Nineteen children under the age of 10 killed in TX school shooting

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm not talking about armed SRO.   I'm talking about armed teachers.   And pay them more for chrissakes!!   Lord knows they do enough.  

Watch this video.  If you don't have the full 7 mins, feel free to watch til 1:20 and then skip to 3:02.  Or even just start at 3:02.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVZ1c9O2L6Y

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Inside the safest schools in America NBC News

https://youtu.be/kcpsnrxHdCc

After further thought, the problem is not the cost.  It is claiming that this school is in fact safer than other schools.  It is not.  Not one bit.  In many ways this is more security theater than actual security. 

Admittedly it has a more robust system at preventing SECONDARY KILL ZONES than most other schools.  But it has the exact same risk of having a MASS SHOOTING as every other school in America.

Every aspect of this system is designed around a single concept: once the shooting starts, limit the shooters freedom of movement and limit him to a single location.   Once the first shot is fired, he is denied freedom of movement in the hallways and classroom doors are locked.  The only students who are at serious risk of being shot are the ones in the immediate vicinity of the first shot.  And it is an outstanding system for doing that.  It would require outstanding planning and strong combat skills on behalf of the killer to achieve  multiple kill zones in this school.  The upper limit of those killed and injured in an attack on this school would be 25-30.

But here is the rub:  Most schools have achieved the same single kill zone harm reduction mitigation through much simpler methods, replacing non-locking wooden doors with locking metal ones and eliminating interconnecting classrooms.  It is still possible for there to be two kill zones if the shooter spends less than a minute in the first kill zone.  And as some schools have decided that the educational value of team teaching outweighs the security risks and have some interconnecting classrooms with the single kill zone being 50-60 people instead of 25-30.  But almost every school has had protocols in place for 20 years that effectively limit the shooter to a single kill zone.  Admittedly some of them might not be as hard to defeat by a well prepared and organized killer as the system in this school.  But multiple kill zones during school shooting hasn't really been a problem for 20 years.  And limiting the casualty count to under 30 is never considered a win.

I am not interested in spending time, money or other resources on creating more robust and complex systems of limiting shooter to single kill zones and limiting the victim count to 30 or less, which is all this system does.

The single kill zone harm reductions systems were a logical response and useful FIRST step.  But we achieved everything we can achieve with that system by locking the door and barricading the door with classroom furniture. 

It is now time to take the second step and implement changes that will prevent the first death.  And that can't be done by more advanced security systems or arming teacher.  Preventing the first death requires keep guns out of the hands of would be shooters. 

[Dave Gray]

It's fine if you want to put a bunch of money into making schools physically more impenetrable.  It will probably be most effective in reducing the likelihood of shootings THERE, but will just move them to other soft targets.

However, at this stage, I'm not about to turn down someone trying to do something positive to limit the carnage, as I don't want them to try to stop what I want, either.

However, it definitely will not solve the underlying issue, which is that a crazy person with a gun is going to go someone and try to murder as many people as possible.  So, making impenetrable schools will do something to that school on that day, but there are water parks, concerts, sporting events, grocery stores, malls, parades, festivals, graduations, etc -- you can't have security and metal detectors everywhere, all the time.

It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make schools safe -- fine.  But that's one part of a larger host of issues.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It's fine if you want to put a bunch of money into making schools physically more impenetrable. 

If you want to make schools impenetrable then fine.  Nothing in that video does that. 

Making an elementary school impenetrable:. One way in.  Multiple armed guards at entrance.  Needs to be multiple because any one halfway competitant can pop off a single guard if he has the  element of surprise.  Maybe one in the open and two observing behind cover.  Being we haven't had a problem with parents or others that would have a legitimate reason for being at the school using access to commit murder this should be sufficient if we just keep strangers out.

High school different story.  Here most of the shooters are students with a legitimate reason to be in the school.  So in addition to guards we need TSA style security.  To prevent a handgun in a backpack or an ak in a violin case. Similar to what you see at a courthouse.  Problem will number of people going thru the system in a very small time window.  So you will need lots of equipment and personal.  Keep in mind courthouse employees, law enforcement etc don't go thru courthouse security just the visitors.

Of course this all dependant on the officers being willing to engage the shooter.  There are two types of LEO that sign up for school duty.  One type would be someone highly motivated to protect children the other choose school duty because it is safer and easier than patrol duty, cops who are motivated not to protect kids but to come home to their own kids.  Which ones were in Tx  or Parkland? 

