Schools, Shootings, Children and Adulthood

While there are millions of specific improvements that could be made to schools, I think a simple summary would be all that's necessary: 

If the bad guy is outside, keep him outside. 

If the bad guy is inside, let everybody out as quick as possible. In the least "grouped" way possible.

I've seen many schools that have separate buildings which make it hard to coordinate security, or building with one long cooridor that is the only means of egress. We need to rethink (and better fund) school design. 

Managing that could be a combination of security personnel not armed with guns, but also armed with remotes to give specific signals in all classrooms. Perhaps those remotes would also communicate with other security, so a "suspicious individual" alert might give all security personnel a heads up, but won't set things in motion school-wide. A fire alarm, for example, would need "confirmed", whether through a smart sensor system, or through another staff or security member. An active shooter inside may allow certain doors to open in one direction, but not another. If God forbid a team of active shooters descends on a school (inside and out), exterior doors are "signaled" randomly, interior doors are locked down, so not all the students pour out at the same time. 

I'm with SVREX, much of school safety can be solved with technology. We just can't bitch and moan so much when our local school districts want to upgrade (and tax). Maybe we should spend more money on schools and less on fighter jets. 

pheller said:

While there are millions of specific improvements that could be made to schools, I think a simple summary would be all that's necessary: 

If the bad guy is outside, keep him outside. 

If the bad guy is inside, let everybody out as quick as possible. In the least "grouped" way possible.

I've seen many schools that have separate buildings which make it hard to coordinate security, or building with one long cooridor that is the only means of egress. We need to rethink (and better fund) school design.

I had the same thought when I was trying to work out the catch-22 of the gate system. An ideal school building resistant to any kind of masssacre attempt would have as many emergency exits directly to the outside as possible. The trouble is that this limits school building designs: Multiple floors immediately become problematic (evacuation slides would be the best bet, but they won't scale well), and rooms that don't share a wall with the outside of a building would have to be avoided (apart from storage/utility rooms). And obviously it isn't a solution that can be retrofitted.

volvoclearinghouse said:

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.

... and we continue to be stuck. Since Columbine what actions have been implemented???

Run, hide, fight training in schools and workplaces

Increased security and limited access

Revision of first responder tactics (go in and get 'em versus wait outside (ignoring what happened in this last incident))

Anything I miss? What can be done now to make an incremental improvement in the mitigation or root cause side of the equation? Improvement of the current situation requires an ACTION.

As others have stated, WHY IS THE CDC EVEN STUDYING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE berkeleyING LAW?! Let start with pushing to repeal that stupidity.

jmabarone said:

Still, it is hard to make the "good guy with a gun" argument when the one on hand stood outside and waited.  

The good guy with a gun argument still holds up. Since the whole point of that argument is that I'd rather anyone be able to fight back than rely on the cops. The good guys in this instance were the coach who charged the guy so kids could get away and the jrotc students who protected people with their bodies. I'd wish any of them were able to shoot back instead of the chickenE36 M3 cops who hid outside.

Grizz said:

jmabarone said:

Still, it is hard to make the "good guy with a gun" argument when the one on hand stood outside and waited.  

The good guy with a gun argument still holds up. Since the whole point of that argument is that I'd rather anyone be able to fight back than rely on the cops. The good guys in this instance were the coach who charged the guy so kids could get away and the jrotc students who protected people with their bodies. I'd wish any of them were able to shoot back instead of the chickenE36 M3 cops who hid outside.

Nice way to put it.  

In reply to Grizz :

I don't know if the coach having a gun would have helped him.  I somehow doubt he would have taken a shot with a sea of kids between him and the shooter.  Not unless he was well trained in being able to make a head shot almost instantly in a chaotic situation.  That sort of thing happens in movies, but in real life, not so much.  That's probably what happened to the poor deputy. Frozen with the fact he had access to deadly force, but the consequences of misuse were dire.  Yes, it was his duty to enter the building and seek out the shooter, but again - easy to say, not always so easy to do.  

Grizz said:

jmabarone said:

Still, it is hard to make the "good guy with a gun" argument when the one on hand stood outside and waited.  

The good guy with a gun argument still holds up. Since the whole point of that argument is that I'd rather anyone be able to fight back than rely on the cops. The good guys in this instance were the coach who charged the guy so kids could get away and the jrotc students who protected people with their bodies. I'd wish any of them were able to shoot back instead of the chickenE36 M3 cops who hid outside.

