mapper said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Nope. And the NRA does not lobby against laws prohibiting using a firearm during the commission of a crime either.
That's not the same thing. The alcohol equivalent of that would be to only criminalize causing an accident through reckless driving while intoxicated...instead, it's illegal to be drunk and drive at all - you're prevented from creating the dangerous conditions that can cause a tragedy, rather than just actually causing one.
Moral panic. If you know about it ahead of time it doesn't work.
SVreX said:Firearms wouldn't be cheap either.
A gated lock-down system would have a larger initial outlay, but would be cheaper very rapidly.
The cost of the firearms, training, appropriate background checks, ongoing training, related administrative monitoring, insurance, liability, maintenance of firearms, upgrades as necessary, etc would quickly surpass the gates.
Not to mention, the first time there was an incident, we would be shutting down the system we had just implemented nationwide
Gates would be cheaper, and very likely much more effective.
Life safety is always a balancing act to defend against the greatest risks.
My wife and I were talking about this whole situation right after it happened. At the schools in this county (rural VA), there is an SRO at every school and every exterior door is locked at all times. To enter the school, you have to be let into the office after they look at you through a nice security camera. Obviously there are some exceptions for delivery people through certain doors, but those are regular times and those doors are still locked.
I grew up in FL and my school was all open air, so a system like that would have been impossible. Still, I cannot imagine how someone could get onto the campus with a long gun and then into the building. After seeing the "20 minute delayed feed" thing, I am starting to understand it.
Someone previously said that we needed to fix the failures before we start looking at things to fix. That's where I am on this. Still, it is hard to make the "good guy with a gun" argument when the one on hand stood outside and waited. I like the GVRO idea, to an extent. Some of the other proposals, 21 and up, ban ARs, etc are a bit of a stretch, IMO.
volvoclearinghouse said:I'm a little disappointed, although sadly not surprised, that a thread started to discuss the maturity level and rate of young adults (de)evolved into a discussion about guns.
Mass shootings are the symptoms of a larger issue. Existence of firearms facilitates mass shootings, but does not explain _why_ they occur in the first place. People do not shoot people because of firearms.
So much of our world has been tailored to keep people from harming themselves that personal responsibility isn't as necessary as it once was. It's seen as much easier to limit access to something than it is to expect people to be responsible for their own actions. It's why we spend millions to give cars speed limiters, automatic cruise control and lane keeping assist, rather than teaching people to be better drivers. It's why my town is spending tax money installing flashing yellow turn arrows at stoplights even though it means the same thing to a driver as the previous case where a solid green light that meant left turns must yield to oncoming traffic. It's the same basic reason why lawn mowers come with warning stickers that tell you not to run over your baby, or stick your hand under the deck. It's easier to limit access to guns than it is to expect people to use them responsibly. You can put the blame for that wherever you want, from parents not parenting to society coddling or media/entertainment media glorifying vigilantism.
Suprf1y said:Moral panic. If you know about it ahead of time it doesn't work.
It's not, by the same criteria presented in the article. You're missing 2 of the 5 actors - folk devils and law enforcement.
wjones said:SVreX said:In reply to Ian F :
Reminding that this Cruz shiny happy person pulled the fire alarm to fill the hallways first. Had he not he probably would have to have shot through locked doors.
Right. Which is exactly what I am saying.
Egress and life safety systems now conflict with personal safety systems. They need to be integrated with more advanced logic and controls.
Life safety laws all assume the greatest risk to a crowd is the inability to exit from a building. But there are times when the GREATEST risk is to leave a building (or compartment).
For example, life safety regulations require mag locks to be tied to the fire alarm system so they will open automatically if the alarm is sounded. That's fine for a fire. It's terrible for an active shooter scenario (and can be weaponized).
There are both lock down scenarios, and lock out scenarios.
The 2 separate systems need to be integrated into one enabled to identify the greatest risk.
Having a system that automatically unlocks all the doors and leads people into common areas is a terrible idea if there are repetitive percussive events going on and no heat or smoke alarms.
Its not that hard to do.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
Are you saying that the act of owning a gun be criminalized? If a person fires a shot at a berm that happens to be 20 feet away from a neighbor's house and no person or property is hurt, it's still a crime. The same with drunk driving. Death and destruction does not have to happen for either scenario to be illegal.