If we are going to turn out schools into prisons let's at least focus on preventing the first kill zone, rather than focus on limiting the carnage to a single kill zone.

[Phishfan]

Five mass killings without guns over the span of 35 years.  Of those five at least two of which resulted in changes in federal law.  We have more than 5 mass killing with guns every 35 days.  More people die from guns in the USA every month than died on 9.11.

I am not proposing banning all guns.  Nor would what I am proposing eliminate all mass shootings.  But would eliminate most of them.

1. Eliminate the Dickey amendment.  It is easier to solve a problem if you can research it and collect data.  If you support the Dickey amendment what do you fear we will learn? 

2. Require all gun owners to be licensed.  Require all guns to be registered.  Require all gun transfers to recorded.  End the gun show loopholes.   Yes, you can still sell a gun to a friend (you don't need to go to thru a dealer) just as you can sell a car to a friend.  But you need to file paperwork.

3. The following are not allowed to own or possess a gun:  any conviction of a violent felony, any conviction of domestic violence, any conviction of violating gun laws, any conviction of animal abuse, any adjudication of not guilty by reason of insanity, any felony drug conviction,  any crime involving a gun, any person who went thru a diversion program to avoid a DV or violent crime conviction and anyone who has an current restraining order.  Close ALL the loop holes to domestic violence prohibition with no exceptions.  It is perfectly constitutional to regulate behavior.  We don't let felons vote, we certainly don't need to let violent felons have concealed carry.

4. Raise the purchase age to 21. Person's under 21 may only possess a gun while actively under supervision during target practice or while hunting.  We don't allow people under 21 access to alcohol or tobacco we can do the same with guns.  As for the oh...but...but..but...but...w e let people join the military under 21....but they can't own a gun.....  An exception can be carved out for anyone who has completed IET and successfully completed their branch's firearms training.  Processing the authorizing of underage firearm permits will be administrated by the SecDef who can delegate such to individual services.  Please note almost every school shooting is done by boys under the age of 21. 
 
5. Require all stored guns to be stored unloaded and secured.  Attach class E felony liability for failure to do so (and see point 3) 

6. If an owner of negligently stores a firearm or gives the firearm to someone who is not allowed to possess a firearm (not licensed, minor, etc) and the firearm is subsequently used in a crime the owner is criminally and civilly liable to the same level as aiding and abetting. 

7. Make gun theft reporting mandatory.  Failure to do so in a timely manner is a felony. 

8.  Make possession of a ghost gun a felony.  You can make a homemade gun if you want.  But you must registered it and engrave it with a serial number.  Possession of an unregistered gun is a felony in its own right and can be introduced as evidence of intention to commit other crimes. 

9. Repeal PLCAA.  Treat guns like every other consumer product.  The gun industry is the ONLY industry with such protection. 

I see the reasoning behind point 5 but it is bullshit for those of us gun owners who don't have children or allow children into our homes. It's useless for home protection if unloaded and locked away.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I see the reasoning behind point 5 but it is bullshit for those of us gun owners who don't have children or allow children into our homes. It's useless for home protection if unloaded and locked away.

I can compromise.  You may keep a loaded gun within arms reach.  So on the nightstand while sleeping, next to you in the living room.etc. You can not have an unsecured gun in a different room or unoccupied car.  Based on why you want a gun, I would assume you see a value in keeping it within arms reach. A gun that you have physical control over is not a stored gun and doesn't need to be unloaded.

[Phishfan]

I can compromise.  You may keep a loaded gun within arms reach.  So on the nightstand while sleeping, next to you in the living room.etc. You can not have an unsecured gun in a different room or unoccupied car.  Based on why you want a gun, I would assume you see a value in keeping it within arms reach. A gun that you have physical control over is not a stored gun and doesn't need to be unloaded.

I think that's a reasonable compromise and can see storage differently when not at home. I don't know about your different room stipulation. Too fine a line if I need to take a piss, get a glass of water, etc.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think that's a reasonable compromise and can see storage differently when not at home. I don't know about your different room stipulation. Too fine a line if I need to take a piss, get a glass of water, etc.

You want it for home security, right?.  What use is having a loaded glock on the bedroom nightstand if the home invasion begins when you are in the kitchen?  Isn't that just as problematic as the gun being locked? If you are worried enough to want to have a loaded gun I would think you would want to always have access.  But I think we can still find some sort of middle ground.  My concern is your gun being stolen and then used that is less likely if you have control over it.  Less flexibility if minors in house.

