Stop school shootings...

[Tom Servo]

The cry is to be protected, yet the demand is that it not LOOK like protection.

I've heard more and more the last few years that we have a right to safety. We're also seeing a paradigm shift in which people are saying responsibility to society is more important to rights. It's not just with the RKBA, either. There have been some very real attacks on free speech that might make anyone uncomfortable.

[44 AMP]

There are several fundamentally different philosophies in politics.

One of them is that the individual exists to serve the state. (duty to society)
You can find that in Mein Kampf, and other places.

One place you will NOT find it is the US Constitution.

[ricko]

There are approximately 400 such shootings starting in 1764.

That's right, 1764, while we were still English colonies.

The list ends with the Roseberg Or shooting last week.

It includes many shootings where no one was killed, and some where no one was hurt. Many of the shootings were done by FACULTY (or former) members.

It makes for some interesting reading.

It does indeed. One interesting aspect of it is that of those 400 events over a span of 250 years, over 15% have occurred since the beginning of 2014 (according to the same source). Like everyone else here I don't have a solution, but something is going on, and 'stuff happens' doesn't quite fit the bill.

[mkiker2089]

I'm just going to add my thoughts here.

1- how are these guys buying guns? The SC shooter was able to because the FBI failed to flag him, a computer error it seems. The Oregon shooter is said to have bought them legally but from whom? An FFL with a check or from family with no check?

I don't like gun control because common sense seems to go out the window. That said if they can find how this is slipping through the cracks they can perhaps nail it down.

2- I'm not sure teachers packing heat is the answer, but metal detectors might be. I don't think we need to go that far however. There has to be an answer in between. I usually disagree with most of what Bill Maher said but he had one thing right. The US is in a crisis because people are finally waking up to how much we are screwed over and that the dream of being successful is just that, a dream. If the economy improves and we can stop seeing nothing but bad news on the TV then people will feel less inclined to shoot up a school.

[rickyrick]

This kind of violence goes beyond criminal or heat of passion type crimes. This is total loss of humanity in a person. How can you battle it? No one knows I suspect.
Every time this happens I feel sick to my stomach. Just by the shear sickness of the event.

Then the politicians show up
On both sides. Some do feel that whatever they propose is the right thing to do.

The armed citizen will rarely, if ever, be at the right place at the right time. Police are rarely there on time.
The real issue is mental health, but to tackle that would put most everyone on a no gun list.
Effective security measures cost too much for schools to take on.

So we are all left with the same questions.

[44 AMP]

No system is ever going to be 100% perfect, some people will "slip through the cracks", but there are cracks, and then there are cracks.

And really, what is the point of trying to close those cracks, when the people that the system DOES CATCH today are not prosecuted??

When our own dear Vice President, when directly asked why there are so few prosecutions, said "We don't have time for that"...

Now, I grant you that, when he said it there was no fresh outcry over a mass shooting going on at that time, and so, I'm sure he felt other things were more important...

The Fed functions on a system of rules and procedures, but it takes top down direction on where to put the focus for effective operation. And when the top thinks they don't have time for prosecuting people who break federal law, not much gets done despite the system and the law.

Now that there is another public outcry building, AND with elections coming up next year, NOW they claim they are going to "fix" things.

I'll tell you this much, EVERY solution they propose will step on somebody's rights. Gun control steps on the rights of gun owners and prospective gun owners. "Mental health" data steps on everyone's medical privacy rights, or has the potential to.

Patrick Purdey, the Stockton schoolyard killer was getting disability checks from the government, because he was "mentally disabled" and unable to work. He went through the CA 14day waiting period and background check TWICE, buying two handguns. His disability was protected private medical information that BY LAW could not be given to the state, and so, he passed, and got guns "legally". (of course he did lie on the forms, but so what, we don't have time for that now, we probably didn't have time for it back then, either.....

Someone who has never committed an offense (or has never been caught) passes a background check. Everytime.

personally I wonder how a background check on someone who already owns a gun could be of any use as far as keeping guns out of the hands of the "unsuitable". Some one with a dozen guns at home isn't going to be deterred from evil by a "delay" or even a denial on a gun purchase. At most, they are going to be irritated.