My original point is that alcohol is responsible for more deaths per year than guns and the lobbyists spend more money on influence but get a pass. A wife beating pedophile with multiple drunk driving convictions can still pick up a fifth and get behind the wheel. If he takes out a church van full of kids I guarantee that emotional masses will not be raking the alcohol lobby through the mud.
GameboyRMH said:Suprf1y said:Moral panic. If you know about it ahead of time it doesn't work.
It's not, by the same criteria presented in the article. You're missing 2 of the 5 actors - folk devils and law enforcement.
I didn't actually say it was happening, more like be prepared, see the signs, don't get wrapped up in it unknowingly.
But don't kid yourself. All the actors are present
In reply to STM317 :
In all fairness, most people do use guns responsibly. It's the exceptions we are talking about. Those that are doing something malicious and those that are just plain negligent.
I was thinking about the same lockdown/lockout problem and there is no way to reconcile the two. You either give a shooter a way to open the locks (with a fire alarm or lighter to the fire detectors), or to cause more carnage (with actual fire). It's a catch-22.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I disagree.
Add some microphones listening for percussive events, a manual panic activation which requires 2 people to activate (for example 2 teachers), and expand remote monitoring capabilities (which are already in place) to include the ability for a remote operator to take control.
The problem is the life safety code currently requires officials to make decisions for fire only, which can be very bad for safety.
mapper said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Are you saying that the act of owning a gun be criminalized?
Perhaps for certain especially dangerous gun ownership situations, yes, like owning a gun after making violent threats (GVRO?), having a history of violent crimes (what the background check system is supposed to do), etc. It isn't all-or-nothing for alcohol either - that would be prohibition.
From what I understand most or all states in the US will put some kind of restrictions on your driving after a drunk driving conviction, like a breathalyzer or suspended/revoked license, so it wouldn't be legal for your hypothetical serial drunk driver to drive.
mapper said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
Are you saying that the act of owning a gun be criminalized? If a person fires a shot at a berm that happens to be 20 feet away from a neighbor's house and no person or property is hurt, it's still a crime. The same with drunk driving. Death and destruction does not have to happen for either scenario to be illegal.
My original point is that alcohol is responsible for more deaths per year than guns and the lobbyists spend more money on influence but get a pass. A wife beating pedophile with multiple drunk driving convictions can still pick up a fifth and get behind the wheel. If he takes out a church van full of kids I guarantee that emotional masses will not be raking the alcohol lobby through the mud.
I think he is saying that the NRA is against any new restriction on guns. I am sure you already know that the act of owning some guns are already criminalized and some are more highly restricted (NFA stuff).
And if my neighbor made a habit of doing that, we wouldn't be friendly anymore.
... and I get your point.
The medical facility I manage had the ability to lead all 3000 occupants down stair towers into a locked parking garage, which an active shooter could have used to make everyone sitting ducks.
It was completely in keeping with the fire code. (Complicated, but true)
Pulling a fire alarm would have forced everyone into a cage, and unlocked all the mag lock doors, enabling an army of shooters to walk right in if they wanted.
Just because it meets code doesn't make it acceptable.
Suprf1y said:GameboyRMH said:Suprf1y said:Moral panic. If you know about it ahead of time it doesn't work.
It's not, by the same criteria presented in the article. You're missing 2 of the 5 actors - folk devils and law enforcement.
I didn't actually say it was happening, more like be prepared, see the signs, don't get wrapped up in it unknowingly.
But don't kid yourself. All the actors are present
I have posted similar articles as well - fear sells. A good question to ask ourselves is why isn't this recent Florida disaster being labeled as 'terrorism'?
Before I get crushed about the political/religious/whatever ideology that is tied to the FBI definition of terrorism, think about how easy it is to associate basically any perpetrator with 'some sort' of ideology. The crazier the perpetrator seems to the general public, the easier it is to associate them with an ideology.
I really don't mean to be inflammatory with this, but I have a major bone to pick with how our media reports these things.
