...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Your suggestion of a squad car at every school misses the point perfectly.
The point is to allow ordinary citizens, who have applied for and gotten concealed carry permits (so that the shooter cannot know whether anyone is armed or who they are) to carry on school grounds. If you don't do this, but do put cop cars on every campus eventually one of them will be called away for some emergency--and now the shooter knows that the school is utterly undefended.
actually i didnt. nice try. your using the analogy of the air marshal program.... but with average people...i was not, i was bringing up the fact that plenty of school districts already have uniformed and plain clothes officers at their schools.
i know plenty of concealed carry permit holders that should not be responsible for repelling this attack of gunmen waiting for squad cars (that are owned by the school district and do not get called off on random municipal emergencies) to drive off and provide this coordinated opportunity of some sort...
while your idea is noted and not invalid. it is not new, and leaves those that are not responsible for security elect to use deadly force as they see fit, between errands...i dont see how one "point" is totally off, but the other is "perfect". i find your idea just as utterly flawed. Both in conjunction might be a little more palatable to the informed individual. which is what i was trying to say....but did not spell it out for you to follow, my apologies.
Sorry but it did look to me like after Unseen and I were talking about a covertly armed presence you then started talking about a squad car at every school--which is the exact opposite of a covertly armed presence, and would have none of the advantages of such. And my point was that it does have some advantages over an overt presence.
If I misunderstood your intent I apologize.
It's common for criminals and terrorists to create a diversion (a false incident report, for example) to distract police. An few armed citizens on campus would appear to be a good backup defense.
So in your experience, what would you suggest as workable options?
This could a good moment build a decision tree, to lay out options and identify conflicts. If we had some probabilty data relating to options tried, that would be of help. There might be hidden combinations of options that can generate significantly reduced risk.
It's strange that a lot of people are of the mentality that adds up to "Make me more vulnerable; it'll make me (feel) safer." Like you said about the lack of gun show massacres, someone who wants to kill a lot of people before going out himself in a blaze of glory is looking for the most vulnerable people, be they 6 or 7 year olds or people in a dark movie theater.
A number of attacks have also occurred in locations where the assailant could not have assumed there would be no armed individuals in the vicinity. I think the more likely explanation is that the killers target areas that have some sort of significance to them, or they target areas where there are certain to be a large number of people gathered in a small area.
To cite two more notable examples, the Luby's massacre in 1991 had twenty-three victim fatalities (not including the perpetrator) and the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre in 1984 had 21 victim fatalities (again, not including the perpetrator).
In the case of shootings like Columbine or Virginia Tech, the perpetrators were connected to those institutions, so it is hard to say whether or not the lack of armed defence in those institutions was at all relevant when they were selected as targets.
I feel fairly sure that if there were a dozen armed students at Virginia Tech or a couple armed teachers or administrators at Columbine, at least a few students would have been saved.
I feel fairly certain that if there were a dozen students with rocks at Virginia Tech or a couple teachers or administrators with sling shots at Columbine, at least a few students would have been saved.
Luby's happened while Texas had laws against concealed carry. One woman, who had left her gun out in the car in accordance with the then-law, got to watch her parents get killed. The Luby's massacre provided a solid argument for the legalization of concealed carry in Texas, and it is now legal there with a permit (they also recognize many out of state permits).
California has only extremely limited concealed carry.
So all the assailant had to do in either case was check for badges and visible firearms; contrary to your assertion, these were not cases where the assailant could not be assured people were defenseless.
Your statement was, "...the mere fact that there could be someone [armed] there would deter many such attacks."
Both of these instances qualify under that 'could'. In the Luby's case, the perpetrator drove through the front window of the diner making it unlikely he took stock of whether or not there was anyone outside who could have access to a firearm kept in their vehicle. In the McDonald's case, the armed police themselves firing at the assailant were not much of a deterrent to call it quits.
And it's not as if these are the only cases. I cannot speculate on whether or not any of these exceptional individuals did or did not take into account the possibility of an armed defence, and neither can you.
Well, I suppose we can speculate, but I don't personally find it that meaningful.[/edit]
For the record, there have been no mass shootings at boat shows either. The list of types of places mass violence has not happened is extremely long. I'm not sure why you think gun control proponents would expect gun shows to explode in violence anymore than they would expect drunk driving or illegal street racing at a car show.
I expect that gun shows might feel, to a user of weapons, like home, where they would be accepted and even honored for their choice of weapon.
It is unclear, but I expect that some contexts might offer a shooter greater cognitive dissonance, and so greater anger and aggression.