And then there is always the course some of them take, steal them, or murder the gun owner and then steal them, and presto, no worries about a background check!

[zukiphile]

An undiagnosed or unreported mental health issue isn't a "crack in the system".

The problem is, that's counting on the general public to listen to what they don't necessarily want to hear. It's counting on the general public to use critical thinking.

People seem not to be wired that way. They want 30-second soundbites they can easily digest. They listen to whichever Twitterina can make the most "sense" to them in 140 characters or less.

The general public listens to emotional appeals and does a terrible job of checking sources. In that situation, if my 30-second soundbite is less compelling than the opposition's, guess who wins?

That's why we have to be very careful about what we say, and how we frame it.

If a sense of caution discourages an appeal to prudence and reason, then it isn't truly caution. A feckless anxiety that people who already oppose a right will belittle an argument can look more like a dithering countenance and lack of confidence than sober caution.

While the analytical capacity of lots of people seems like a sound basis for a bottomless anxiety about the future, the "general public" aren't a homogenous mass. Lots of progress can be made at the margins where people observe and are persuaded. In the wake of each one of these tragedies, a sort of reasoned argument is made by restriction advocates: a gun caused a harm, so a restriction on guns will restrict the harm. We are too familiar with the problems present in that reasoning, but it is a [poor] reasoning.

Broadly, three sorts of response are immediately available.

1. No response at all. This looks like an admission -- a reasonable person confronted by the opportunism of post tragedy calls for suspension or restriction of rights will voice his disagreement. If you are Jeb Bush and you are asked whether you support re-imposition of the AWB, no response is both a personal defeat and a concession on the issue.

2. Call for an intermediate restriction to relieve the political pressure for greater restriction. This may be some of the motivating force behind calls for more strict mental health controls.

3. An explanation as to why further controls are not warranted.

Is the aftermath of high profile murder the time for this sort of argument? Yes. It is the public focus on the issue that draws draws the opportunistic calls for restriction. Responding later when the issue has passed public notice isn't effective. For people not interested particularly in this area, the attention span is likely quite short and if your position isn't out quickly, it largely isn't out at all.

So, a "good guy with a gun" may be mocked by some. Chris Mintz took seven bullets trying to stop the Oregon killer while his firearm sat in his car. Isn't the Oregon incident an example of a "good guy without a gun"?

That succinct explanations of the problems with politically expedient non-remedies meet public opposition from opponents of the underlying right isn't evidence that they are poorly timed or tone deaf. The argument is going to happen after these events; neither you nor I have a choice in that.

[buck460XVR]

Sandy Hook had just installed a new system for buzzing in visitors. Look how well that worked.

Right after Sandy Hook, the town adjacent to my home town proudly announced that they were upgrading security at their grammar schools. What were they doing? Installing the same buzzer system that worked so well at Sandy Hook.

Just after Columbine, the local high school was in the planning process for a major addition and alteration project. I was asked to review the plans for building and fire code conformance. It wasn't a code issue, but what jumped off the pages at me was that ALL the new classrooms had glass sidelights next to the doors. (The old school wings did not.) I discussed it with the deputy chief of police, who agreed that it was a monumentally dumb idea. So I raised it as a potential issue, outside of the scope of my work.

The architect responded that the sidelights gave the classrooms "a sense of openess." The building committee accepted that, and they were built. I have attended adult ed classes in those new classrooms -- the sidelights don't provide anything at all, other than a way to make it easier for a shooter to gain access to the classrooms.

The new main entrance also has a buzzer system, just like Sandy Hook. It also has all-glass doors ... just like Sandy Hook.

You can't fix stupid.

If nothing else, we have gained knowledge from those tragedies. One of them is the use of bulletproof glass and the presence of someone behind bullet proof glass that can see who is wanting to enter, before they are buzzed in. Behind many glass main entry ways into school are solid metal fire-doors that many folks do not see. Many of them could not be closed before unless the fire alarm was activated. Now many can, or staff is told to hit the fire alarm also if there is an active shooter.

