Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

 And Tobias is example of sporting events not being targeted ever supports my point. Shooters know that they will encounter armed security guards as well as police officers that are armed. Which is why they never shoot up a football game. 

But it's probably because they never went to a game or have Ill will towards the team.  Because that's the only reason the shooters target schools but they went to.

Edited by unckeyherb
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stealthycat

    3808

  • KCitons

    2840

  • KarmaPolice

    1614

  • -fish-

    1078

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's TOTALLY the title of the thread.  Here's why:  Over the last year or so I finally figured out that we don't actually care about gun violence.  When I say "we" I mean everyone, generally.  But als

So I have never gotten too deep into gun conversations here, mostly because guns are as close to religion in the US as you can get. I'm decidedly pro 2nd Amendment, but I also recognize that was

I would love to see civil and criminal liability attached to gun owners as well as shooters. If your gun is used in the commission of a crime, you're responsible unless you can show that the gun was o

2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

The biggest determining factor for how much security a school has is what kind of problems they have with violence, drugs, weapons. My HS might have 3 or 4 fist fights all year. Paying top dollar for an armed officer for the 1 in a million chance a random shooter enters the building seems extreme. By that thought process, every building that the public might enter should be required to have an armed guard: the movie theater, Applebees, etc. 

I think its worth it to protect our children for those rare instances when evil attacks. 

2 hours ago, apalmer said:

And when the dog decides he wants chicken for dinner?

the dog cannot get into the house - but he can make sure nothing else does

 

2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Well you are only counting private school as ones where there are the 1 percenters and socially elite. That's an awfully small sample size. I attended a private school, I have several friends that work at private schools. They are no more secure or armed than any where else. The schools with the most armed guards and security measures are the schools in Detroit where violence is a real regular problem.

true the sample size is small 

but look it up - private schools do not get attacked, not like public schools and it aint even close

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm curious how many schools nation wide have armed security on campus and how many for each level of education.  I don't think there are many at all in my surrounding area that I can think of.  We also have very little gun violence here.  I think most gun shot wounds here are from hunting accidents.

I cannot find an easy source

I want armed guards, not mall police .... I want them to be able to kill an attacker on the spot if it gets to that. 

Asking please is failing, gun free is failing, and until armed guards are at every school IMO the school shootings will continue without interruptions

why ?  nothing is stopping them, literally nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I don't get how you believe that is what I have advocated.

I got you all wrong then ? My apology, I thought you were the ones saying no to armed guards at schools. Sorry, my bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I do, for the strength it has.   That said, and because my mind easily wanders, I wonder what would happen if the dog was an egg sucking dog, but that is a discussion for another time, perhaps.  Do not let my immaturity derail the conversation.

you have vetting for the dogs and you have to train dogs to leave chickens alone

does everyone make a great police officer, teacher, nurse ? no, and not everyone would make a great school security guard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Have there been a lot of school shootings where the shooters didn't attend, used to attend or had a "loved one" attending/working at????

I'd have to research but I think most shooters are familiar with the schools, students and staff and they know if they're guarded etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dickies said:

Is this much different than our "war on terror'?

well you're not taking the war to anybody, its more like having armed guards around Federal building 

protect the valuable things that need protecting - like our kids

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

I'd have to research but I think most shooters are familiar with the schools, students and staff and they know if they're guarded etc.

Most school shootings are not Columbine. They are poorly thought out shootings commited by teens with minimial experience with guns. Most often they have a particular person or people they are targeting. 

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

I cannot find an easy source

I want armed guards, not mall police .... I want them to be able to kill an attacker on the spot if it gets to that. 

Asking please is failing, gun free is failing, and until armed guards are at every school IMO the school shootings will continue without interruptions

why ?  nothing is stopping them, literally nothing

An armed officer in every school? There's like 90,000 elementary schools alone. You are talking about recruiting an army. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

this post is to hold to place for the the #### that I would really like to post about all of you ####ing gun nuts.  Hope you enjoy shooting your tin cans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

An armed officer in every school? There's like 90,000 elementary schools alone. You are talking about recruiting an army. 