[ArtieChokePhin]

After further thought, the problem is not the cost.  It is claiming that this school is in fact safer than other schools.  It is not.  Not one bit.  In many ways this is more security theater than actual security. 

So you're conceding that the school isn't safe.   It's doors were not secure.  The police refused to act.   And the FBI knew about this guy.

But people like you get on your soapbox and say that the problem will be solved by taking away the right to own firearms from everyone

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So you're conceding that the school isn't safe.   It's doors were not secure.  The police refused to act.   And the FBI knew about this guy.

But people like you get on your soapbox and say that the problem will be solved by taking away the right to own firearms from everyone

Huh?  I am not sure your point on most of that.  But I did not say the problem would be solved by taking away everyones right to a firearm.  Why would I be discussing the difference between storing a gun and having it under active physical control if the plan was to take away everyones gun.

 There very tiny subset of people whose conduct and poor life choices would result in loss of gun ownership rights.  Did you not see that list? Or did you read that list and realize your own poor life choices placed you in the tiny fraction of society that should not own firearms?

[Dave Gray]

So you're conceding that the school isn't safe.   It's doors were not secure.  The police refused to act.   And the FBI knew about this guy.

But people like you get on your soapbox and say that the problem will be solved by taking away the right to own firearms from everyone

Well, I mean, that would absolutely solve the problem but could create other problems.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

ArtieChokePhin -

You haven’t answered my question.  My proposal would not take firearms from everyone just a small set of people who have engaged in violent behavior and made poor life choices.  Isn’t it true that your opposition to disarming violent persons is rooted in your own history of violence and that you would be a member of that very small set of people who would be denied access to firearms?  You claim that the breakdown of society stems from a lack of accountability, but that only applies to others, isn’t that right?  You don't feel remorse for your own violent actions or the harm it has caused others but you resent any personal consequences you have had for that behavior, right?  My proposal would interfere with your free reign to bully and hurt others but would not affect the gun rights of your victims and you are scared by that, right?

[CF DolFan]

Not trying to defend but I recently got an inside scoop of something that might have affected the outcome here.

In the fight for "defunding" police many departments quit training for these type of events. Many places now focus more on how to keep police from getting into public trouble and less resources /training/equipment against attacks like this. The person that brought this to my attention was part of the Pulse response. They also stated they are less prepared today for this type of event than they were 5 years ago for this very reason.

Obviously I can't say for sure but it makes sense when split second decisions under duress matter.

[ArtieChokePhin]

ArtieChokePhin -

You haven’t answered my question.  My proposal would not take firearms from everyone just a small set of people who have engaged in violent behavior and made poor life choices.  Isn’t it true that your opposition to disarming violent persons is rooted in your own history of violence and that you would be a member of that very small set of people who would be denied access to firearms?  You claim that the breakdown of society stems from a lack of accountability, but that only applies to others, isn’t that right?  You don't feel remorse for your own violent actions or the harm it has caused others but you resent any personal consequences you have had for that behavior, right?  My proposal would interfere with your free reign to bully and hurt others but would not affect the gun rights of your victims and you are scared by that, right?

As it is, convicted felons and people who have domestic violence restraining orders on them can't possess guns.  That's how it should stay.   You start going into mental health history, you're basically saying that HIPAA laws have no merit anymore.

And as for me personally, I've committed no crimes in my life and I don't fight unless it's for defense.  You assuming I'm a bully out to hurt people pretty much tells me all I need to know about you. 

[Spider-Dan]

In the fight for "defunding" police many departments quit training for these type of events. Many places now focus more on how to keep police from getting into public trouble and less resources /training/equipment against attacks like this.

The Uvalde PD specifically trained for school shootings in March of this year, for all the good it did.  And as part of that training, the following statement was given:

“A first responder unwilling to place the lives of the innocent above their own safety should consider another career field.”

But according to this theory you cited, as a result of the anti-police brutality movement, police are not only putting their own safety above the lives of the innocent... now they are also putting the possibility of any professional criticism over the lives of 4th graders being systematically executed in the next room.

Essentially, you are saying that the police could have stopped this massacre within 3 minutes of it starting, but intentionally chose not to because they would rather let children die than face the possibility of people saying mean things about them.  That would be a FAR more damning indictment of the police... especially since people are saying a lot worse than "defund" right now!  Their disgusting cowardice didn't even work to achieve their only goal of avoiding public criticism!