Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Teh E36 M3 :
The people who attended this graduation party last week would disagree....
Once again, the police are under no obligation to save you. Many will, but that is not their job, despite what it says on the door of the police car. The last couple school shootings should have made that clear.
She is extremely lucky another "good guy" didn't arrive on scene and recognize her as the danger.. and shoot her too.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
The use of a firearm by a civilian to solve a situation is just crazy. If I walk into a store with a concealed firearm and someone comes in to rob the store, the last thing I'm doing is pulling out a weapon. I'm not trained, I have zero authority, and I will likely make the situation worse by adding to the adrenaline and threat level. I run the risk of getting multiple people killed, including myself. It's not my place, I don't have the skills, and (not to mention) it's highly illegal for me to assume that I am suddenly a trained law enforcement officer and commit a summary execution of a human being. I wouldn't pull a weapon any sooner than I would jump in a helicopter and think I could fly it better than a 20-year pilot.
Why on earth has being a vigilante suddenly become glorified and celebrated?
You want to give a teacher a bit of training and a gun, then ask them to pull the trigger? WHAT? There is a reason some people choose to be a teacher and not a cop. That's like issuing a knife to vegetarians and saying "you have to butcher this lamb." You're saying that we as a society have failed you teachers so miserably that you have to violate your ethics and do the dirty work yourself by pulling the trigger on the very students you have fostered, nurtured, and cared about for 12 years. Do your own dirty work because we can't.
Issuing guns to teachers is not a real solution. If you told teachers they had to carry weapons, good luck on replacing the vast majority of them who would quit the next day. I own guns. I work in the education sector. I have a concealed carry permit. If you told me I have to carry a gun and shoot a threat.... berkeley no. Never. I would rather die than take a life for any reason. Even if it was a totally justified death, I would be berkeleyed up for the rest of my life. Even veteran cops sometimes get berkeleyed up when they perform a perfectly textbook shooting. You can't ask a random part of the population to suddenly have the type of personality to pull a trigger.
Which points out one of the main reasons we have so many mass shootings. Some people have no empathy and they don't value life. What you're asking teachers to do is to set aside their empathy and become the exact kind of killer we are trying to prevent.
I agree with you on arming teachers, for the reasons that you stated. I also worry that introducing guns info schools could cause more problems that they can solve. But I do believe it's a legitimate question to ask. We either need to keep shooters out of the schools- a very difficult task- or stop them before they can do harm. 911 isn't going to cut it. Realistically, the easy button is airport style security in and out of the schools. Solves the problem, but at what cost? Not talking dollars, I mean to society, treating every day like we are in a war zone. I suppose there are similar circumstances in other countries that we could study. But that would do the job. Until the mass murders wait until after school when the students are leaving. That's why I think just as much effort needs to be made to prevent people from developing into mass shooters rather than stopping them.
I have a concealed carry permit. If you told me I have to carry a gun and shoot a threat.... berkeley no. Never. I would rather die than take a life for any reason. Even if it was a totally justified death, I would be berkeleyed up for the rest of my life. Even veteran cops sometimes get berkeleyed up when they perform a perfectly textbook shooting. You can't ask a random part of the population to suddenly have the type of personality to pull a trigger.
Pardon me for asking, but why in the world do you have a concealed carry permit? I'm hoping you don't actually carry, but have it just in case? Wild animals? Because carrying a gun that you have no intention of using is way more dangerous than having no gun at all.
BTW, guns are for defending life, not property. So no, you won't be stopping robberies or performing vigilante justice. As a CCW holder, you should be aware of that.
Here's a different kind of idea...
Since the issue is protecting the kids, how about if we put tools in place designed to do THAT, instead of attempting to stop the offender.
I am currently on a cruise ship with a major cruise line. Everyone on board wears a very comprehensive tracking device. There are proximity sensors everywhere. Doors unlock automatically as I approach them, hospitality providers have pictures of me flash on their screen as I approach, billing is completely automatic. They know how many drinks I have ordered, what I have eaten, and what activities I am signed up for. There are hand-held readers, wall mounted readers, computers and tablets which can all read in different ways. There are kiosks that identify me as I approach, can show me a schedule of the things I have signed up for, and give me specific directions and maps to where I am going. I am convinced they are able to pinpoint my location within about a 3' radius.