But this does not mean more guns, not at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

 

the dog cannot get into the house - but he can make sure nothing else does

 

So the critters could get in, but the dog can't?  The dog is dumber and/or less physical than the critters?  Now there's a formula for success.  Unfortunately, it probably also makes your analogy even more accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems obvious to me but I never actually looked at the numbers until right now:  There is a strong correlation between percentage of gun ownership by state and rate of gun deaths by state.

8 of the states with the highest gun ownership are in the top 11 of highest rate of gun deaths. (North and South Dakota are the outliers)

8 of the states with the lowest gun ownership are in the bottom 10 of rate of gun deaths (Maryland and Florida (of course Florida) are the outliers)

 

Disclaimer:  You can get the numbers on a billion different sites and they will all be slightly different based on year, method of measurement, etc., but I used these: death rates  gun ownership.  My numbers may be somewhat off because the gun ownership is 2007 data and deaths are 2013.  But the general trend seemed the same no matter what year's data I was comparing.  I just used those two because they had the easiest list format. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, randall146 said:

8 of the states with the highest gun ownership are in the top 11 of highest rate of gun deaths. (North and South Dakota are the outliers)

I'm guessing this has to do with demographic density - as in hard to find anyone to shoot when you go on a rampage ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, msommer said:

I'm guessing this has to do with demographic density - as in hard to find anyone to shoot when you go on a rampage ;) 

I know you're joking, but I'd guess it's more cultural somehow.  Alaska is #1 in death rate, and Wyoming and Montana are #'s 5 and 6.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, randall146 said:

I know you're joking, but I'd guess it's more cultural somehow.  Alaska is #1 in death rate, and Wyoming and Montana are #'s 5 and 6.

If Alaska's number one, there goes my next joke, about snow shoes. :kicksrock: 

I don't know enough about the Dakotas to make any non joke comments on why that could be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An observation from the the discussion in this thread:

The pro-gun side of the the debate seems to want to focus mostly on "mass shootings."  They see the problem as a small group of evil-doers doing mass shootings, and therefore the solution is to arm as many good guys as possible so that the evil doers can be stopped as early as possible in their killing spree.

The anti-gun side wants to focus on gun deaths generally, which includes single-shootings, accidents, suicides, etc.  This is a more diverse array of problems with the only common thread being access to firearms, so they want to ban or further restrict gun violence.

Part of the reason we disagree on the solution is because we are talking about different problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, msommer said:

If Alaska's number one, there goes my next joke, about snow shoes. :kicksrock: 

I don't know enough about the Dakotas to make any non joke comments on why that could be.

Luckily I've seen Fargo, so I can offer that cultural insight

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

 When you take the entirety of mass shootings, and you subtract out shooting involved in things like robberies, gang violence, drug wars, etc. as well as domestiv shootings, You are left with all the other gun free zone shootings. That is what I am talking about. That is where the 98% comes from.   This is not solely encompass only school shootings, but it narrows it down quite a bit. And it focuses on the issue that we are talking about. It's not being disingenuous it's trying to get to the closest the statistical representation of  mass shootings that occur at places like schools, that our gun free zones

Right, and you have no idea if 98% means those places are more or less likely to be the location of school shootings because you have no data to which to compare it. Maybe 2% in gun-friendly zones since 1960 is incredibly high.  You don't know.  This is terrible use of data because there's no context provided and you haven't isolated other variables. 

Watch, I'll do basically the same thing with flawed statistical reasoning to show that the loosening of gun laws is actually the problem:

Here are maps (from the good people at Radical Gun Nuttery- a pro-gun rights website) showing how right-to-carry laws have expanded across the United States since 1986.  It's a sweeping, striking expansion.

Here are the statistics on mass shootings over approximately the same time frame.