Part of the problem is also complacency. Folks fall into a false sense of security because they have a small form of protection or they just don't believe it will ever happen to them. Teachers don't lock classroom doors while class is in session because they get tired of going to the door to let Johnny in because he was late or had to go to the bathroom/office. Coaches block doors open to let students in after outside gym class, instead of holding the door open themselves until all the known students are inside. Locker rooms with access doors to the outside are left unlocked or unattended during outside practices. Believe me, most High School kids know every trick in the book and every door that is left unlocked. In our High School, the biggest problem is the kids themselves. They'll hold an auto-locking entry door open so another student can go to their car and get something or so they can get cell phone coverage, or they block it open for themselves. We had a lockdown last year because of a suspicious person on the grounds. It happened right at dismissal time(IMHO, one of the most vulnerable times). Because of fire and safety codes, doors can only be locked to prevent folks from getting in. Because school was over, several students pushed staff members out of the way, that were trying to prevent them from leaving, so they could leave. Hard for a 100# female teacher to tackle a 220# football player and hold them back. Hard for a male staff member to tackle a female student, without the risk of some form of accusation and sued by parents. Still how do you explain to their parents if they get shot when they walk out of the building? Another problem is, kids are in the building long after school hours and after the building becomes a community center and doors are open and unlocked to the general public.

This is a work in progress for most schools. Many schools have such tight budget constrictions right now, that they have to decide between essential staff or more security. God forbid they cut the Football budget. Besides the construction of more security, there is the cost and the time of training teachers and staff. On top of all other precautions, is the level of awareness folks have. You have to notice the kid trying to get in with an odd looking duffle bag and keep an eye on him till you are sure he is safe. You have to notice and take action when you see someone someplace they aren't supposed to be. As a adult teacher or staff member, you have to take some form of action to protect the students under your care. You don't stand there and watch them executed till you are executed yourself.

[FireForged]

You stop school shootings by protecting the school.. you protect the school using the usual tenets of protection. Arming the teachers is a poor plan simply because they cannot act, function and carry out duties as "teachers" and actually contribute meaningfully toward [proactive] security. Is it better than nothing? sure.. but thats not how you develop a protection protocol. The biggest problem with schools is that there is not real access control and people refuse to use structural features which might not look pleasing or inviting. Protection costs money and people are simply not invested in letting go of the dollar.

If you want to protect a school it will require technology, protection personnel, support personnel, policy/procedure changes, a robust communications system, equipment, training, vehicles and an operating budget.

[zukiphile]

If you want to protect a school it will require technology, protection personnel, support personnel, policy/procedure changes, a robust communications system, equipment, training, vehicles and an operating budget.

That doesn't sound much like a school to me.

Look at 44AMP's post number 32. Murder in schools is uncommon. Pouring money and people into making a school resemble a supermax prison doesn't really serve the primary mission of a school, education.

Allowing staff a modest defensive option seems much less disruptive and allows a school to retain an educational character.

[rickyrick]

The public will not trust an armed teacher.
The public believes that only highly trained professional officers or other governmental types can operate a gun effectively

[zukiphile]

The public will not trust an armed teacher.
The public believes that only highly trained professional officers or other governmental types can operate a gun effectively

Not long ago, most states made no provision for concealed carry and one commonly heard, sometimes from gun writers, that only the trained should be armed.

I would exercise caution in speaking for the public in such firm terms.

[FireForged]

That doesn't sound much like a school to me

one has nothing to do with the other.

Its the same tenets used to protect just about anything. Been to a rock concert lately? How about a sporting event?... do they look like a supermax prison? A prison is more a (care-control-custody) type of mission and that can be substantially different than "protection".

The question was- how to stop school shootings? You do that by mitigating the act and you do that through a good protection program.

[madmo44mag]

You can't protect yourself or others from "crazy or stupid"
The "crazy and/or stupid" will find a way to act out their plan.
Just my two cents worth.

