The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

I don’t even believe police tried. They went into the hotel if I remember correctly 

[twa]

32 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

No, because in a school shooting, people won't be shooting people inside the school from a skyscraper at night.  If we're going to be asking teachers to be heroes, they're going to try to be.  Again, my concern about the teacher being the shooter hasn't been addressed, and saying "its hasn't happened yet" is not a good one, either.

 

I think most simply hope they will be a line of defense(which could certainly be called heroes) and seeking out a active shooter left to the professionals.

 There are certainly risks to arming teachers and gunfire in schools though...and not doing so.

 

What would have the Santa Fe body count been w/o him being confronted 4 minutes in?

Teachers being heroes by using their bodies to shield students also leaves something to be desired.

32 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

No, because in a school shooting, people won't be shooting people inside the school from a skyscraper at night.  If we're going to be asking teachers to be heroes, they're going to try to be.  Again, my concern about the teacher being the shooter hasn't been addressed, and saying "its hasn't happened yet" is not a good one, either.

 

I think most simply hope they will be a line of defense(which could certainly be called heroes) and seeking out a active shooter left to the professionals.

 There are certainly risks to arming teachers and gunfire in schools though...and not doing so.

 

What would have the Santa Fe body count been w/o him being confronted 4 minutes in?

Teachers being heroes by using their bodies to shield students also leaves something to be desired.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

I hope ya'll get my point instead of trying to find technicalities to negate it.

I disagree with your point. I think it was a bad example for the point, regardless. 

 

Theres always this idea these situations will turn into a disaster out shoot out. It’s possible, but there’s this constant suggestion that it’s the only possibility or that it’s the most likely one. It’s nonsense. 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I think most simply hope they will be a line of defense(which could certainly be called heroes) and seeking out a active shooter left to the professionals.

 There are certainly risks to arming teachers and gunfire in schools though...and not doing so.

 

What would have the Santa Fe body count been w/o him being confronted 4 minutes in?

Teachers being heroes by using their bodies to shield students also leaves something to be desired.

The level of defense needed in this situation can't be a line, it needs to be layers of an onion.  Why are you mixing teachers protecting their students in an unarmed fashion with asking them to find and disable the shooter?  What would the body count been if he wasn't able to get in the school with a shotgun in the first place?

 

[twa]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

The level of defense needed in this situation can't be a line, it needs to be layers of an onion.  Why are you mixing teachers protecting their students in an unarmed fashion with asking them to find and disable the shooter?  What would the body count been if he wasn't able to get in the school with a shotgun in the first place?

 

 

a line is better than no layers.

A SRO is better than none, 2 is better than one, armed staff that can do more than instruct kids to hide or run is better.

I certainly agree layers is better, as is controlling access once your initial layer is breached.

Most things you do come with a risk of them being used against you, just like bulletproof glass and lockable doors ...or disarming folk.

[Renegade7]

Just now, tshile said:

I disagree with your point. I think it was a bad example for the point, regardless. 

 

Theres always this idea these situations will turn into a disaster out shoot out. It’s possible, but there’s this constant suggestion that it’s the only possibility or that it’s the most likely one. It’s nonsense. 

I didn't say that it was only possibility or most likely one, I said its going to happen eventually if this is the route we choose.  

 

If you want to call Vegas one a bad example, you still miss the point that people didn't immediately realize it was coming from the skyscrapper when the shots first started. If we go forward with this "good guy with a gun" plan in multiple settings, we risk confusion and someone getting killed that wasn't supposed to.  I bet the plan is for all the teachers packing to know who's packing, how are they going to know they aren't the ones that started it?  

 

We don't need to do this, the idea that arming teachers is more realistic or a better idea then metal detector's that I'm seeing from others on this issue is what's nonsense.  Why aren't we training teachers to lock the doors in way they can't be opened from outside and reinforce the doors?  Why is that a less realistic option then giving them guns?  Because it costs more?  Guns aren't free, either.