At first, I really didn't like it. Then I was reminded that cell phone companies already have that capacity (with perhaps less resolution). The only difference is that the cell phone companies are better at hiding it and making it semi-invisible.
So what if we wired schools like that? Kids could wear badges that could identify everything about them. Create a defensive tool for the protection of kids.
Doors would only unlock if people wearing the proper badges approached. Children who were huddled in one location could be identified, and doors locked to protect them. Anyone who doesn't have proper access authority would not be given access, and could be isolated in particular areas. Children's health and wellness could be monitored. Teachers could be given different access than children or parents. Emergency procedures could enable teachers or administrators to control situations with great detail.
And I can't think of any good reason to not have cameras in classrooms.
I know. It sounds scary. But we already live it, we just like pretending we don't.
^I've heard of the "Fortress school" concept before. The main issue with that apart from cost and the fact that it only addresses one common venue for mass shootings is that it could cause school shooters to become school arsonists.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:The use of a firearm by a civilian to solve a situation is just crazy. If I walk into a store with a concealed firearm and someone comes in to rob the store, the last thing I'm doing is pulling out a weapon. I'm not trained, I have zero authority, and I will likely make the situation worse by adding to the adrenaline and threat level. I run the risk of getting multiple people killed, including myself. It's not my place, I don't have the skills, and (not to mention) it's highly illegal for me to assume that I am suddenly a trained law enforcement officer and commit a summary execution of a human being. I wouldn't pull a weapon any sooner than I would jump in a helicopter and think I could fly it better than a 20-year pilot.
Why on earth has being a vigilante suddenly become glorified and celebrated?
You want to give a teacher a bit of training and a gun, then ask them to pull the trigger? WHAT? There is a reason some people choose to be a teacher and not a cop. That's like issuing a knife to vegetarians and saying "you have to butcher this lamb." You're saying that we as a society have failed you teachers so miserably that you have to violate your ethics and do the dirty work yourself by pulling the trigger on the very students you have fostered, nurtured, and cared about for 12 years. Do your own dirty work because we can't.
Issuing guns to teachers is not a real solution. If you told teachers they had to carry weapons, good luck on replacing the vast majority of them who would quit the next day. I own guns. I work in the education sector. I have a concealed carry permit. If you told me I have to carry a gun and shoot a threat.... berkeley no. Never. I would rather die than take a life for any reason. Even if it was a totally justified death, I would be berkeleyed up for the rest of my life. Even veteran cops sometimes get berkeleyed up when they perform a perfectly textbook shooting. You can't ask a random part of the population to suddenly have the type of personality to pull a trigger.
Which points out one of the main reasons we have so many mass shootings. Some people have no empathy and they don't value life. What you're asking teachers to do is to set aside their empathy and become the exact kind of killer we are trying to prevent.
Curtis, I have felt many of the same things. I recently changed my perspective.
I serve on the security team in my church. We do a lot, and have very detailed systems in place.
One of the guidelines was that security team members had the option to conceal carry or not to. No one knew who carried, but we all knew some did. Whatever your personal perspective on the matter, it was respected.
My personal perspective was that I felt I didn't need to introduce a weapon into a tense situation. I understood the risks, and honestly felt I was better equipped to de-escalate a situation verbally than with a firearm. Plus, I knew I couldn't take a life, and that it would berkeley me up. So I didn't carry.
Then there was a bad church shooting at another church. 26 people died as the shooter stood in the sanctuary and gunned them down.
I considered my perspective. I knew that I would never want to have to shoot a perp in that situation, and far worse would have been if I shot an innocent.
Then I considered what my role was as a security team member. It was to protect people. This was my home, and my family. I was responsible to do the hard things to protect them.