[zukiphile]

one has nothing to do with the other.

Its the same tenets used to protect just about anything. Been to a rock concert lately? How about a sporting event?... do they look like a supermax prison? A prison is more a (care-control-custody) type of mission and that can be substantially different than "protection".

The question was- how to stop school shootings? You do that by mitigating the act and you do that through a good protection program.

Whether a security program alters a school setting in ways at odds with the purpose and character of a school pertains to whether a security measure is reasonable in light of the risk. Not every measure that prevents a school murder will be a reasonable response to the risk.

We could strip search students and staff every Monday and only release them on the weekends, but one might validly object that you had changed the character of the school without sufficient reason.

A school with locked classroom doors in which students are buzzed in each time they enter a classroom may be very secure but he price of that security may be the comfort and convenience of the students and teachers.

[buck460XVR]

Murder in schools is uncommon. Pouring money and people into making a school resemble a supermax prison doesn't really serve the primary mission of a school, education.

Allowing staff a modest defensive option seems much less disruptive and allows a school to retain an educational character.

The primary mission of a school is to provide an education within a safe and healthy environment. If it takes certain security measures because of the current climate we have in our country, it must be done to protect the children. During our two days of training this year, the LEO giving the training stated he felt very strongly that the U.S. needed to take the same stance as the Israelis do, arm and train teachers and staff. But this "modest defensive option" you speak of is not yet possible in most areas of our country, thus the use of the other options. Most modern schools already resemble prisons in appearance because they lack large exterior windows in classrooms. Making them as secure as prisons is not that hard and what is being demanded not only by parents and the public, but needed at this time, just to ensure the safety of our kids. Even if it ever comes down to teachers and staff having weapons, the other measures will still be in place.

[44 AMP]

We can discuss many things, although I would like to point out that "arming teachers" is the wrong term to use. ALLOWING teachers the choice is what we want, not forcing anyone to be armed.

The real world drawback to allowing teachers to be armed is the likelihood of those in power to demand extreme and excessive requirement be met, like they did with the idea of allowing pilots to be armed. Put enough hurdles in the way to stop Olympic track teams and then abandon the idea because it is "unworkable".

They did it before, they will try to do it again.

here's a thought, why not co-locate police and the schools? It would seem to me that moving a police substation onto school grounds would be an effective
deterrent to these spree killer attacks, and provide a constant presence of at least some officers for security. And its more socially acceptable than barbed wire, machinegun nests and flak towers (and cheaper).

Note that they choose schools where they know there is no one armed, that in the vast majority of these cases, the spree killers kill themselves as soon as the police show up.

It might even have the benefit of letting children learn who the police really are, and what they really do, rather than only knowing what they see on tv.

[apr1775]

On the issue of gun policy, I fully believe we (pro gun people) are on the right side of the issue, but gun policy does not address the root causes of rampage shootings. Our opponents claim that if we had very stringent gun laws like other countries these random mass shootings wouldn't happen; we counter with more guns in the hands of the good guys would discourage or stop them. These arguments only look at the immediate problem at hand, as if the violent acts are just a given, and do not look at underlying issues. Let's take a look at our opponents position of "too high of availability of guns" is the problem. I'd like to make the 1920's a case study. During this time lots of guns were available. There were not yet any federal gun control laws (1934 NFA, 1968 GCA); gun control laws were local. Mass production of firearms had been in place well over a half century. Many military surplus weapons were on the market from the First World War. At that time you could privately mail order machine guns and have them shipped to your house; weapons like a BAR (full auto 30-06 with 20 round magazines). In the 1920's, if you wanted a gun you could easily get one, including high power and high capacity. So where were the mass shootings? Sure, there were cases like the St Valentine's Day Massacre, that was one criminal gang targeting another criminal gang. Where was the random targeting of innocent people in mass shootings when guns were so available?

So what has changed between then and now that a person will become so imbalanced that they will shoot and kill a bunch of random innocent people?

Note: I am aware of black people being targeted in Jim Crow / KKK attacks during that period, but that was not random, it was driven by a specific ideology.

