Schools, Shootings, Children and Adulthood

In reply to 759NRNG :

I had a good friend who said the same thing about Sandy Hook...  He's no longer my friend... 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

So be it, but I'm at peace with myself......good night 

In reply to 759NRNG :

Nah if that was the case the FBI wouldn't have come out looking so bad.

In reply to 759NRNG :

This is a prime example of trolling and does not add to the discussion. Exclaiming "in before the lock" and dropping a reference to conspiracy theorists is not contributing. Please refrain from doing this in the future.

Just want to take a minute to thank the mods for being patient and letting this discussion continue, even though it dances on the line of what is/isn't ok for this forum. Being able to read thoughtful commentary from so many intelligent people with different outlooks helps me to sort out my own thoughts on complicated topics, and I appreciate having the opportunity to do that here. Truly a unique place.

I had a conversation with a respected friend this weekend.  He is a teacher (one of the really good high school science teachers who truly inspires his kids) and a pretty serious gun guy (3 gun competitions and the like).  So I asked his opinion of allowing teachers to be armed, figuring that he'd be in favor of it.

Nope.  It's like trying to predict lightning he says.  Putting 750,000 firearms into schools, even with the best of intentions, will inevitably lead to accidents with a near impossibility of actually doing any good.

I still don't know what the right solution is, but those are the words of someone I strongly respect on the matter.

I can tell you from experience I had precious few teachers I would have wanted carrying in the classroom.   But this was way before all this mess.     

Grizz said:

In reply to docwyte :

Utah lets anyone who has a ccw carry in schools, including teachers. Seems to work out fine for them. And as far as I've seen nobody is saying make all the teachers carry, they're saying let the ones who want to.

Just because they can doesn't mean they are.  I bet very few teachers are carrying at work in Utah.

docwyte said:

Grizz said:

In reply to docwyte :

Utah lets anyone who has a ccw carry in schools, including teachers. Seems to work out fine for them. And as far as I've seen nobody is saying make all the teachers carry, they're saying let the ones who want to.

Just because they can doesn't mean they are.  I bet very few teachers are carrying at work in Utah.

I don't know about Utah, but in my state the bar is set very low in order to obtain a carry permit. The person is (somewhat) vetted, but their ability to handle a firearm is not. Allowing those people armed and into schools in any capacity? Crazy.

Last fall I saw a guy playing with his grandchildren (I hope) in the toddler portion of our local park (which is right next to the police station by the way). Kids were all around. Toddlers there, older kids in another section, and more kids (including mine) on the adjacent soccer fields. His handgun was barely secured hanging halfway out of he belt. I thought it might fall out onto the ground. He didn't seem to mind. 

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

  Putting 750,000 firearms into schools, even with the best of intentions, will inevitably lead to accidents with a near impossibility of actually doing any good.

I still don't know what the right solution is, but those are the words of someone I strongly respect on the matter.

That's probably very correct. This is just my opinion but I would love for there to be some way for teachers or somebody to be able to at least slow/distract an active shooter so they don't have just free reign to go room to room.  Doesn't have to be lethal, tasers or net guns or something. Bide some time or incapacitate. 

Nick Comstock said:

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

  Putting 750,000 firearms into schools, even with the best of intentions, will inevitably lead to accidents with a near impossibility of actually doing any good.

I still don't know what the right solution is, but those are the words of someone I strongly respect on the matter.

That's probably very correct. This is just my opinion but I would love for there to be some way for teachers or somebody to be able to at least slow/distract an active shooter so they don't have just free reign to go room to room.  Doesn't have to be lethal, tasers or net guns or something. Bide some time or incapacitate. 

I'll bet a series of remote activated security gates could be implemented much cheaper than firearms. 

Give teachers remotes that can compartmentalize hallways. 

Well designed and executed, such a system could slow a shooter, box him in, and force occupants to particular exit routes with no risk of excessive firearms introduced. 

(Yes, I know that's a crazy idea....)

Right now the NRA is the bogeyman and being attacked for the money spent on lobbying.

The NRA spent $5,122,000 in 2017

Beer, wine, and liquor lobbyists spent $30,547,023 of which the top spender was Anheuser-Busch InBev at $7,930,000.

I had to rely on opensecrets.org for the lobbying data.

From the CDC:

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,008

Firearm deaths including suicides
Number of deaths: 33,594

Alcohol stats:

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes
"Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years"

I'm not defending the NRA.  Wayne LaPierre is a sorry piece of crap and has not led the NRA in the direction I think it should go.  I am saying that they are an easy target but I'm sure that many who "hate" the evil NRA are not above having a drink or two.  Perhaps if we required the same background check for each alcohol purchase that is used for firearms, these needless deaths could be stopped.

Do the alcohol lobbyists lobby against drunk driving laws? If so, they're keeping it very quiet and apparently having roughly zero success with it.

SVreX said:

(Yes, I know that's a crazy idea....)

I wouldn't say it's a crazy idea, but it won't be cheap to implement. While schools generally have fire-rated doors to compartmentalize areas, adding an automated locking system (mag-locks, probably) wouldn't be cheap.  Would probably want to add more doors as well.  Not difficult, though... One potential catch would be determining the priority of the fire alarm vs. the lock-down system.  In the security systems I work with, Code requires mag-locks be de-energized under a fire alarm condition. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Nope.  And the NRA does not lobby against laws prohibiting using a firearm during the commission of a crime either.