I realized if I was in that situation, I could watch 26 members of my family get gunned down, or I could conceal carry and perhaps reduce the body count to 22. Or 15. Or 3. The risk was that I could hurt someone directly. But there was no way I could save anyone unless I was prepared to do the difficult thing. The truth was I was too afraid to do what was needed.
I conceal carry now in church.
In reply to OHSCrifle :
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Teh E36 M3 :
The people who attended this graduation party last week would disagree....
Once again, the police are under no obligation to save you. Many will, but that is not their job, despite what it says on the door of the police car. The last couple school shootings should have made that clear.
She is extremely lucky another "good guy" didn't arrive on scene and recognize her as the danger.. and shoot her too.
If we are measuring luck, I'd say the needle was still pointing in the unlucky direction for her, as a random felon was spraying her party with rifle fire. From the reports that I've seen, she did everything by the book, surrendering to police unarmed afterwards. Having a gun is dangerous. Using a gun is dangerous. Getting shot at is more dangerous. Do you think- as her graduation party was getting sprayed by rifle fire- that she was worried about the active shooter, or about some other hypothetical defender mistaking her for the aggressor? Leaving was likely he safest option. Thankfully she had the tools, ability, and courage to save her friends and family instead.
yupididit said:Here's my issue. I as a parent can barely walk in my kids school without going through multiple levels of authentication. How did the Uvalde shooter get into the school, especially while clearly armed? The Police response, terrible. The shooter was a walking red flag and we missed it. So many things failed those kids. Its sad.
I do like guns though. And would love to keep them. It's one of my hobbies. Would I give them up if that guaranteed no more kids would get killed by one? Certainly. But we can't promise that.
Also, I certainly do not associate with the NRA and never will for obvious reasons!
To me the bolded part is just one of the symptoms and not the actual problem. The fact that we have to lock children in a building to make them safe.
What needs to be done so people can go about their business without being afraid?
BTW, I agree about the NRA. I don't belong and I won't belong.
I am extraordinarily anti-gun, so I know my views are very different than many here. Most of the things discussed, I simply don't agree with. Arming teachers? So we're going to add more guns to a gun problem? I just don't agree or understand the rationale. I'm not a political person...at all. Probably part of it is because I am so deeply divided on my views. Some things I am very "conservative", so things I am very "liberal". Guns are definitely a liberal thing for me. I don't see why citizens need a gun. Period. I don't own one, never will. In my opinion, kids will be in far greater danger if we arm teachers. The idea should be less guns, not more.
SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:I am extraordinarily anti-gun, so I know my views are very different than many here. Most of the things discussed, I simply don't agree with. Arming teachers? So we're going to add more guns to a gun problem? I just don't agree or understand the rationale. I'm not a political person...at all. Probably part of it is because I am so deeply divided on my views. Some things I am very "conservative", so things I am very "liberal". Guns are definitely a liberal thing for me. I don't see why citizens need a gun. Period. I don't own one, never will. In my opinion, kids will be in far greater danger if we arm teachers. The idea should be less guns, not more.
I agree. I think the main reason people think they NEED guns is because of this perception that the government is edging closer to needing another revolutionary war to clean house. 2A is a convenient piece that gets interpreted to support that "what if" situation even though it will never happen.
I own guns because I hunt and I enjoy shooting. I think there are many ways I can still have that hobby regardless of what laws might happen to crop up.
In reply to j_tso :
I cannot speak to that, I was not there and will refrain offering my thoughts. I do not approve is my opinion.
Boost_Crazy said:Pardon me for asking, but why in the world do you have a concealed carry permit? I'm hoping you don't actually carry, but have it just in case? Wild animals? Because carrying a gun that you have no intention of using is way more dangerous than having no gun at all.
Having a concealed carry permit doesn't mean I carry a weapon. Having a CCW makes it easier to carry a handgun without all the trouble.
Several reasons I have one. First is because of a law (which has since changed in PA) regarding carrying a handgun while hunting. There is no logical way to carry it on the outside of your hunting clothing. I used to carry when hunting for two reasons: Not having a backup weapon or a short firearm is no good when an injured bear decides to get a bite, and I have also had Coyotes circle me while I'm field dressing a deer. Not a warm fuzzy feeling.