[9x18_Walther]

It would seem to me that moving a police substation onto school grounds would be an effective
deterrent to these spree killer attacks, and provide a constant presence of at least some officers for security.

Virginia Tech, like most big universities has a campus police department. It took them three minutes to respond to the Virginia Tech shooting. General proximity can only help to a degree.

[FireForged]

You can't protect yourself or others from "crazy or stupid"

sure you can.. to what degree depends on what effort you are willing to put toward that task. You can build a house of twigs and paper or you can build it of steel and brick. Can you eliminate all risk.. probably not but you can sure as heck make it hard for a badguy to carry out his plan.

[buck460XVR]

You can't protect yourself or others from "crazy or stupid"

sure you can.. to what degree depends on what effort you are willing to put toward that task. You can build a house of twigs and paper or you can build it of steel and brick. Can you eliminate all risk.. probably not but you can sure as heck make it hard for a badguy to carry out his plan.

We have been very fortunate, all of our school shootings have been a random rare occurrence carried out by basically untrained people with no legitimate motive other than to make a name for themselves or because they are the last virgin remaining at the school. Mostly only by a single active shooter. At some point we have to realize that our children can and may become a target of terrorism. These folks will have weapons/devices to breech locked doors. They will not just walk in and empty a mag in a few classrooms, but throw grenades into every classroom and office. They will be a well trained group of people, heavily armed and willing to die for their cause. Their attack will be well planned and practiced and their target observed for all of it's weaknesses.

[Pond, James Pond]

If you want to stop "school shootings" you have to understand the causes, so that you might target them and eliminate them. I do not understand them.

I think Tom Servo's early post rightly stated depression, sense of failure and rejection, disaffection, lack of self worth and a yearning for that morbid Warhol-esque moment of fame are all symptoms and possible drivers.

The use of guns and the choice of schools are also symptoms.

Whilst it may not reduce shootings, somehow breaking the connection between schools and the "glory" aspect the shooters seem to crave might at least make kids a less likely target.

Ultimately, school shootings make the news because they revolt us so. They are an attack on the very group in society that merits the greatest detachment from danger and harm: our children.

As one member pointed out (Tirod, I think) school shootings, as a cause of death, are relatively low on the scale of numbers.

It is on the scale of shock and outrage that they reign supreme.

Finding the answer will probably require digging deep and rewriting many aspects of modern society: this is something that goes against the contemporary desire for simple explanations and quick solutions and thus the bane of the "elected official".

Until people are willing to drop the slogans and simplistic proposals in preference for the actual issues, the problem will, IMHO, continue sadly.

[rickyrick]

It's not really glory the perpetrators seek.

It's more like "I blame society and society forced me to do this" it's a twisted way to project the offenders depression or mental state on the rest of the world

[Tom Servo]

It's more like "I blame society and society forced me to do this" it's a twisted way to project the offenders depression or mental state on the rest of the world

Honestly, all we can do is speculate. Most of these guys don't survive (or intend to survive) the incident. We're left poring through their manifestos, which may or may not be a reliable source of insight.

A couple have recently been arrested. Problem is, can they be trusted? They're already a mess, and they've constructed a belief system that doesn't necessarily encourage them to be cooperative with doctors or authorities.

Even if they were, one shooter's motives aren't the same as the next. What drove the Roanoke shooter will be different than what drove the Newton shooter. The Naval Yard and Fort Hood shootings appear similar on the surface but are inherently different.

The media lumps them all together under the category of "mass shooter," but we won't get far if we leave it so broadly categorized.

[Pond, James Pond]

It's not really glory the perpetrators seek.

It's more like "I blame society and society forced me to do this" it's a twisted way to project the offenders depression or mental state on the rest of the world

I'm not so sure.

The fact that so many choose to apply the same M.O. suggests to me a strong aspect of emulation of those that came before.

People often copy or re-enact because they want to gain a sense of association or belonging in relation to those they've chosen as inspiration.

However, I am sure that, if confronted with the facts, they will often find a perverted logic to deflect any responsibility.