N Sperlo wrote: Israel hasn't had a major school shooting in decades.
I don't know if that pic is serious or not.
However, every Israeli citizen (including ALL women) serve in the military, and remain in the reserves for life. They've ALL been trained in the handling of military weapons.
That is a VERY different population of people than the average American schoolteacher.
SVreX wrote:yamaha wrote: also remember, just the remote possibility of armed resistance in a school will prevent berkeleytards from going there to massacre people in the first place. I still CC in theatres.......How? He never intended to leave. I can't imagine why it should matter to him.
It's no longer a "soft target" about 90% of these berkeleywads that go in shooting places up as soon as they encounter resistance end it. It's why these cowards don't walk into a police station at shift change and start shooting it up.
ransom wrote: I'd be concerned about the trade-off between probably preventing an incredibly rare (if incredibly terrible) occurrence, and definitely reminding the kids every day that the world is scary enough that a grade school needs armed guards. I'm not a child psychologist. It's just what occurs to me. Not sure why, but it just puts me in mind of what I think my folks tried to impart to me about people as I grew up. They told about some terrible things that people did, but it was also important to know that mostly, people are... people. Like yourself. Clearly, as we heard about earlier in the thread, some folks feel that it would just provide a feeling of security and being watched over. Probably, it would make different impressions on different kids. But if it were at every school, it would make *some* impression on everyone.
It might also make a positive impression on a lot of children in poorer, more crime-ridden areas. Seeing friendly police officers walking around the school every day would most likely acclimate children to the presence of LEO's and teach them these are not enemies. This could go a long way towards combating the "berkeley the police" mentality. Instead of police being the guy who shows up to get you in trouble because you've done something wrong, the police officer is the guy who said "hello" to you every morning when you came to school.
FYI: Many of you are the in the militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Beer Baron wrote:ransom wrote: I'd be concerned about the trade-off between probably preventing an incredibly rare (if incredibly terrible) occurrence, and definitely reminding the kids every day that the world is scary enough that a grade school needs armed guards. I'm not a child psychologist. It's just what occurs to me. Not sure why, but it just puts me in mind of what I think my folks tried to impart to me about people as I grew up. They told about some terrible things that people did, but it was also important to know that mostly, people are... people. Like yourself. Clearly, as we heard about earlier in the thread, some folks feel that it would just provide a feeling of security and being watched over. Probably, it would make different impressions on different kids. But if it were at every school, it would make *some* impression on everyone.It might also make a positive impression on a lot of children in poorer, more crime-ridden areas. Seeing friendly police officers walking around the school every day would most likely acclimate children to the presence of LEO's and teach them these are not enemies. This could go a long way towards combating the "berkeley the police" mentality. Instead of police being the guy who shows up to get you in trouble because you've done something wrong, the police officer is the guy who said "hello" to you every morning when you came to school.
I am with you on this beer baron. I actually had school police officers at all of my schools I went to in Houston, Texas growing up as a kid. The high school I graduated from had 3 officers there everyday. They seemed to be more worried about handing out speeding tickets and looking for kids leaving school early than looking for berkeleywad shooters coming in. I am sure things have changed since Columbine and undoubtedly after Sandy Hook.
I just remember trying to sneak out of school or smoking cigarettes(and other stuff) when the cops weren't in my parking lot.
back in the 80's when I was in K5 or 1st grade I lived in Germany... I was a military brat... we lived off Base and we had an SP (Security Police) ride the on the bus with us... he carried the typical M16 of the era... he was on the bus because Iran had made threats to the about harm or something... didn't matter to me... but I sat next to him every day... his name was also Mark so to my 5 or 6y/o self he was awesome.
a neat memory and looking back I feel bad for the guy, I love kids... but don't put me next to a 5/6 y/o for 30+ min twice a day... I'd have to kill myself... but I certainly don't recall it scaring me... then again the "evil black guns" were part of life as a military brat at the end of the cold war era...
donalson wrote: a neat memory and looking back I feel bad for the guy, I love kids... but don't put me next to a 5/6 y/o for 30+ min twice a day... I'd have to kill myself...
