Quote:
Originally Posted by FITASC
These are still only band-aids and not the solutions to the disease.
|
We won’t get rid of crazy. We already have laws for involuntary admittance to psych care but rarely used. So I don’t see much probable opportunity on prevention by controlling the future killer. The main opportunity for prevention seems to be limiting access and hardening infrastructure. The first step in mitigation of the risk of a shooter is having as many armed adults as want to be (which is very low cost if kept to individual choice not mandatory). I don’t think it will ever be feasible to have enough armed paid officer to make much difference, just too costly across all schools.
Shooters attack schools partly because they are gun free and even the armed SRO is a known joke. And the schools have very little security infrastructure. Most corporate campuses have card key access, some even have turnstiles to prevent tailgating through doors. Live monitored cctv, radio equipped unarmed security (comms is their main duty). Most of the later shootings have been former students or others that are not currently enrolled. First line of prevention has got to be to keep out the 300 million that DON’T belong. Then you work on infrastructure to prevent or mitigate if one of the 3,000 goes haywire: gun sensors, auto locking doors and alarms, hardening rooms/corners, live cctv, etc. Not rocket science, thousands of companies did most of these things decades ago. The school did have identified “monitors” but appear not to have been trained as responders, if even just to sound the alert, direct students, have universal keys, etc. training, training, training.
Perhaps there could be a case made for smaller schools. With 3,000 students there is a degree of anonymity and just a lot of campus to protect. A 500 student school may be much less likely to be targeted and much easier to control/monitor outsiders. May seem expensive but compared to securing a huge campus maybe the overall cost is not so bad.