Does that mean that the expansion of right-to-carry laws are responsible for the growth in mass shootings?  Maybe, but probably not IMO. I didn't account for any number of other factors.  And I don't just get to say "well I have a hunch that making it easier to carry guns means more people carrying guns and then losing their minds and shooting up places, so that must be true."  That's not how it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, unckeyherb said:

You are clearly misrepresenting what I am saying as are other posters.  I've already addressed this with you 3 pages ago that different situations call for different measures-many of which absolutely don't call for more guns.  You didn't have anything productive to say then, you don't now.  You're being obtuse.  Not surprising.  

That's what he does here all the time.  Best to realize it and not waste your time engaging him for a real discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I got you all wrong then ? My apology, I thought you were the ones saying no to armed guards at schools. Sorry, my bad

Nope, I'm the one saying what will be the training and skill of the armed guards, how coordinated would they be with first responders, what would be their rules of engagement, how many would there be, and what would be my recourse, legally when, in an attempt to intervene and save lives they accidently put a round through my child's skull since in most gun battles the hit rate is under 20% and most schools are not built with walls that will stop a missed shot from traveling into other areas. 

I want to know what people mean by armed guards.  I have heard some advocate volunteers, parents and such, or arming teachers for these armed guards.  Frankly I believe even an average cop, alone, would be inadequate as anything other than, perhaps, a scarecrow, which is not to dismiss the effect of scarecrows, they work. 

I am also the guy that would want to define schools.  Does that include preschools, vocational schools, community colleges and universities.  I also maybe want to then discuss the "whack a mole" effect.  If we harden these targets do we prevent a problem or simply relocate it, and to where?  I want some game theory level discussion on what is meant by armed security guards and how they will work.  I am not particularily interested in sound bites.  That's who I am.    Maybe because I actually helped draft policy and training for school resource officers post-columbine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Nope, I'm the one saying what will be the training and skill of the armed guards, how coordinated would they be with first responders, what would be their rules of engagement, how many would there be, and what would be my recourse, legally when, in an attempt to intervene and save lives they accidently put a round through my child's skull since in most gun battles the hit rate is under 20% and most schools are not built with walls that will stop a missed shot from traveling into other areas. 

I want to know what people mean by armed guards.  I have heard some advocate volunteers, parents and such, or arming teachers for these armed guards.  Frankly I believe even an average cop, alone, would be inadequate as anything other than, perhaps, a scarecrow, which is not to dismiss the effect of scarecrows, they work. 

I am also the guy that would want to define schools.  Does that include preschools, vocational schools, community colleges and universities.  I also maybe want to then discuss the "whack a mole" effect.  If we harden these targets do we prevent a problem or simply relocate it, and to where?  I want some game theory level discussion on what is meant by armed security guards and how they will work.  I am not particularily interested in sound bites.  That's who I am.    Maybe because I actually helped draft policy and training for school resource officers post-columbine.

I'd also like to hear about how we're paying for training, arming and insuring all these armed guards considering we just passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that encourages states and localities to further slash revenue by capping SALT deductions and doubling the standard deduction.

 

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Most school shootings are not Columbine. They are poorly thought out shootings commited by teens with minimial experience with guns. Most often they have a particular person or people they are targeting. 

This is true - even more the need for armed security as it would deter them even better so than a well planned attacker. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I'd also like to hear about how we're paying for training, arming and insuring all these armed guards considering we just passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that encourages states and localities to further slash revenue by capping SALT deductions and doubling the standard deduction.

 

He already explained that - it will be by redirecting all the money being poured into local public school football stadium expansions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

An armed officer in every school? There's like 90,000 elementary schools alone. You are talking about recruiting an army. 

yes I am talking about just that - why ?

because our children are the most valuable thing we have .......... we need to protect them

the alternative is to continue doing what we're doing, and having our kids killed in our schools and have that fear always looming ......... to me that's not an option.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:
17 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Nope, I'm the one saying what will be the training and skill of the armed guards, how coordinated would they be with first responders, what would be their rules of engagement, how many would there be, and what would be my recourse, legally when, in an attempt to intervene and save lives they accidently put a round through my child's skull since in most gun battles the hit rate is under 20% and most schools are not built with walls that will stop a missed shot from traveling into other areas. 

