...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
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.
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.
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.
The more I read your posts, the more I realize how out of touch withe everyday people you are. Gun shows will have a lot of ex-military and hunters, neither group feeling very friendly to people who kill innocent children..
It is unclear that you can offer any more insight into my personality, than I can into yours. I can only see you darkly through your prose. Your evaluation of me shows only a limited level of experience. I have 'everyday people', (what ever that means) in my life, as you, many I call friend.
If you are attempting to call me out, as if I am some devient on TA, you are badly mistaken. I have dear family and that I desire long lives and happiness for, but my concern for others does not end at the family VS others boundary.
Just another person looking for a gun, need not appear any different than anyone else. What they have in mind is invisiable. Again intent is at issue.
I doubt that the ex-military and hunters you mention, will have any more clue than the rest of us. I would hope that these ex-military and hunters could have a better idea who would offer some degree of risk to the population, out of practice or a learned skill, but it seems doubtful. If it were easy to spot 'intent' in another, we might all sleep more soundly, and interven sooner before any resulting ugliness need appear.
So far we seem condemned to blunt tools to control violence in society. The conversation on TA, is among many others between 'everyday people', concerning this.
RE: "Finding the shooter is no problem. Follow the gun shots!" - and every one you hear, as you make your way down the hall, say to yourself, "Dead ked! Dead kid! Dead kid!"