I did not see you give an answer, and there is no need for you to worry about me bothering or not bothering with something. Let me worry about that. Most shooters are planning to die, so I doubt threating them with death is going to work. As a matter of fact, putting them on TV for show is probably their dream come true.
I did. Post # 21 You responded to it, so you must have seen it. My answer: Sure - so long as "something" does not consist of unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding. I then asked: Any suggestions? Well?
You mean doing "something" is your solution. And you added that the "something" should not be anything you consider an inconvenience. All righty then. Lets do "something". LOL
Thank you for further demonstrating your only interest here is to place as many unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding as you can. You see dead kids as nothing more as a means to that end.
So, two things we should separate. First case are kids taking weapons to school for gang or other criminal activity. Metal detectors at the front door. Second case are deranged shooters looking for easy targets. Lock the doors during school hours, have armed guards at the door.
Why would I want to place unnecessary and ineffective restrictions? If you listen to yourself and put your comments on a common sense test, you'd realize you are not making any sense. Besides, how on earth did you reach such conclusion after I said I won't bother repeating my suggestions on this thread? I am a law abiding gun owner and I am all for retaining our right to own guns, but unlike you I recognize the fact that we have a problem. You just want to brush it under the rug and insist that you don't want to be inconvenienced. Stop seeing yourself as a victim who others want to inconvenience. Please do not project your way of thinking on me.
The problem with this approach is that there isn't anything special about the causes behind school shootings compared to ones elsewhere. This isn't even just about mass shootings since many of the same root causes can lead to other crimes or issues depending on circumstances. While there can be some location specific ideas that might help improve security or response to incidents, be they in schools or anywhere else, that alone would just be a sticking plaster on the issue. It'd me much better to address the underlying causes, which could actually reduce school shootings, shootings in other places and a whole load of other crimes and social issues. That has to include consideration of different gun control, though it should go much, much wider than that, including things like mental health care, meaningful early intervention when initial risks are identified, better rehabilitation and post-release management and support. Incidentally, isn't your idea more about dealing with shootings when they happen rather than trying to stop them? Mass shootings aren't the kind of crime that can be effectively deterred in this way, and even it does, someone already set on committing such an act is likely to just find somewhere else to do it.
I would be happier if they did find "somewhere else" to kill people. I'm concentrated on school security because kids can't protect themselves like an adult can. An adult can often carry a gun and can choose when and where to go.
Repeatedly cherry picking statistics from countries that are in no way like the US is about the only flawed and unconstitutional argument that the anti gun crowd can come up with: "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries" https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan. The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again. Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so."CONTINUED Make no mistake. Virtually everyone who claims to want only "gun safety", "common sense gun laws for the children" etc really wants to disarm law abiding citizens by slowly eviscerating the 2nd Amendment. They rarely know anything about firearms except that they hate them and feel that everyone should share their phobia. Meanwhile, there are over 50 countries in the world with complete gun bans(1) AND higher homicide rates than the US so if disarming the country's citizenry actually caused a reduction in homicides, it would do so everywhere, not just in countries that have more accessible and affordable mental health care than the US, another major difference between other "developed" countries and the US. In addition to some of the school security measures mentioned in the OP, making mental health care more accessible and affordable in the US would help in detecting and preventing homicides of all types including school shootings. We need to face the fact that America's guns aren't going away. What America is doing wrong is not devoting the time, money and resources it needs to detect and treat angry and troubled individuals before they become mass killers. Thanks, (1) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking" https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
Simple. If you had some idea other than unnecessary and ineffective restrictions, you'd be more than willing to at least list them, regardless of the fact you have supposedly brought them up before. Thus.
I told you. I am not going to parrot the same thing every day when someone decides to open a new thread about something that had been discussed to death on dozens of other threads. Besides, it seems obvious that ANY idea is "unnecessary and ineffective restriction" to you because you because you think it might inconvenience you.
Thank you for proving me correct - your only interest here is to place as many unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding as you can. Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of rights aren't inconveniences, they are infringements. There's no rational reason for people to consider, much less accept, infringements on the exercise of their rights. And that's all you have to offer.