In reply to wjones :
No question. And most people wouldn't drive their vehicles at top speed, yet we have speed limiters. Most people wouldn't stick their hand into a running lawnmower, and yet there are multiple steps taken to insure that doesn't happen. We've spent so much time and money trying to save everybody from themselves, and catering to the lowest denominator that people no longer have the same consequences that they once had.
All of these steps aren't bad. If it means the in today's world, the rate of fatal accidents is lower than it was in previous decades, or people keep all of their digits longer those are good things. But they can have side effects too. Compared to previous decades, Mass shootings are far more common, suicide rates and overdoses among the young are up too. We're saving people in some areas, and losing them faster in others. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
SVreX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
I disagree.
Add some microphones listening for percussive events, a manual panic activation which requires 2 people to activate (for example 2 teachers), and expand remote monitoring capabilities (which are already in place) to include the ability for a remote operator to take control.
The problem is the life safety code currently requires officials to make decisions for fire only, which can be very bad for safety.
I did think about all of those ideas, and while they each offer improvements, none of them solve the catch-22. Detection technologies only allow faster activation, at the cost of allowing false positives. Remote monitoring and multi-party activation only prevent malicious use of the gates by a (non-shooting) arsonist.
Imagine all schools have this system in place, with all of the aforementioned improvements. The system would only help in mass shootings in which the shooter does not start a fire. Mass shooters would learn to bring fire after the first time the gate system stops a mass shooting. When they do, the situation always ends with the same problem - either the gates have to open, or people have to sit tight in a burning building.
STM317 said:In reply to wjones :
No question. And most people wouldn't drive their vehicles at top speed, yet we have speed limiters. Most people wouldn't stick their hand into a running lawnmower, and yet there are multiple steps taken to insure that doesn't happen. We've spent so much time and money trying to save everybody from themselves, and catering to the lowest denominator that people no longer have the same consequences that they once had.
All of these steps aren't bad. If it means the in today's world, the rate of fatal accidents is lower than it was in previous decades, or people keep all of their digits longer those are good things. But they can have side effects too. Compared to previous decades, Mass shootings are far more common, suicide rates and overdoses among the young are up too. We're saving people in some areas, and losing them faster in others. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I could care less if all mass shooters would shoot themselves first. I am more worried about saving the innocents from them, than them from themselves, Although if they could get some mental help to prevent them from doing something tragic, I'm all for it!
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I agree.
But that's why it can't be fully automated. There has to always be an ability to override.
We can't automate good judgement.
Automation introduces speed and efficiency, but we've attempted to remove the judges and judgement.
We need both.
We would never find it acceptable for our nuclear arsenal to self-arm a retaliatory strike because and automated system had detected a first strike in place. We would always want a manual override.
Similar.
In reply to SVreX :
I disagree as well, since I deal with similar situations on a regular basis - buildings that need to conform to egress requirements while maintaining security. In a nutshell, the egress doors are one-way only: free access out, but don't allow reentry. They typically don't even have handles on the non-access side.
Unfortunately, the easiest way to deal with this is pure manpower and constant monitoring of all entry points. Pulling the fire alarm is what the shooter did in this instance, thus causing a field of targets as SVreX described. These will be difficult conditions to defend against no matter what precautions are taken.
As far as VCH's original discussion, I don't think it's a lack of maturity that is the problem for today's youth. In a way, I'd say it's the opposite - today's kids have had maturity forced upon them like few before them with little means of escape. Some deal with it better than others. How to recognize the latter and determine the potential for violent outcome - well, that is the question with no easy answers.
In reply to STM317 :
You raise valid points, and they're pertinent to the OP.
I have heard many people make claims that European countries are more free than the U.S because they regulate corporations to protect people. And they're more free because they collect more in tax revenue from the working citizens to pay for a big welfare state. And then that they have more regulations on what people can and cannot buy...because...freedom....?
I think where the confusion lies, is that the above is not real freedom. It's freedom of responsibility- a.k.a. perpetual childhood. People are allowed the freedom to be children. The government takes care of them. It protects them from others. It provides for them. It keeps them from doing things that might hurt themselves. These are the actions of a parent. In the case of a parent, they are supposed to gradually let the children make more decisions for themselves, so they grow into mentally adjusted adults and can fend for themselves. But if the government keeps doing these things for them, they won't grow up fully. They'll grow up to be adult-sized children.
