Real Common Sense On School Shootings
Here are some measures that are actually common sense regarding school shootings.
Comments
-
Now, there is some real common sense.
-
I would reinstitute the draft (with conscientious objector privileges) and make policing public schools part of the military. The draft would insure randomness and indifference in those doing the policing. And the draftees would be primarily single without too much to lose. Old retired cops and soldiers have way too much to lose by getting shot up.
-
The FBI failed. The Broward County Sheriff Department failed. The local school district failed. And people think the answer is MORE GOVERNMENT?
-
@GaoLu said:
The FBI failed. The Broward County Sheriff Department failed. The local school district failed. And people think the answer is MORE GOVERNMENT?All of these have too much to do already. And the older they get, too much to lose by getting shot up.
-
In my view, some of the author's naively-labeled "simple" steps (if an action costs money or requires government action or community buy-in, it can be a lot of things, but "simple" is not one of them) would probably make a difference (e.g. metal detectors and reinforced windows and doors).
The glaring weakness of his proposals, however, is that they come across as analogous to advice to spouse abuse victims on how to find better hiding places. Well meaning, no doubt, but woefully unresponsive to the core of the abuse.
The "problem" in mass shootings at schools, concerts, churches, et al, by definition, is the weapons used. Notice: The issue is MASS shootings. What makes a shooting a "mass" shooting is NOT the fact that people are killed - so this IS NOT an issue of taking ALL guns away - but rather the number of people who are killed. The problem with "mass" shootings is primarily the weapons that allow so many people to be killed.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The "problem" in mass shootings at schools, concerts, churches, et al, by definition, is the weapons used.,,, The problem with "mass" shootings is primarily the weapons that allow so many people to be killed.
How well said! You should get a pat on the back. You really it got it right this time! The weapon is the person who does the shooting.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The problem with "mass" shootings is primarily the weapons that allow so many people to be killed.
This is the kernel of truth the NRA and its members refused to internalize. What convenient blindness! CM
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
The "problem" in mass shootings at schools, concerts, churches, et al, by definition, is the weapons used.,,, The problem with "mass" shootings is primarily the weapons that allow so many people to be killed.
How well said! You should get a pat on the back. You really it got it right this time! The weapon is the person who does the shooting.
Come on, GaoLu,
You're far too intelligent for this! Your statement makes no more sense than to say, scrapers, suction tubes, scalpels, scissors, rubber gloves, masks, clamps, forceps, chemicals, hanger-wire, and "Morning-after Pills" don't do abortions. CM -
@Bill_Coley said:
The "problem" in mass shootings at schools, concerts, churches, et al, by definition, is the weapons used.Could you let me in on the secret as to why there are these shootings happening in schools, concerts, churches, etc .... and why not in public places that are patrolled by armed guards or in places where a shooter would have to count on armed resistance?
Seems to me more that the problem is that these places are "known unarmed" places where a shooter has free range for who knows how long ...I have never heard of robbers purposely robbing a house where they knew the people were present inside .... always chose houses where the people are absent ... why? because of the type of tools they use which work better on a window of an empty house?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Could you let me in on the secret as to why there are these shootings happening in schools, concerts, churches, etc .... and why not in public places that are patrolled by armed guards or in places where a shooter would have to count on armed resistance?I am wary of presuming to understand the minds of people who perpetrate such horrific crimes, but in response to your question, I offer a couple of thoughts:
1. The first mass shooting that comes to mind is the Dallas shooting of July 2016, in which a gunman targeted police officers in the streets of downtown Dallas, Texas. He killed five and injured nine others. A very public shooting of the "armed guards" you raise in your question.
2. Perpetrators of mass shootings look for concentrations of people in contained, confined spaces, often with a reason to target the specific concentration of people they chose. Even so, those events are STILL public events (recall the October 2017 shooting at the outdoor concert in Las Vegas that killed 59 and wounded nearly 500).
3. In short, it seems to me that mass shooting perpetrators look for concentrations of people - often, specific concentrations of people, as in last week's Florida school shooting by a former student of the school - not so much unguarded areas.I have never heard of robbers purposely robbing a house where they knew the people were present inside .... always chose houses where the people are absent ... why? because of the type of tools they use which work better on a window of an empty house?
"Robbers," by definition of the term, use force or coercion directly upon their victims to complete their thefts. Burglars also steal, but not in the presence of their victims. I'm guessing that you meant to refer to burglars as those who don't purposely steal from homes in which people are present... and I agree with you about burglars.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
Could you let me in on the secret as to why there are these shootings happening in schools, concerts, churches, etc .... and why not in public places that are patrolled by armed guards or in places where a shooter would have to count on armed resistance?I am wary of presuming to understand the minds of people who perpetrate such horrific crimes, but in response to your question, I offer a couple of thoughts:
1. The first mass shooting that comes to mind is the Dallas shooting of July 2016, in which a gunman targeted police officers in the streets of downtown Dallas, Texas. He killed five and injured nine others. A very public shooting of the "armed guards" you raise in your question.Wasn't that a sniping situation? That's a bit different don't you think?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Wasn't that a sniping situation? That's a bit different don't you think?
I don't think the kind of shooting the Dallas event was matters to the request Wolfgang made. He asked why shootings don't happen in places that are "patrolled by armed guards." The Dallas shooting proved that mass shooters will shoot from anywhere - including spots chosen to mask their precise location.
Among the weapons used by the Dallas shooter was a Saiga AK-74, a semi-automatic assault-style rifle.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I don't think the kind of shooting the Dallas event was matters to the request Wolfgang made.If you can't distinguish between certain types of shooting, further exchange is waste of time and so is any discussion about NRA; no NRA, etc .....
If you can't distinguish between a sniper terrorist attack and a mad student school shooting, I have to question your ability of judgement in such matters. -
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I don't think the kind of shooting the Dallas event was matters to the request Wolfgang made.If you can't distinguish between certain types of shooting, further exchange is waste of time and so is any discussion about NRA; no NRA, etc .....
If you can't distinguish between a sniper terrorist attack and a mad student school shooting, I have to question your ability of judgement in such matters.I'm sorry that you have to question my "ability of judgment in such matters," Wolfgang. Such... eh... judgments do short circuit constructive, respectful forum exchanges. At least one has done so in our exchange.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Wasn't that a sniping situation? That's a bit different don't you think?
I don't think the kind of shooting the Dallas event was matters to the request Wolfgang made. He asked why shootings don't happen in places that are "patrolled by armed guards." The Dallas shooting proved that mass shooters will shoot from anywhere - including spots chosen to mask their precise location.
Among the weapons used by the Dallas shooter was a Saiga AK-74, a semi-automatic assault-style rifle.
The reason it matters is because a sniping situation is not the same thing as shooting in the open within a armed area. You are concealed and hidden. It is a totally different scenario.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The reason it matters is because a sniping situation is not the same thing as shooting in the open within a armed area. You are concealed and hidden. It is a totally different scenario.In addition, all your more severe gun laws will not hinder a sniper to get his special weapon !
Nor will such a terrorist be influenced by anything except being shot or arrested.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The reason it matters is because a sniping situation is not the same thing as shooting in the open within a armed area. You are concealed and hidden. It is a totally different scenario.Point taken, David. Sniping incidents are structurally different, which means I erred when I raised the Dallas shooting to my point in a previous post.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)