Another instance: It's the same reason you keep your wallet in your pocket instead of on the dashboard of your car. If I happen to go to the diner for lunch in the middle of a hunting day, or want to stop by WalMart for more handwarmers, I don't really feel like leaving the handgun in the car where it could be stolen. Again, some of the laws have changed in PA, but when I'm transporting my handgun (to and from hunting, shooting, or buying/selling), a concealed handgun raises no questions, unlike open carry which understandably makes some folks a bit squeamish.
Having said that, I can't recall the last time I concealed a handgun. Probably 10 years or more. I don't hunt as much as I used to, I no longer hunt bears, and I haven't seen a coyote in a long time around here. When this permit expires I'm not sure I will renew it. I never carry for protection for the reasons I outlined before. I don't even use it for home protection. I will straight up help a burglar load my TV into their getaway van before I pull out a gun. I can't say if I would pull the trigger if my life was in danger because I've only been in that situation a few times (I've actually been shot twice, neither one badly) but I didn't have a gun in those situations to retaliate. It's a good thing, too. If I did have a gun in those situations, would there be two dead people by my hand? Would I have been involved in lengthy litigation, or worse, be incarcerated 15 years later? Would an angry parent or spouse be out for blood? Would the resulting mental E36 M3-storm of having taken a life or lives have caused my life to spiral in a different, dark direction?
I'm quite pleased with my life. I've never thrown a punch, I've never shot anyone, and I like to think that I have lifted up a lot of people. If that gets me killed, I'm OK with that. I would rather die being a lover than live being a killer.
In reply to SV reX :
I totally respect your decision to carry, I just couldn't.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
That makes sense, most of it anyway. I am definitely not a fan of open carry, unless you are in an area where everyone is carrying and it's the norm. Otherwise it's just more likely to make you the first victim. It's much more difficult to get a CCW in many areas of my state, so you don't often hear convenience as a reason.
You have a very unique combination of views on guns.
I'm not a fan of arming teachers, when I was in high school a student beat a teacher nearly to death and had that teacher been armed a troubled kid who made a bad choice (and then some) could have made it far worse. These things happen pretty often but rarely see the light of day. Just not a good idea.
Resource officers on site? Yes, I agree with that.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
You have a very unique combination of views on guns.
I'm surprised you say that, as his views are pretty close to mine, and I'd guess many more. Unless I'm reading it wrong, he sees guns as a tool for certain jobs, and if there's a way to keep them out of the wrong hands without restricting his ability to have those tools, he's up for it.
GameboyRMH said:^I've heard of the "Fortress school" concept before. The main issue with that apart from cost and the fact that it only addresses one common venue for mass shootings is that it could cause school shooters to become school arsonists.
This is a perfect demonstration of the real problem. If these lunatics are bent on murder, limiting the weapons they supposedly have access to WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:I am extraordinarily anti-gun, so I know my views are very different than many here. Most of the things discussed, I simply don't agree with. Arming teachers? So we're going to add more guns to a gun problem? I just don't agree or understand the rationale. I'm not a political person...at all. Probably part of it is because I am so deeply divided on my views. Some things I am very "conservative", so things I am very "liberal". Guns are definitely a liberal thing for me. I don't see why citizens need a gun. Period. I don't own one, never will. In my opinion, kids will be in far greater danger if we arm teachers. The idea should be less guns, not more.
I agree. I think the main reason people think they NEED guns is because of this perception that the government is edging closer to needing another revolutionary war to clean house. 2A is a convenient piece that gets interpreted to support that "what if" situation even though it will never happen.
I own guns because I hunt and I enjoy shooting. I think there are many ways I can still have that hobby regardless of what laws might happen to crop up.
I own guns because I live in the woods and there are things that want to eat you there. A large amount of people own guns for the same reason up here too.
I'm not a fan of arming teachers either, there are some exceptionally terrible humans that teach out there
Noddaz said:yupididit said:Here's my issue. I as a parent can barely walk in my kids school without going through multiple levels of authentication. How did the Uvalde shooter get into the school, especially while clearly armed? The Police response, terrible. The shooter was a walking red flag and we missed it. So many things failed those kids. Its sad.