Cone_Junky wrote:yamaha wrote:Yes. This is why it would require our teachers to go through a complete military training to become even close to the same standards those teachers have. Being armed and being able to put down a threat is a huge gap. Just having a gun isn't enough.Cone_Junky wrote: As long as teachers are willing to go through complete military training and the citizens are willing to pay them accordingly. Otherwise I prefer leaving the teaching to teachers and security to military/police.Completely different culture.......don't all isreali's have to join the "Defense Force" when they graduate high school?
FYI, unless you're with one of the high speed door-kicking units (SOF), the marksmanship training isn't all the great (USMC better than the rest, USAF and USN, not so hot). Excepting some SWAT teams, law enforcement are even worse. People tend to think that just because some carries a gun as part of their job, their an expert at it and that's just not the case. Most folks in the military are not combat arms, they're support personnel,,,if they're shooting, something has gone drastically wrong. Unlike TV, most cops very rarely draw their weapon. They tend to rely more talking to people more than anything. Most military and police qualify once or twice per year on a relatively easy course of fire; they tend to be poor shots and it's not likely they get better under stress (see the shooting outside the Empire State Building for an example). Many never go to the range other than for qualification. The exception to the above are folks who are into shooting as a hobby, particularly those that compete in their off time, in which case they're often on par with civilians who compete. None of the above applies to SF, MARSOC, SEALs, Air Marshals, FBI HRT, etc. Those guys tend to receive extra training and, for some of them, are encouraged via free ammo and reimbursed entry fees to shoot competitively to improve their skills.
Anti-stance wrote:Beer Baron wrote:I am with you on this beer baron. I actually had school police officers at all of my schools I went to in Houston, Texas growing up as a kid. The high school I graduated from had 3 officers there everyday. They seemed to be more worried about handing out speeding tickets and looking for kids leaving school early than looking for berkeleywad shooters coming in. I am sure things have changed since Columbine and undoubtedly after Sandy Hook. I just remember trying to sneak out of school or smoking cigarettes(and other stuff) when the cops weren't in my parking lot.ransom wrote: I'd be concerned about the trade-off between probably preventing an incredibly rare (if incredibly terrible) occurrence, and definitely reminding the kids every day that the world is scary enough that a grade school needs armed guards. I'm not a child psychologist. It's just what occurs to me. Not sure why, but it just puts me in mind of what I think my folks tried to impart to me about people as I grew up. They told about some terrible things that people did, but it was also important to know that mostly, people are... people. Like yourself. Clearly, as we heard about earlier in the thread, some folks feel that it would just provide a feeling of security and being watched over. Probably, it would make different impressions on different kids. But if it were at every school, it would make *some* impression on everyone.It might also make a positive impression on a lot of children in poorer, more crime-ridden areas. Seeing friendly police officers walking around the school every day would most likely acclimate children to the presence of LEO's and teach them these are not enemies. This could go a long way towards combating the "berkeley the police" mentality. Instead of police being the guy who shows up to get you in trouble because you've done something wrong, the police officer is the guy who said "hello" to you every morning when you came to school.
This is why I suggested armed armed security along with armed teachers. Just refer to my previous post.
Honestly, I see basically no solutions in this thread whatsoever.
Because we all fall into the same trap. We pick our pet peeve, sometimes it's something we know something about, sometimes not so much. And we try to fix complex problems by addressing our puny little pet peeve.
So, we think the problem is about having fewer guns, or having more guns, or mental health, or freedom, or incompetence in school administration, etc. etc. etc.
The problem is that it's a complex problem, and we will never make any progress by addressing only one facet. The only real solution is a comprehensive, layered, multi-faceted approach.
As a nation, we assume that in order for an attack to take place, there has to be a weapon, and if we remove the weapons, we will remove the problem.
But the basic assumption is wrong.