I want to know what people mean by armed guards.  I have heard some advocate volunteers, parents and such, or arming teachers for these armed guards.  Frankly I believe even an average cop, alone, would be inadequate as anything other than, perhaps, a scarecrow, which is not to dismiss the effect of scarecrows, they work. 

I am also the guy that would want to define schools.  Does that include preschools, vocational schools, community colleges and universities.  I also maybe want to then discuss the "whack a mole" effect.  If we harden these targets do we prevent a problem or simply relocate it, and to where?  I want some game theory level discussion on what is meant by armed security guards and how they will work.  I am not particularily interested in sound bites.  That's who I am.    Maybe because I actually helped draft policy and training for school resource officers post-columbine.

I'd also like to hear about how we're paying for training, arming and insuring all these armed guards considering we just passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut that encourages states and localities to further slash revenue by capping SALT deductions and doubling the standard deduction

And not least how this will not lead to more guns in our and our kids' daily lives

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, apalmer said:

So the critters could get in, but the dog can't?  The dog is dumber and/or less physical than the critters?  Now there's a formula for success.  Unfortunately, it probably also makes your analogy even more accurate.

yes dog's are dumber - and they don't have the ability to climb and grip with their hands and critters are normally much smaller etc

I've had raccoons reach through and grab the chicks and pull them into the wire and literally pull their bodies apart alive while they eat them ......... double wiring the house fixed that but not after a massacre :(

a dog barking and being present is enough to keep all varmints out - a strong opposing/capable defense is a valuable deterrent

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, randall146 said:

He already explained that - it will be by redirecting all the money being poured into local public school football stadium expansions.

Must have missed it.  Has he run the numbers on that?  Search function is balky today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes I am talking about just that - why ?

because our children are the most valuable thing we have .......... we need to protect them

the alternative is to continue doing what we're doing, and having our kids killed in our schools and have that fear always looming ......... to me that's not an option.

 

That money could be spent in so many ways that could have a stronger impact on the safety of children. For many kids, school is their safe haven.

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1063337001

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Nope, I'm the one saying what will be the training and skill of the armed guards, how coordinated would they be with first responders, what would be their rules of engagement, how many would there be, and what would be my recourse, legally when, in an attempt to intervene and save lives they accidently put a round through my child's skull since in most gun battles the hit rate is under 20% and most schools are not built with walls that will stop a missed shot from traveling into other areas. 

I want to know what people mean by armed guards.  I have heard some advocate volunteers, parents and such, or arming teachers for these armed guards.  Frankly I believe even an average cop, alone, would be inadequate as anything other than, perhaps, a scarecrow, which is not to dismiss the effect of scarecrows, they work. 

I am also the guy that would want to define schools.  Does that include preschools, vocational schools, community colleges and universities.  I also maybe want to then discuss the "whack a mole" effect.  If we harden these targets do we prevent a problem or simply relocate it, and to where?  I want some game theory level discussion on what is meant by armed security guards and how they will work.  I am not particularily interested in sound bites.  That's who I am.    Maybe because I actually helped draft policy and training for school resource officers post-columbine.

lets all sit down and figure it out in a way that everyone feels safe and confident with the results

because right now continuing doing the same thing is going to result in the same thing

you want me to throw some things out there I will .......... military vets are already well trained in firearms and situations, assuming a clear record in the military I have full confidence in anyone like that. Rules of engagement much like police have - their job is protecting the school and the students. The laws would not be unlike that of a campus police for a University or a police officer on duty I'd think. States have laws no protecting people who defend themselves and others.