I do like guns though. And would love to keep them. It's one of my hobbies. Would I give them up if that guaranteed no more kids would get killed by one? Certainly. But we can't promise that.
Also, I certainly do not associate with the NRA and never will for obvious reasons!
To me the bolded part is just one of the symptoms and not the actual problem. The fact that we have to lock children in a building to make them safe.
What needs to be done so people can go about their business without being afraid?
BTW, I agree about the NRA. I don't belong and I won't belong.
I have to press a button (pages the front office) and show my entire body to a camera that's over the button just to get let in the school, then if I want to visit a classroom or student I need to scan my govt ID to verify my identity.
The kids aren't locked in as any door can be opened from the inside for people to leave.
My kids do go to school on an Army Fort. But, even when my oldest was in a public school they had sensible measures to not let random people from outside have access to your children.
AGAIN, they're not locked in, people are locked out. I as a parent appreciate it. The same thing would've kept that shooter in Uvalde out of that elementary school.
barefootcyborg5000 said:GameboyRMH said:^I've heard of the "Fortress school" concept before. The main issue with that apart from cost and the fact that it only addresses one common venue for mass shootings is that it could cause school shooters to become school arsonists.
This is a perfect demonstration of the real problem. If these lunatics are bent on murder, limiting the weapons they supposedly have access to WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
It will make a difference because the level of effective killing an AR or whatever similar allows is beyond measure compared to almost any other weapon or ability to cause personal harm.
I own a guns that could make the most noob shooter look like Rambo. I've also been on both sides of the barrel. I can say for sure I rather be looking down at the end of a knife, machete, ax, sword, fire, anything else than an AR with the intent to harm me. They're almost inescapable without proper cover and suppressing fire. If you haven't witnessed what these things are capable of first hand then you really don't know what they can do. The flesh and bones and body parts that it sends every which way upon impact. Even the kids who weren't killed will have to live with the memory of their classmates blood, guts, teeth and limbs flying around the room. It isn't like a movie, it isn't pretty or clean.
Going into a school and trying to stab 21 people is a lot of work. Its tiring, messy, leaves you open to any type of counter attack. It doesn't cause the same audible and visual horror that an AR causes when it's sent your way.
An arson lighting that school on fire would not have caused that many casualties. Especially since schools have so many defensive measures against fire (fire suppresion systems) and absolutely zero from a gunman with deaths best tool in his hands.
So yes, limiting a potential mass murderer ability to utilize one of the most effective killing tools we have today does something. It makes a difference. Will it stop everything? No, but it'll certainly make killing 18 kids and 3 adults a hell of a lot harder!
And to add a bit of personal history:
I've been on the wrong end of 2 active shooter events in Afghanistan. One in a dining facility and another in a reception room where people who just arrived in country are given their briefings straight off the flight in. I knew people who have died from such.
I'm specifically trained in active shooter defense and response. A good guy with a gun is usually too much of a adrenaline mess to be effective unless they have specific experience in fire fights. I bet 99% wouldn't be effective.
I rather take mortar and rocket fire again than being shot at from an unexpected and defenseless position again.
I still can't sit in a restaurant with my back turned to the entrance and it's been about 10 years.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
That makes sense, most of it anyway. I am definitely not a fan of open carry, unless you are in an area where everyone is carrying and it's the norm. Otherwise it's just more likely to make you the first victim. It's much more difficult to get a CCW in many areas of my state, so you don't often hear convenience as a reason.
You have a very unique combination of views on guns.
I'm just weird in a lot of ways. I have come to terms with it.