A weapon is not necessary, only a person intent on carrying out an act. We should have learned this on Sept 11- they brought down the buildings with box cutters. They could have done it with Bic pens, shoelaces, or chicken bones. Since then we have spent billions of dollars trying to improve airport security by finding weapons, and virtually zero on addressing the human factor.
Until we are ready to address the human factor, we will NEVER make any progress. We will only continue to argue and spend money ineffectively, while pushing political agendas.
Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv is one of the most dangerous places in the world, but has not had a significant terrorist event in over 30 years. I've been there. It's astounding, and VERY evident how different their overall approach is than ours.
This is a pretty good article describing the differences in their approach:
The exact same philosophies could be applied to schools. But not if we'd rather argue about our agendas.
mpolans wrote: FYI, unless you're with one of the high speed door-kicking units (SOF), the marksmanship training isn't all the great (USMC better than the rest, USAF and USN, not so hot). Excepting some SWAT teams, law enforcement are even worse. People tend to think that just because some carries a gun as part of their job, their an expert at it and that's just not the case. Most folks in the military are not combat arms, they're support personnel,,,if they're shooting, something has gone drastically wrong. Unlike TV, most cops very rarely draw their weapon. They tend to rely more talking to people more than anything. Most military and police qualify once or twice per year on a relatively easy course of fire; they tend to be poor shots and it's not likely they get better under stress (see the shooting outside the Empire State Building for an example). Many never go to the range other than for qualification. The exception to the above are folks who are into shooting as a hobby, particularly those that compete in their off time, in which case they're often on par with civilians who compete. None of the above applies to SF, MARSOC, SEALs, Air Marshals, FBI HRT, etc. Those guys tend to receive extra training and, for some of them, are encouraged via free ammo and reimbursed entry fees to shoot competitively to improve their skills.
Realistically, police qualify twice a year. Other than that, I agree with all of this. Myself and my partners shoot at the range a lot. There have been multiple circumstances when we are at the range and watch the police shoot and their accuracy is awful. We can shoot better than them. In fact all my partners are police, ex-police, military, ex-military, and I have recently trained ex-feds. We qualify every six months and the expectations are very low. I like to shoot at least once a month, but don't always get to. We are only allowed to carry revolvers. Great accuracy, but we are the dinosaurs of our field.
SVreX said: Honestly, I see basically no solutions in this thread whatsoever.
In order for there to be a solution, a problem must be stated. What is the problem? School shootings? All shootings? Loss of freedoms?
I don't think we actually specified anything.
Read the article.
N Sperlo wrote:SVreX said: Honestly, I see basically no solutions in this thread whatsoever.In order for there to be a solution, a problem must be stated. What is the problem? School shootings? All shootings? Loss of freedoms? I don't think we actually specified anything.
So you're saying, "Let's all bitch just to bitch?" That's stupid.
The issue is we have a problem with gun violence, and a terrible tragedy happened recently that made us more aware of it, and we are not sure what to do about it, though we may not like what other people want to do about it.
Read the article.
I vote let the teachers and principals make up their own choice on this.....if they want to, set up training for it. They need to be taught many things other than just firearms. The one in CT that hid the children was by far the most selfless act of it. There has to be a way for staff to be trained for this extremely unlikely event. Otherwise, firearms still aren't the issue here. Lest we forget about what occurred the same day in china.
I'm trying - just one point with no commentary. Columbine did have armed guards.
SVreX wrote:N Sperlo wrote:So you're saying, "Let's all bitch just to bitch?" That's stupid. The issue is we have a problem with gun violence, and a terrible tragedy happened recently that made us more aware of it, and we are not sure what to do about it, though we may not like what other people want to do about it. Read the article.SVreX said: Honestly, I see basically no solutions in this thread whatsoever.In order for there to be a solution, a problem must be stated. What is the problem? School shootings? All shootings? Loss of freedoms? I don't think we actually specified anything.
Easy, man. I think you'll find a fair amount of people who don't believe "The issue is we have a problem with gun violence." Personally, I think the issue is that this guy snapped. I've read the airport thing before. While fences and checkpoints might help, they're not going to help at a mall, or a public playground, right? If I lose my E36 M3 and decide "I'm gonna off a bunch of kids today," there are a million ways to do it.
