knowledge and expertise, these shootings/acts of violence could be more common, and of greater ugliness. The majority of us never rise to the occasion of a monsterous act. Noticing that the shooters are often times young, I do wonder if there could be a growing frequency.
A friend of mine just sent me this to my email. While she did not write it, I think it's a great response to the recent shootings.
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
The news services aren't going to change the way they operate voluntarily. They have a duty to their owners to make money off the news and this is how they do it. Any law designed to control their reporting would not likely stand up in the courts. Even if this analysis is correct, it doesn't point to a solution.
Maybe the advertisers could inject themselves into the situation and insist that the news sources take a less inflammatory and exploitative tack, but why should they? It's their duty to make money for their owners as well!
Basically, this piece is just griping about human nature for the media is just giving the people what they know they want.
If you want to change things like this, change the public.
We need to come up with non-lethal but effective weapons.. I'm still waiting for the phaser to come out. Set it on stun and let every teacher carry one. Works on shooters and unruly students and if you accidently miss all you have is someone unconscious for awhile instead of dead.
Yeah, I'm waiting for the phaser.
This shooter was wearing body armor. I understand that getting hit by a large round even when wearing body armor can put some people on their ass, and if not that it can certainly distract them long enough for the good guy to attempt a head shot or a shot to the thigh (which can kill almost as quickly, believe it or not, if it punctures the femoral artery). A shot to the leg, if it doesn't kill, can greatly slow the shooter down, allowing more people to escape.
I... you mean like stun guns?
Any cop will tell you that stun guns (and pepper spray) fail to work quite frequently. They both also require one to get fairly close to a guy. If the guy is actively shooting...not thanks, I'm sure.