It holds up in your theory- but will it in actual practical application? Or will the 'good guy with a gun' freeze up, or hesitate, or simply miss- and add yet another weapon to the arsenal of the shooter? How much more likely is this when, as is typical in these cases, the shooter is a former/current student of that 'good guy with a gun'? Or worse, in a crowded, chaotic hallway the 'good guy with a gun' takes a shot at the aggressor, misses, and hits and injures/kills another student themselves? What happens when the LEOs storm the building and turn a corner and see the 'good guy with a gun' with his gun drawn? And even without there being an active shooter, you're adding in more weapons to the school situation where at some point one is inevitably going to end up in the hands of a student.

I'd far rather see the underlying causes of these shootings to be addressed and stop them before they happen and implement measures to make it more difficult to successfully pull a shooting off (such as some of the physical deterrents that have been discussed). I personally kind of liked the net-gun idea, as silly as it might have sounded.

GameboyRMH said:

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.

I hear you, but now you are mixing egress with fire suppression.

Schools already have fire suppression systems in place (sprinkler systems).

SVreX said:

I hear you, but now you are mixing egress with fire suppression.

Schools already have fire suppression systems in place (sprinkler systems).

 

Pretty sure you could lock a crowd in a burning school with minimal loss of life.

That would require a ventilation system that can keep smoke out of rooms that aren't burning, and major building/safety code changes to allow people to sit inside a burning building. If you use a regular water sprinkler system, a reactive metal fire would be made worse, so you'll have to use something that will put out the usual types plus reactive metals and is safe around people.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Yeah, you responded to that before I fixed it. 

Unfortunately, you are answering the first question of this thread. 

There isn't any way to fix the cause. There are unlimited ways that bad people/ disturbed people can twist things to accomplish their goal. 

Which is why the whole thing becomes reactive instead of proactive. 

STM317 said:

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.

Life today is more complex than in the past.  A major part of that has to do with the nearly 8 billion people on this planet. And the increasingly complex technology. 

Things our parents just did,  now have to be written and codified .  That’s not being a Nanny it’s just common sense. 

Resist change all you want but change is part of life.  

wjones said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

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.

... and we continue to be stuck. Since Columbine what actions have been implemented???

 

Run, hide, fight training in schools and workplaces

Increased security and limited access

Revision of first responder tactics (go in and get 'em versus wait outside (ignoring what happened in this last incident))

 

Anything I miss? What can be done now to make an incremental improvement in the mitigation or root cause side of the equation? Improvement of the current situation requires an ACTION.

As others have stated, WHY IS THE CDC EVEN STUDYING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE berkeleyING LAW?! Let start with pushing to repeal that stupidity.

 

I'm not going to pretend to have an answer. If I did, I wouldn't be keeping it to myself and watching these events occur more and more frequently. This becoming "normal" has taken years and years, and it will take a concerted effort for many more years to reverse the trend. It may be a case where the genie cannot be put back in the bottle completely, but I do think it's worth a try. None of us can stop some random person from becoming a "Lone Wolf" gunman, but we might be able to keep our kid from becoming one. The root of this problem cannot and will not be solved by government actions, it must be solved in our homes.

My wife is carrying Lil' STM as we speak and I've been giving this some thought lately. Here's what I plan on doing in my own home in no specific order. Give kids an increasing amount of responsibility as they get older. Allow them to care for something besides themselves. Provide a framework of structure and discipline for them to grow in, but with enough freedom to thrive rather than being stifled.They must understand rules, but be unafraid to question authority. I will be honest with my kid, and will not sugar coat things or tell them they're not old enough to know something. I will instill confidence in my child, but will stress empathy in their actions. I'll work hard to make them consider the potential consequences of their actions before acting. As they age, Ill let my kid make more choices for themselves and will let them fail so they may understand that their actions have consequences. When they fail, I will be there to support and guide them to a better alternative the next time. I want them to be self reliant, but also understand that they cannot do everything by themselves, and it's OK to ask for help. I recognize that My kid will encounter situations and circumstances that I cannot fully comprehend, and I understand that it's my job to prepare them for those. The only way that I can do that, is to raise them to be observant and flexible. Just as I will raise them with a system of observing and making appropriate changes to the structure of their lives, they will need to be able to observe the world around them, determine a likely outcome, and plan accordingly. Those traits will hopefully allow them to not be a monster, and identify/avoid any dangerous people or situations they encounter.

TLDR; In our kids we need to Engrain the thought pattern of considering the consequences of their actions from a young age (not only for themselves, but how their actions might affect others). Let them screw up from time to time. Come down swiftly if their actions are over the line.

I support gun control...

and think that it is best taught to children in a family setting.