I agree with the open carry and first victim thing. My gun is like my religion and my penis. I keep them to myself and don't whip them out in public. For the most part they all stay locked in a safe for 90% of the year. (the guns... not my penis)
PA allows for a pretty broad set of reasons for CCW. You have to write in your reason for requesting one. I think I put something like "to comply with concealment laws while hunting," or something. Most people put "personal protection" or "self defense" and that is a pretty sure bet in PA. You do have to list three references and they will be contacted, and there is a background check, although I'm not sure how deep it digs.
yupididit said:Noddaz said:yupididit said:Here's my issue. I as a parent can barely walk in my kids school without going through multiple levels of authentication. How did the Uvalde shooter get into the school, especially while clearly armed? The Police response, terrible. The shooter was a walking red flag and we missed it. So many things failed those kids. Its sad.
I do like guns though. And would love to keep them. It's one of my hobbies. Would I give them up if that guaranteed no more kids would get killed by one? Certainly. But we can't promise that.
Also, I certainly do not associate with the NRA and never will for obvious reasons!
To me the bolded part is just one of the symptoms and not the actual problem. The fact that we have to lock children in a building to make them safe.
What needs to be done so people can go about their business without being afraid?
BTW, I agree about the NRA. I don't belong and I won't belong.
I have to press a button (pages the front office) and show my entire body to a camera that's over the button just to get let in the school, then if I want to visit a classroom or student I need to scan my govt ID to verify my identity.
The kids aren't locked in as any door can be opened from the inside for people to leave.
My kids do go to school on an Army Fort. But, even when my oldest was in a public school they had sensible measures to not let random people from outside have access to your children.
AGAIN, they're not locked in, people are locked out. I as a parent appreciate it. The same thing would've kept that shooter in Uvalde out of that elementary school.
My kid's school is the same way; and it's a backwater county school. Easy to get in with a gun though since all the doors are glass and I would guess not bulletproof. I always wonder how these people get into the schools so easily (maybe they don't) when I can't.
Steve_Jones said:Boost_Crazy said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
You have a very unique combination of views on guns.
I'm surprised you say that, as his views are pretty close to mine, and I'd guess many more. Unless I'm reading it wrong, he sees guns as a tool for certain jobs, and if there's a way to keep them out of the wrong hands without restricting his ability to have those tools, he's up for it.
That's pretty much the summary. If (for instance) I have to wait for a mandatory period before taking possession of a gun I purchased, I'm totally cool with that because somewhere else in the country some would-be school shooter maybe had a moment of clarity during that waiting period and ended up not murdering, or said something to someone and they blew the whistle. Put it this way... if you're against a waiting period and you need your guns NOW, I might question your motivation. What possible need does one have for instant guns other than something nefarious? I had to wait 90 days for my divorce. Statistically, a not-insignificant number of divorces end up not completing because the couple reconciles during that time. Without that 90 day waiting period, a lot of divorces would happen because of an irrational heat-of-the-moment snap decision. The 90-day waiting period is to give couples time to actually think about the decision. It has been shown to work with gun purchases as well. I'm not going to stress if I don't get a gun today. If it's too late for what I have planned, I should have planned better.
yupididit said:I'm specifically trained in active shooter defense and response. A good guy with a gun is usually too much of a adrenaline mess to be effective unless they have specific experience in fire fights. I bet 99% wouldn't be effective.
First, a million thanks for your service. I am so not the right person for that job which makes me appreciate yours that much more.
I also echo your sentiment above. I struggle to hit a deer at 50 yards because my adrenaline has me excited. I would likely pass out if I had to point a gun at a human.
Arming teachers is such a bad idea. For one we already have a problem having enough teachers. Expecting them to be trained to use a gun in an active shooter situation as well is just ridiculous given that they are already massively overworked. Two you are expecting teachers to go from caring for kids to suddenly possibly shooting one. Three is having firearms in the classroom really a good idea? I mean a kid could so easily get their hands on it and that can go bad so quickly.
I am so sick of this all. We don't change firearm laws despite being as far as I can tell one of the few developed nations to have this level of mass casualty events. I hear politicians say we need a better mental health system but then constantly do nothing to provide cheap or free mental health services widely. I hear politicians say it is because of single parent homes or divorce but take away a women's right to choose and do nothing to improve the financial situation of the normal people (when finances are on of the top reasons for divorce).
You'll need to log in to post.