Armed guards meaning they have firearms and ready to use them against anyone imminently threatening the school

I'm not here 100% drafting a solution, what I'm saying emphatically is that what we have is failing, year after year after shooting after year. Doing nothing to protect schools and our kids will results in coming years and shootings of about the same. I'm not ok with that, some people are, the deaths are acceptable. I'm not one of them, I am one who believes a strong defense is the best deterrent we can have.

I would be in favor of ANYTHING legitimate that stops a crazy evil person from shooting up a school. 

 

"Maybe because I actually helped draft policy and training for school resource officers post-columbine."

and how did it go? what was the results ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes dog's are dumber - and they don't have the ability to climb and grip with their hands and critters are normally much smaller etc

I've had raccoons reach through and grab the chicks and pull them into the wire and literally pull their bodies apart alive while they eat them ......... double wiring the house fixed that but not after a massacre :(

a dog barking and being present is enough to keep all varmints out - a strong opposing/capable defense is a valuable deterrent

And the necessary corollary is that a weak, dumb defense isn't very valuable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

That money could be spent in so many ways that could have a stronger impact on the safety of children. For many kids, school is their safe haven.

 

all of that stuff is deterrents ..... did you notice from that link

Quote

 

In one type of self-defense training, coaches now drill students to ambush a shooter en masse and throw hard objects at the shooter’s head: One Alabama middle school in 2015 sent letters home to parents asking them to send children the following day with “a canned food item” weighing eight ounces.

In another case, a high school in Massachusetts in 2013 noted that each science class was "equipped with cans of soup" to be thrown at an intruder, but that students and teachers had also come up with "more creative ways" to handle attackers by proposing to throw textbooks, chairs, calculators and "other heavy classroom materials."

 

throwing canned foods and books .... well if that's all that have to fight back with that's better than nothing and they're on the right path, a strong defense is the way to stop an attacker.... a trained armed guard with a gun would be much better

 

I understand everyone has a different view on this, and you can see in the article above that in some places they're trying to figure it out without having armed guards. Thats better than nothing, every deterrent is good, like in your home with deadbolts and locks and door jams and security lights. Still, when an intrude in your home dead set on violence gets in, what will stop him then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

lets all sit down and figure it out in a way that everyone feels safe and confident with the results

because right now continuing doing the same thing is going to result in the same thing

you want me to throw some things out there I will .......... military vets are already well trained in firearms and situations, assuming a clear record in the military I have full confidence in anyone like that. Rules of engagement much like police have - their job is protecting the school and the students. The laws would not be unlike that of a campus police for a University or a police officer on duty I'd think. States have laws no protecting people who defend themselves and others.

Armed guards meaning they have firearms and ready to use them against anyone imminently threatening the school

I'm not here 100% drafting a solution, what I'm saying emphatically is that what we have is failing, year after year after shooting after year. Doing nothing to protect schools and our kids will results in coming years and shootings of about the same. I'm not ok with that, some people are, the deaths are acceptable. I'm not one of them, I am one who believes a strong defense is the best deterrent we can have.

I would be in favor of ANYTHING legitimate that stops a crazy evil person from shooting up a school. 

 

"Maybe because I actually helped draft policy and training for school resource officers post-columbine."

and how did it go? what was the results ?

Just look back one page.

 

As for the results, they have been perfect.  we have had no school shootings.  Of course, statistically we were extremely unlikely to have any whether we responded or not, school shooting are extremely rare.

 

My worry is this  if you have a single armed presence, and that presence is there every day, in the same place, following the same routines, and is familiar with and friendly with the kids, and they with him or her, that presence is an easy target to take out before the killing spree starts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Kids are 11x more likely to drown in a swimming pool than being shot in school so maybe we need put lifeguards at every private pool first. 

or a sign that says "drowning free zone" or pass a law against drowning ?

