...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I think we need to consider the likelyhood that under these conditions, that more people could die because the shooter might consider using more advanced weapons than would generally be available, and use surprise and preparation to trump any opposition. As we prep to suppress any shooter, we are upping the ante for the shooter, and inadvertently motivating them for a greater negative effect. If the shooter figures that his risk is higher in this climate, he will consider that his act will likely be his last, so will attempt to increase the death count.
There are some maybes there, whereas it's certain that if the shooter is shot at, it'll distract him from shooting the innocents, and if he's hit, it's fair to assume that some lives were saved. I think that if he's there to kill as many until someone kills him, he's already working on upping the body count to the max.
It's just beyond me the mental gymnastics people who oppose guns go through to deny they might help in just about any situation, even where it's obvious they would likely reduce the mortality rate. I'm pretty sure where parents can afford it, like in private schools for the well-to-do, they probably don't have this debate and have armed security.
If the shooter is shot 'at' then who might end up being the victim of the rounds that are shot 'at' rather than hitting. I guess I would be interested in looking at the stats of how many bank robbers are shot/stopped by armed guards in banks, how often that guard is the first person shot, and the level or armament used in robbing banks that have armed guards compared to banks with no guards. We don't have armed guards in Canadian banks and I can't recall hearing of anyone ever being shot in a bank robbery.
Heather, normally I can rely on you to be one of the more logical people here, but when guns are discussed, logic seems to go out the window.
First, don't change the subject. We are talking about someone who has entered a school intending to kill as many children and teachers as possible before being shot himself. A bank robber is there to rob the bank, not to roll up a huge body count.
Why not start a thread about bank robberies.
This "friendly fire" argument is frequently brought up, and it seems to rest on the notion that you can't stop someone who's engaged in mass murder if even one party is shot by the party who came to stop it. The logic escapes me. If the point is that whoever intervenes must not have any innocent blood on his hand, even if he can save a great number of lives at the cost of one or two, I simply don't understand the logic. Help me.
The logic, to me, is more practical experience than logic. What do you think the odds are that the school guard is going to have a high level of firearm stress proficiency and be provided with ongoing training and support?
We have police forces in many cities that provide this sort of training to their top officers who are all prepared to respond quickly to a school shooting. We'll never place guards of equal caliber in every single school, library, swimming pool, and chuckie cheese across the nation <- and THAT is what would be required for a 'more guns' solution to have an impact.
I think we just need to start engaging suicidal kids with some empathy, rather than calling them 'queer emos', and get to the bottom of what is making some teenagers want to die so badly that they spin right out and try to take as many people with them as they can.
The original question didn't ask if it was practical to have an armed presence in schools, it was whether in the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter, might a couple of armed staffers have cut the death toll from 30 to 5, 10, 15, or 25?
I think clearly it might have. The answer is yes.
This shooting happened so quickly, over the course of 10 minutes, that unless the school had been situated across the street from the local constabulary, the arrival of the police turned out to have been irrelevant except that their arrival may have spurred him to turn the gun on himself.
Who needs police if 30 children and teachers can be killed before they get there? They become merely the cleanup crew.
Any inquiry into what spurs some "queer emos" to spin homicidally out of control would likely result in laws to control violent music lyrics, violence in visual entertainment, and to "get God back into the schools."
Well, if you are going to just casually ask a few teachers to bring guns to work with them, what might one ask for in line of training?
The odds of the teachers with guns keeping that fact to themselves is terribly unlikely, making them a prime first target. Will they even get their gun out of the holster? An cursory study of people without proper training suggests they either won't get the gun out of the holster, or will be firing wildly.
If I were to design a strategy to reduce the death toll, I would look to drill kids on the quickest way to evacuate a building, including quickly thinking out alternate routes. That would likely serve to save far more lives as such strategies apply as well to fires - where everyone seems to get trampled as most people will always try to exit by the same way they entered (bizarre instinct).
Giving kids greater flexibility over switching schools would likely greatly reduce anxiety in kids who aren't fitting-in. Giving teachers back at least some of their authority to punish the bullies would help a lot as well. I'm pretty sure that putting some teeth behind anti-electronic-stalking laws would also help.
I don't see it as 'clear' that having a few teachers carrying sidearms would help. I'm sure you'll just say I'm being illogical because I haven't arrived at the same conclusion as you. I can, however, see a number of options that I much prefer which I feel would be worth a shot, at least, before we put more guns into our schools.
@Heather, please spend a few hours (or days) reading the comments on the video you posted, that way I won't feel the need to repeat them all here.
Yeah, I read through those comments and what I see are a bunch of people who feel that the experiment doesn't apply to them because they are super heroes and the kids in the experiment obviously aren't super heroes. I've met hundreds of people who believe they are superheroes but I've only known 2 who took part in ongoing, intensive training - which sort of goes back to that 'well regulated militia' concept.
You must read fast there were over 25,000 comments.
It appears you may have missed an important theme within the majority of the comments, "the test was a setup" designed to produce the desired outcome. That's how it goes when one starts with a bias and no interest in gaining knowledge. I think ABC is learning how to compete with FOX.
BTW I too know people, I know people who have saved their own lives with guns. A young man attending one of the local colleges here in town, shoot and killed an armed intruder a few months back. He didn't have any intensive training just his wits and a willingness to protect his own life.
That must have made headlines - any links?
When you take a look at the number of Americans who own guns, and then start looking at the number of active memberships in gun clubs offering tactical training, it quickly becomes apparent that few people are interested in being part of a 'well regulated militia' and a LOT of people are interested in becoming a Rambo in their own mind.
I'm not anti-gun, by any means, but I do not see guns as a solution in a culture that has the wealth to wipe-out poverty while choosing, instead, to incarcerate a greater portion of their impoverished population than all other nations combined.
When it comes to regulating firearms, I feel that intensive, ongoing training would be the best regulation, rather than prohibiting some arbitrarily defined classification of guns.