There was a new article recently on those "happiness" polls that are all the rage, that typically show Scandinavian countries as the "happiest". But when they actually interviewed some people there, how they defined "happy" was different that how people in other countries define it. "Happiness", to them, was the freedom from worry. It was, essentially, the happiness of a child- free of care and able to just live. Conversely, "happiness" to other people is how much one has achieved and attained in their lives. In that sense, happiness is aspirational. It means one has achieved something, done something of merit or purpose in their lives.
The question is, do you want a society of people who are content, or a society of people striving to achieve? Now, take away the incentive to achieve, to attain, but leave a society where people still have a relatively minimalist (by the standards of Europe) safety net. And you get what we have in this country today.
The pendulum has, by my opinion, swung too far in the direction of protection. It cannot swing all the way back, of course (which would represent full anarchy) but it needs to get back closer to some logical middle ground.
wjones said:STM317 said:In reply to wjones :
No question. And most people wouldn't drive their vehicles at top speed, yet we have speed limiters. Most people wouldn't stick their hand into a running lawnmower, and yet there are multiple steps taken to insure that doesn't happen. We've spent so much time and money trying to save everybody from themselves, and catering to the lowest denominator that people no longer have the same consequences that they once had.
All of these steps aren't bad. If it means the in today's world, the rate of fatal accidents is lower than it was in previous decades, or people keep all of their digits longer those are good things. But they can have side effects too. Compared to previous decades, Mass shootings are far more common, suicide rates and overdoses among the young are up too. We're saving people in some areas, and losing them faster in others. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I could care less if all mass shooters would shoot themselves first. I am more worried about saving the innocents from them, than them from themselves, Although if they could get some mental help to prevent them from doing something tragic, I'm all for it!
I said something similar earlier in the thread. But this thread is splitting into 2 topics. A lot of people are rightly asking "what can be done to prevent a mass shooting from occurring, or minimize it's effects?" The original question however was basically "why does the mass shooter become the mass shooter in the first place, and how do we prevent that?" One question is mostly reactive, and relies on defensive tactics while the other is much harder to nail down, but takes a more offensive approach and targets the root of the issue.
SVreX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
I agree.
But that's why it can't be fully automated. There has to always be an ability to override.
We can't automate good judgement.
Automation introduces speed and efficiency, but we've attempted to remove the judges and judgement.
We need both.
Yes, my hypothetical scenario includes a manual override, but how does that help? This system would stop a few school shootings as we currently know them at the cost of building a better school shooter: the school shooter-arsonist.
You'd have a school shooter-arsonist roaming the halls, gates locked down thanks to automated detection or a vigilant alarm-puller, and the shooter-arsonist starts tossing moltovs around. It's time to decide whether to use the manual override on the gates. If you open the gates, it's like the present day all over again, except the school is also on fire. If you don't, you've got everyone hiding in a burning building. This doesn't seem like an improvement.
Ian F said:In reply to SVreX :
I don't think it's a lack of maturity that is the problem for today's youth. In a way, I'd say it's the opposite - today's kids have had maturity forced upon them like few before them with little means of escape. Some deal with it better than others. How to recognize the latter and determine the potential for violent outcome - well, that is the question with no easy answers.
It's a different kind of maturity, though. Go back 200 years. An 18 year old man would be expected to be able to act as a complete, functional adult- and not have any of the comforts we have today. They would have to know how to operate a firearm proficiently, or else they would likely starve. And other stuff.
But, they likely never had to deal with pornography (at least not on a daily, barrage-type basis), violent films, video games, etc.
Kids are maturing much faster (or in ways they never did before) in some ways, and much slower (or not at all) in others. Perhaps therein lies the issue.
In reply to STM317 :
" But this thread is splitting into 2 topics. A lot of people are rightly asking "what can be done to prevent a mass shooting from occurring, or minimize it's effects?" The original question however was basically "why does the mass shooter become the mass shooter in the first place, and how do we prevent that?" One question is mostly reactive, and relies on defensive tactics while the other is much harder to nail down, but takes a more offensive approach and targets the root of the issue."
EXACTLY.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