Clearly you are in business of telling others that they think, or what their interests are even though you know you are lying? All you manage to do is portray yourself as a dishonest person. Some people....... First you complain that I have not offered anything and now you're telling me I offer something you don't like. Its just more lies. You vote Republican, don't you? LOL
Prove me wrong. Give us a list of some of your suggested solutions. You won't, of course, because you know they consist of unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding.
Aren't you supposed to prove your own claims? I have not made any claims, so I have nothing to prove. Are you kidding me? I'm afraid you'll have to play your childish games with someone else. Have a nice day.
I accept your concession. When you can give us a list of some of your suggested solutions, let us know. You won't, of course, because you know they consist of unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding. Just like I said.
School isn't the only place children spend time though, and even if you could deter mass shooters from targeting schools, the alternative places are likely to have children present too (especially if it's the school or students who are being targeted). And far from all adults can carry a gun and/or use it effectively and safely, so I'd be concerned that an increase in casual gun carrying would create more problems than it solves (the statistics around the increased risk in homes with guns certainly suggests it could be the case). After all, a lot of mass shooters are (or could be) legal gun owners prior to their attacks. So I still don't see why you wouldn't at least be interested in also addressing the underlying problems, with the prospect actively reducing a wide range of gun crime (and other problems) rather than exclusively focusing on the response to the locations of a tiny subset of all incidents. I think a major part of the problem here is that mass shootings at schools inevitably receive a whole load of media and political attention, despite (or indeed because) being relatively rare compared to shootings in general. They're obviously not insignificant and I'd totally favour any ideas that would actually reduce them, I just don't think any of those ideas would be limited to school mass shootings.
Right. Trying to make schools into an airtight bubbles of safety only means the crazies choose another place. Having guns in every classroom sounds nuts given the fact that we have 3.2 million teachers in US and 6% are physically attacked every year (by students), which is about 200 000 teachers. What would happen if there was a gun involved? Would the teacher use it against the student? Would the student try to grab it and use it against the teacher? Would the student use it against other students? Sounds like an accident waiting to happen, and not just one, but many accidents. Kids are involved, so they get more attention. However, the OP wants to talk about schools specifically. School shooters are practically always teen-agers with mental issues, and history of acting up, so maybe that could be a starting point, but of course some people will cry about it being too inconvenient.
....is a suggestion made by no one. But, it's good to see you can beat up on a straw man. So, what are YOUR suggestions?
School is the most common place where the public is responsible for the security of children. 5 or 6 trained teachers with classrooms strategically located could control the movement of a shooter in a large high school. All teachers would carry concealed and not reveal that they are carrying until necessary.
There are an average of 1700 kids and over 100 teachers in an average high school in US, so that line of defense would be awfully thin considering you are suggesting a firefight inside a school against a surprise attack. Stoneman Douglas in FL had 3400 students and over 200 teachers.
You made this up. 23529 high/secondary schools in the US https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 15.7 million HS students in the US https://www.statista.com/statistics...nrollment-in-public-and-private-institutions/ 1.0 million HS teachers i the US https://admissionsly.com/how-many-teachers-are-there/ That's an average of 667 students and 42 teachers per school. So, not only can you not give us your suggestions to stop school shootings, you are forced to beat up on straw men -and- make up numbers to support your points. Sad.
The larger schools have full time School Resource Officers. They are uniformed police who office and patrol in the school full time. They will be the people assigned to hunt down the shooter while the trained teachers would simply protect their wing of the school from a covered position and report any any information about where the shooter is. The students will already be locked down in their classrooms. Meanwhile, city or county police can be responding outside. My brother teaches in a school of about 2500 students. They have at least 3 SROs at all times. My brother is on the "security team"(unarmed and just on the security planning team) and he hears police radios real time during alarms. There was a shooting across the street from his school and he had a front row seat during the lock down. His students were panicking and wanting to leave. My brother told them exactly where the shooting was and how the SROs were protecting them and that they were in the safest place possible.
Yes, I know. Stoneman Douglas had them, but 17 kids were killed anyway. This is why I think your proposal is doomed to fail. They are always hunted down in the end, but it takes only seconds or minutes to kill 10+ people with modern firearms, so its typically too late.