 

The first responder in Santa Fe shooting got shot twice.  Are we asking the teacher to find the shooter and risk them getting shot like that, too?  Are we asking teachers to stay in the classroom and if they get shot their class is sitting ducks? Why aren't we asking how the shooter got in with a shotgun to begin with?

[tshile]

You’re all over the place. 

 

I’m not against other ideas. I’m just also for arming people, including teachers, because nothing of substance is otherwise being done. 

 

You’ll have to direct your questions to the people that only want to arm teachers. Not sure how many of those there actually are. 

[Renegade7]

29 minutes ago, twa said:

 

a line is better than no layers.

A SRO is better than none, 2 is better than one, armed staff that can do more than instruct kids to hide or run is better.

I certainly agree layers is better, as is controlling access once your initial layer is breached.

Most things you do come with a risk of them being used against you, just like bulletproof glass and lockable doors ...or disarming folk.

You're playing semantics, dude, layers are in many cases involve multiple lines.  

 

We agree there should be at least one person in the school trained for that situation and a line to prevent the shooter from getting in to begin with.  This is not a justification for arming more teachers, if students are in classrooms that can't be broken into, why does there need to be multiple teachers going around looking for the shooter instead of waiting for the police to show up and handle it?  

 

How would bulletproof glass or lockable doors be more or equally risky to not having those two things?  They aren't close, you're reaching.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Renegade7

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

You’re all over the place. 

 

I’m not against other ideas. I’m just also for arming people, including teachers, because nothing of substance is otherwise being done. 

It's a weird topic because on one hand multiple ideas make sense if put into action and some are ideas to put in place because the common sense stuff is taking too long.  I can understand the "arm the teachers in the meantime" argument, but I don't support it.

 

Quote

You’ll have to direct your questions to the people that only want to arm teachers. Not sure how many of those there actually are. 

 

I'd say if someone doesn't want metal detectors but okay with arming teachers is halfway home to this category whether they want to admit it or not.  There aren't as many here as behind the movement pushing for this.  In many cases, its just a resources argument, its cheaper to arm the teachers then put metal detectors in every school, that's true.  That doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Renegade7

[tshile]

I’m not against metal detectors. I just don’t know how well they’d work. If they were accompanied by sheriffs I’d be stoked. But it’d be more because there are now sheriffs. 

 

If I recall correctly, the issue I took up with you was dismissing that it would push the shootings to outside. I guess I see that benefit as minor at best, but I suppose it’s an improvement because it gives the targets more means of escape than classrooms. 

 

The issue I was taking here was more about the fact that a “good guy with a gun” only means confusion and a mass shoot out. It certainly can result in that. It’s the implication that it’s the only or most likely scenario that I take issue with. 

 

Self defense gun use, if you research it, almost never results in a shoot out. It turns out attackers with guns don’t like being shot at it either. They tend to either get hit, or flee quickly. Mass shooters are different than run of the mill street crime, but I think we have enough examples of civilians intervening (with and without guns) to be at a point where we can stop the nonsense on the topic. Doesn’t mean you have to support the idea or like it. 

 

In general I wish people would recognize the potential of intervening and we would do it more often. Instead we constantly talk as if intervention is impossible. I find it incredibly annoying 

Edited May 26, 2018 by tshile

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I’m not against metal detectors. I just don’t know how well they’d work. If they were accompanied by sheriffs I’d be stoked. But it’d be more because there are now sheriffs. 

 

If I recall correctly, the issue I took up with you was dismissing that it would push the shootings to outside. I guess I see that benefit as minor at best, but I suppose it’s an improvement because it gives the targets more means of escape than classrooms. 

 

Ya, I didn't want to go down the path of that discussion, but I understood why you brought it up.

 

Quote

The issue I was taking here was more about the fact that a “good guy with a gun” only means confusion and a mass shoot out. It certainly can result in that. It’s the implication that it’s the only or most likely scenario that I take issue with. 

That was never my intent, I don't like the risk of that, nor increasing it.