As well as teaching children to respect life and understand that they are not the center of the universe; other people matter too. Care for your children, friends, and family more than your cars. Speak with your neighbors when you have the chance.

There will always be sociopaths and evil people. Laws provide consequences, but don't stop them. Would a few kind words change the life of someone about to go on a shooting spree? Probably not, but it may help someone who is in a downward spiral headed that way.

Kids with their own guns (free access)? Probably not a good idea. When is someone actually mature enough? It seems that maturity is coming later now...

Armed teachers? Sure, ALLOW it if they are qualified and have training, but it doesn't need to cost the school anything. Lots of people I know are licensed for concealed carry. If a teacher wants to carry, do it like anyone else. Randomly telling the math teacher that he/she should be armed is a bad idea.

...I just skipped through the thread and had to add those thoughts, Thx.

In reply to STM317 :

You just described a Montessori school system

In reply to AAZCD :

While I agree that gun control and gun safety are best taught in a family setting. You must admit that since 50% of marriages end in a divorce and countless marriages that remain are beset by acrimony and distrust. 

The chance of a child learning such things in a family setting is pretty small.  

Now add the fact that not all parents are good role models or kind, thoughtful, and compassionate when it comes to teaching their children .  How do you intend to deal with the reality of the real world rather than the utopian world you portray? 

I do agree a good healthy family setting is best.  But what about the rest?  

frenchyd said:

In reply to AAZCD :

While I agree that gun control and gun safety are best taught in a family setting. You must admit that since 50% of marriages end in a divorce and countless marriages that remain are beset by acrimony and distrust. 

The chance of a child learning such things in a family setting is pretty small.  

Now add the fact that not all parents are good role models or kind, thoughtful, and compassionate when it comes to teaching their children .  How do you intend to deal with the reality of the real world rather than the utopian world you portray? 

I do agree a good healthy family setting is best.  But what about the rest?  

It should be noted that 50% divorce rate statistic has long been proven incorrect.  

In reply to STM317 :

"Give kids an increasing amount of responsibility as they get older. Allow them to care for something besides themselves. Provide a framework of structure and discipline for them to grow in, but with enough freedom to thrive rather than being stifled.They must understand rules, but be unafraid to question authority. I will be honest with my kid, and will not sugar coat things or tell them they're not old enough to know something. I will instill confidence in my child, but will stress empathy in their actions. I'll work hard to make them consider the potential consequences of their actions before acting. As they age, Ill let my kid make more choices for themselves and will let them fail so they may understand that their actions have consequences. When they fail, I will be there to support and guide them to a better alternative the next time. I want them to be self reliant, but also understand that they cannot do everything by themselves, and it's OK to ask for help. I recognize that My kid will encounter situations and circumstances that I cannot fully comprehend, and I understand that it's my job to prepare them for those. The only way that I can do that, is to raise them to be observant and flexible. Just as I will raise them with a system of observing and making appropriate changes to the structure of their lives, they will need to be able to observe the world around them, determine a likely outcome, and plan accordingly."

This ought to be written on a pamphlet and given to every new parent.  Well said.  We have a 3-1/2 year old and a 1 year old, and Mrs VCH and I are both completely in agreement with what you wrote.  

As for education, as fortune would have it a small, private community school just opened down the street from us.  Student: Teacher ratio is like 10:1.  Non-religiously affiliated, and tuition isn't sky-high (compared to some places).  Not Montessori, or Waldorf, but they seem to kindof loosely follow some aspects of those philosophies.  The school has actuially been in operation for awhile, but moved into this new building after outgrowing the old church they had been running out of.  I think right now we're between homeschooling, and trying this place.  They could actually walk there, for Pete's sake.  They've had some community events that Mrs. VCH has attended and her response was positive.  

In reply to jmabarone :

It has??

frenchyd said:

In reply to AAZCD :

While I agree that gun control and gun safety are best taught in a family setting. You must admit that since 50% of marriages end in a divorce and countless marriages that remain are beset by acrimony and distrust. 

The chance of a child learning such things in a family setting is pretty small.  

Now add the fact that not all parents are good role models or kind, thoughtful, and compassionate when it comes to teaching their children .  How do you intend to deal with the reality of the real world rather than the utopian world you portray? 

I do agree a good healthy family setting is best.  But what about the rest?  