I'm all for more supervision around pools BTW. I suspect the drownings occur in private homes/pools for the most part

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also schools have done a lot to increase security- cameras, tightened procedures for entering buildings, IDs, practiced drills, training staff, training students, etc. Evidence shows that these things are effective. Every major college in the country has an armed police force. It doesn't stop violence on campus. College campuses are much less safe than high school campuses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

My worry is this  if you have a single armed presence, and that presence is there every day, in the same place, following the same routines, and is familiar with and friendly with the kids, and they with him or her, that presence is an easy target to take out before the killing spree starts. 

that's a valid point but as said before, well planned attacks are not common, and if they can figure a way to get around armed security a door block or something like that isn't going to be difficult either

we cannot stop another federal building bombing - you just try and put enough deterrents in places to make it very difficult 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

My community addressed this immediately post-Columbine.  We have School Resource Officers at each High School and junior High school unless they share a campus then we may have only one assigned to both.  We also have School Resource Officers assigned one to every three elementary schools and they rotate their time through them.  Additionally we have report writing substations within the schools where Officers may choose to write up reports even when they are wholly unrelated to the schools believing that mere presence has deterrence value. (why not have them write things up in a warm building instead of on their MDT's in their car at a Dunkin Donuts

 

These School Resource Officers undergo special training from the Gang Detail and from SWAT. We hope they learn to identify trouble and how to clear rooms safely in a crowded environment. Additionally we give them 20 hours of psychological training on interacting with adolescents and they spend  20 hours running through shoot/don't shoot scenarios on the simulator with another ten hours at our training facility. Frankly they are probably woefully inadequately trained for a mass shooting event where children are running helter skelter and information is quickly evolving.  identifying and disabling a shooter in a building full of children is a tricky proposition.  still, we have done what we can with the resources available.

 

 

Was this the post ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Also schools have done a lot to increase security- cameras, tightened procedures for entering buildings, IDs, practiced drills, training staff, training students, etc. Evidence shows that these things are effective. Every major college in the country has an armed police force. It doesn't stop violence on campus. College campuses are much less safe than high school campuses.

Apples and oranges. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Just look back one page.

 

As for the results, they have been perfect.  we have had no school shootings.  Of course, statistically we were extremely unlikely to have any whether we responded or not, school shooting are extremely rare.

 

My worry is this  if you have a single armed presence, and that presence is there every day, in the same place, following the same routines, and is familiar with and friendly with the kids, and they with him or her, that presence is an easy target to take out before the killing spree starts.  

Of course. First thing you do is shoot the armed guard from behind or go to a part of the building far from where they are at. Or pull the fire alarm and shoot kids as they come outside. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Kids are 11x more likely to drown in a swimming pool than being shot in school so maybe we need put lifeguards at every private pool first. 

That will never get support unless they are armed

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

True but my point is just that having an armed security presence doesn't deter crime. 

Of course it does. If you have a college hall that has armed security and another that doesn't, what would you say the odds of the armed hall having an incident vs the unarmed? 

 

Side question....have any of the armed high schools had a major incident? I'm asking because I dont know, not trying to prove any point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

 

 

Was this the post ??

I did also try to engage enthusiastic volunteers, parents, the folks you hope will be interested. I wanted to designate safe walking routes from schools back into the neighborhoods where kids live.  The idea was to have a trained parent stationed, in vests that identified them, with communication directly to the police, on every single block so that the kids would not be hassled walking to and fro. We also vetted and then designated certain business with window signs so that the kids knew, if they were hassled, they could enter those establishments and seek help.   No bullying, no drug dealers, no perverts.  I called the program safe Harbor.  I was unsuccessful.  Parents lost interest extremely quickly. Businesses too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

all of that stuff is deterrents ..... did you notice from that link

throwing canned foods and books .... well if that's all that have to fight back with that's better than nothing and they're on the right path, a strong defense is the way to stop an attacker.... a trained armed guard with a gun would be much better

 

The can thing is kind of silly but not really. The police have trained us and if you can't make an escape, any kind of weapon is useful. Most school shooters have little experience with guns and any distraction can buy time for people to escape or ruin a shooters accuracy. Every class at our school has a 3 fold plan to escape, fight back or secure the room. That's more effective than a guard that might be on the other end of the building. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...