Ian F said:

SVreX said:

(Yes, I know that's a crazy idea....)

I wouldn't say it's a crazy idea, but it won't be cheap to implement. While schools generally have fire-rated doors to compartmentalize areas, adding an automated locking system (mag-locks, probably) wouldn't be cheap.  Would probably want to add more doors as well.  Not difficult, though... One potential catch would be determining the priority of the fire alarm vs. the lock-down system.  In the security systems I work with, Code requires mag-locks be de-energized under a fire alarm condition. 

Firearms wouldn't be cheap either. 

A gated lock-down system would have a larger initial outlay, but would be cheaper very rapidly. 

The cost of the firearms, training, appropriate background checks, ongoing training, related administrative monitoring, insurance, liability, maintenance of firearms, upgrades as necessary, etc would quickly surpass the gates. 

Not to mention, the first time there was an incident, we would be shutting down the system we had just implemented nationwide  

Gates would be cheaper, and very likely much more effective. 

Life safety is always a balancing act to defend against the greatest risks. 

SVreX said:

Ian F said:

SVreX said:

(Yes, I know that's a crazy idea....)

I wouldn't say it's a crazy idea, but it won't be cheap to implement. While schools generally have fire-rated doors to compartmentalize areas, adding an automated locking system (mag-locks, probably) wouldn't be cheap.  Would probably want to add more doors as well.  Not difficult, though... One potential catch would be determining the priority of the fire alarm vs. the lock-down system.  In the security systems I work with, Code requires mag-locks be de-energized under a fire alarm condition. 

Firearms wouldn't be cheap either. 

A gated lock-down system would have a larger initial outlay, but would be cheaper very rapidly. 

The cost of the firearms, training, appropriate background checks, ongoing training, related administrative monitoring, insurance, liability etc would quickly surpass the gates. 

Not to mention, the first time there was an incident, we would be shutting down the system we had just implemented nationwide  

Gates would be cheaper, and very likely much more effective. 

Life safety is always a balancing act to defend against the greatest risks. 

That idea is already implemented, to an extent, on a non-automated basis by the staff and teachers themselves, and it's drilled into them in lockdown/active shooter drills (something that it is very depressing to think that schoolchildren have to go through now- though I remember 'duck and cover' drills when I was very young, which when you think about it was much worse scale-wise...). Talking with a teacher's aide friend of ours recently she was telling us about how in the most recent of the drills they had a girl (this was at an middle school) get missed in a bathroom when they started an active shooter drill and who had been locked out of her classroom- and the teachers had instructions under absolutely no circumstances to open the classroom doors until the all-clear was sounded. So this girl was pounding on her classroom door to be let in, bawling her eyes out, while her teacher inside (who was also crying) could only try and tell her to go and find one of the policemen checking the doors- because in a real situation if she unlocked the door to let the girl in she would risk endangering all of the other kids in her classroom.

In reply to SVreX :

Absolutely cheaper than attempting to place firearms in schools. Substantially less liability risk as well. 

A possible balance would be a series of one-way doors with magnetic door releases (same as a fire door). An advantage here is adding them would essentially be a modification of the existing life safety system that likely exists in most schools. 

In reply to Ashyukun (Robert) :

Damn, that sucks... although I would be surprised if they haven't added a procedure to account for that situation, "go back to the girl's room and hide in a stall" or something.  As bad as it was, that is also why they have those drills - to find the weak parts.

In reply to Ian F :

I think my point was not to suggest gates would be a good idea (though they might). 

My point was that firearms are not the only solution, and may be a terrible option. 

mapper said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Nope.  And the NRA does not lobby against laws prohibiting using a firearm during the commission of a crime either.

They do run a lot of fear based campaigns and now promote the idea of putting guns in schools. Those two actions tick off boxes in my Bogeyman checklist.

SVreX said:

In reply to Ian F :

Reminding that this Cruz shiny happy person pulled the fire alarm to fill the hallways first. Had he not he probably would have to have shot through locked doors.

I'm a little disappointed, although sadly not surprised, that a thread started to discuss the maturity level and rate of young adults (de)evolved into a discussion about guns.  

Mass shootings are the symptoms of a larger issue.  Existence of firearms facilitates mass shootings, but does not explain _why_ they occur in the first place.  People do not shoot people because of firearms.  

volvoclearinghouse said:

I'm a little disappointed, although sadly not surprised, that a thread started to discuss the maturity level and rate of young adults (de)evolved into a discussion about guns.  

Mass shootings are the symptoms of a larger issue.  Existence of firearms facilitates mass shootings, but does not explain _why_ they occur in the first place.  People do not shoot people because of firearms.  

I guess because most of the mass shootings haven't been perpetrated by teenagers. 

Edit: Not just school shootings, but all mass shootings.

Edit2: And to your original point... Yes, I think our society has changed a bit. My 17 year old turns 18 this year. If he comes home one day with a gun he better have some other place to live as well. He hasn't given us any trouble and is responsible, but there is too much downside and in my view zero upside.

In reply to wjones :

I agree.  The fear campaigns are past being irritating.  Ditto on armed teachers.  I'd rather see more physical security and more security officers (who aren't cowards).  FYI, I have run towards the gunfire before so I feel qualified to call them cowards.