So yes, there is a fair amount of "bitching just to bitch." When something like this happens, it's the sane, rational, adult response to try and "fix it," even if that effort is in vain.
poopshovel wrote: If I lose my E36 M3 and decide "I'm gonna off a bunch of kids today," there are a million ways to do it.
I don't think so. If someone breaks into your house and you need to defend yourself, you want a gun, right? There are a million ways you could defend yourself, but the one most likely to work is a gun. Same deal. If you want to off a load of kids, the tool most likely to allow you to do so is a gun. The pro gun folks know this is true. If you honestly believed a knife was as good a weapon as a gun no one would care if they banned all kinds of guns. Yeah, people could kill people, and would, if there were no guns. But an assault rifle makes it easy to kill a lot of people quickly. That's what the technology was created to do.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: I'm trying - just one point with no commentary. Columbine did have armed guards.
Yup, two of them. HuffPo's Amanda Terkel has been pointing that out today, saying, "having armed security on-site failed to prevent the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school." Talking about the way armed guards acted then without knowing the way they are supposed to act now, though, is a silly. That's literally an apples-to-oranges comparison
The guards/cops at columbine were outside the building, and spent most of their time trying to evacuate students. The two times they fired at the shooterswere from afar, through windows. Even SWAT stayed outside. Back then, law enforcement operated under the assumption that armed people were going to take hostages, so they would set up a perimeter and prepare to hear the demands of the perps. The idea was that engaging the perps might cause hostages to get shot.
Police tactics are very different in the post-Columbine era. Now, the assumption is that the perps are not hostage takers, they are active shooters. The first officers on the scene are supposed to enter the building, find them and eliminate the threat. The assumption is that the way to save lives is to find and engage the shooters.
In reply to JoeyM:
That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered.
But please don't equate me to a writer for the Huffington Post. What did I do to deserve that? I didn't read it there. I just happen to live here in Colorado. Details about Columbine come up a lot.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to JoeyM: That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered. But please don't equate me to a writer for the Huffington Post. What did I do to deserve that? I didn't read it there. I just happen to live here in Colorado. Details about Columbine come up a lot.
I used to live in Littleton, two blocks from the high line canal.
[Edit: Sorry about the HuffPo comparison. FWIW, I think their misguided reporter is kind of cute]
In reply to JoeyM:
Nice down there. Back when I actually exercised I used to run the canal trail a lot. It's awesome living here, even if we seem to get more than our share of mass killing.
It has been a long time since I was back there....the last time I went through the Glenwood Canyon, the road was still a single decker....used to hike up to Hanging Lake. Pretty Country.
When I was a kid, I spent one summer doing trail maintenance for the Parks Dept. at South Platte Park (downstream from Chatfield Reservoir, where I learned to water ski) near Jackass Hill Road.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: That was kind of my thought. Unintended consequence of "Joe up the street who likes guns" coming down to protect the kids is likely much, much (like, orders of magnatude) higher. Imagine when Joe goes postal or starts eyeing the girls in a bad way. You want to talk about hell to pay. That's opening a Pandora's box. I'd much rather have a uniformed police officer.
without specifically commenting on the topic (having read that very long post linked earlier i find myself pretty much of that opinion), i'm just curious if you noticed some prejudice included in this statement. my question is why would "Joe up the street who likes guns" have act any differently around a school than a uniformed officer? does the uniform mean he wont go 'postal' or eye up the girls?
WilberM3 wrote: without specifically commenting on the topic (having read that very long post linked earlier i find myself pretty much of that opinion), i'm just curious if you noticed some prejudice included in this statement. my question is why would "Joe up the street who likes guns" have act any differently around a school than a uniformed officer? does the uniform mean he wont go 'postal' or eye up the girls?
(edit) Nah. I'll keep it short then get back to talking about cars.
I respect police and the training they get. I like the idea that they'd be in uniform. I like that they have a career on the line if they mess up.
You'll need to log in to post.