This goes far beyond firearm safety, but in general it doesn't have to be a traditional "cake topper" family teaching our youth. Extended families. Older siblings. Trusted family friends. Teachers that take special interest. The neighbor that fixes kids' bikes. It takes a village. There are certainly cases where people don't have those resources, and those will probably always exist. But as a society we often fail kids that do have those resources around them, and they're just inadequate. That's not the kid's fault. It's the grown up's responsibility to make sure the kid is properly supported. As a society, we're not doing enough to properly shape our young people. The wrong people are choosing to get married. The wrong people are choosing to have children. The wrong people are choosing to own firearms, or store/use them improperly.

In reply to jmabarone :

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html

No, it's as depressingly high as ever.

And for those with new/impending kids, good luck.  It takes two to make a family and just one to unmake it.  We all start with hopes and dreams of being the perfect parent in that ideal nuclear family, but the changes are high that we'll end up taking the kids to McDonalds on Wednesday night and trying to plan "quality time" for every other weekend.

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

In reply to jmabarone :

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html

 

No, it's as depressingly high as ever.

And for those with new/impending kids, good luck.  It takes two to make a family and just one to unmake it.  We all start with hopes and dreams of being the perfect parent in that ideal nuclear family, but the changes are high that we'll end up taking the kids to McDonalds on Wednesday night and trying to plan "quality time" for every other weekend.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/heart-the-matter/201704/do-half-all-marriages-really-end-in-divorce

That statistic is based on the number of marriages and divorces in a year...but it ignores the fact that the "half" that didn't divorce from the previous year were still married.  Divorce rates are actually going down.  I cannot recall where I read it but there was one study that found that the percentage of divorces from subsequent marriages was around 50%, while divorce from 1st marriage was much lower.  

Here’s another interesting statistic. My wife is a teacher who does pre-K work for the school district. She works 30 hours per week, it’s a great setup for the family.  

I just got my bonus for 2017, which wasn’t the best year for us.   My bonus was equal to a full year of pay for my wife. 

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

Ha this thread has gone all the expected ways. To your original point of age based regulation I must first disagree with your premise. Science has led us to understand that the human brain is still forming into the mid twenties. Kids aren't growing up slower at all. It is just that the lawmakers and policy makers have used this new data to justify shifts in age based laws/policies. Kids today are just as able to do the same things as prior generations. I think we agree on that as it seemed that you were implying otherwise in jest. 

What we have done with the science is to CHOOSE to change the laws and policies to limit risk in the society. So that is where all the rest of the thread runs, deciding what to choose to do with this new knowledge. Society doesn't work well if everyone is treated on a case by case basis. Bias and greed seem to creep in. So a blanket, I doesn't matter how capable or stable you are at 20years and 11 months you still can't drink legally is the most fair way to handle it. Note I didn't say best, just most fair.

I do think biological science should guide decisions on the voting, drug using, gun buying, driving, etc. However, psychology and how a society functions as a whole is also a science that could in some cases counter the biology. It could maybe show that if society has a homogeneous view of handling of a certain activity then it could be allowed at an earlier age as the youth would have been acclimatized from day one to that standard. Like poo on the street. Common occurrence in parts of China for young kids as it is seemed natural for them to have to go when they have to go. It is cleaned up by the parents and not really a health issue from what I learned. Poo in the streets is not common for the USA. Both work per science, both supported and controlled by their societies.

Maybe the starting point for adult citizenship is 25 years old. 18 was chosen by society at some point; it wasn't and isn't some truth of humanity. 

It is good that we live in a country where we can vote for those that plan to make laws to match our views. So go to a town hall or debate and ask this question. Then vote.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Here’s another interesting statistic. My wife is a teacher who does pre-K work for the school district. She works 30 hours per week, it’s a great setup for the family.  

I just got my bonus for 2017, which wasn’t the best year for us.   My bonus was equal to a full year of pay for my wife. 

In my first year at my new job, I made 10% more than my wife made after being a special ed teacher (with a masters degree) for 7 years.  That said, she did have 2 months off in the summer.  

Going back to the first post and the last post...it makes me want to read Starship Troopers again.  

In reply to jmabarone :

I won't lie that there are plenty of times when the idea that you have to demonstrate some level of commitment to the country or your community being a prerequisite for voting has seemed like a good idea- but unfortunately I know that there are many who would seize upon that as a way to make it more difficult for people who want to and are willing to serve and take on the responsibilities to be able to do so. I also think we need to fix some of the current problems with our voting/citizenship system first. Automatic voter registration when you hit the voting age is a good start on the voting side. On the citizenship side, while saying that you have to serve in the military/civil service/etc. is required to be a citizen is a challenging idea I do solidly believe that if you DO serve the country honorably in the military that it should automatically grand you citizenship.