 

Quote

Self defense gun use, if you research it, almost never results in a shoot out. It turns out attackers with guns don’t like being shot at it either. They tend to either get hit, or flee quickly. Mass shooters are different than run of the mill street crime, but I think we have enough examples of civilians intervening (with and without guns) to be at a point where we can stop the nonsense on the topic. Doesn’t mean you have to support the idea or like it. 

 

What is this "nonsense" you speak of?  That it will always go south? We agree that's not what either of us are talking about. How is this "self-defense" if we're asking the teacher to go find the shooter?  Are we instead saying "protect the classroom", because that sounds more like giving every teacher a gun, which I hope nobody wants.  

 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

In general I wish people would recognize the potential of intervening and we would do it more often. Instead we constantly talk as if intervention is impossible. I find it incredibly annoying 

 

Can we please separate non-armed response from armed response in regards to what teachers should or should not be doing?  I don't believe teachers should be armed looking for shooters, regardless of what rules we do or don't put in place.  We don't have to agree on that one, but that's a line for me I just cannot live with crossing.  

Edited May 27, 2018 by Renegade7

[twa]

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You're playing semantics, dude, layers are in many cases involve multiple lines.  

 

We agree there should be at least one person in the school trained for that situation and a line to prevent the shooter from getting in to begin with.  This is not a justification for arming more teachers, if students are in classrooms that can't be broken into, why does there need to be multiple teachers going around looking for the shooter instead of waiting for the police to show up and handle it?  

 

How would bulletproof glass or lockable doors be more or equally risky to not having those two things?  They aren't close, you're reaching.

 

Metal detectors are good, they also require a armed presence(preferably 2 or more) or someone in a secure area to lock down access(which then leaves the people bunched up and vulnerable)

Schools can coordinate with local law enforcement to reduce staffing costs at peak times to help there

 

I have never advocated for armed teachers to seek out a shooter, nor said bulletproof glass and lockable doors are more or equally risky.

 

But if you make your room/area secure and the danger is already inside it you have made outside help rather difficult.....average class size is higher than the usual school shooting count.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

Metal detectors are good, they also require a armed presence(preferably 2 or more) or someone in a secure area to lock down access(which then leaves the people bunched up and vulnerable)

Schools can coordinate with local law enforcement to reduce staffing costs at peak times to help there

 

I have never advocated for armed teachers to seek out a shooter, nor said bulletproof glass and lockable doors are more or equally risky.

 

But if you make your room/area secure and the danger is already inside it you have made outside help rather difficult.....average class size is higher than the usual school shooting count.

 

Ya, we start school at different shifts so bus drivers can run for multiple schools instead of having three times as many bus drivers and school at the same time in most school districts.  Spreading it out with local officers helping makes sense.

 

If you don't want the teacher looking for the shooter, what do you want them to do?  What use is having teachers with guns if they are only protecting their classroom? You either have multiple classrooms with with no one armed and coming to help them until internal security or the cops show up, or saying every teacher needs to be armed, which I'm sure no one really wants.

 

In regards to risk management, you add odds to each risk to help decide how much resources to be given to it.  What's more likely to happen, the student already in the classroom and locking everyone in there with them, or a shooter coming to a classroom and trying to shoot their way in unsuccessfully do to re-enforcement?   You can't just throw out possibilities like they are equally plausible because they aren't.  Most of the shooters are coming into the school after class starts, Columbine, Newtown, Santa Fe, show me where the shooter was already in the class then stood up and started shooting if you're going to say that.

[twa]

What I want armed teachers/staff to do is secure their area, you can get better coverage if they can secure natural choke points in a building rather than simply a room....combine that with security doors and you reduce the response area.(and the groups trying to flee)

Each school would need individual plans subject to layout, staffing and capability.

 

In the Santa fe shooting it occurred away from the main building.(which is probably where the SRO's were)

 

These turds are thinking before acting, layers are needed

 

 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

What I want armed teachers/staff to do is secure their area, you can get better coverage if they can secure natural choke points in a building rather than simply a room....combine that with security doors and you reduce the response area.(and the groups trying to flee)

Each school would need individual plans subject to layout, staffing and capability.

 

In the Santa fe shooting it occurred away from the main building.(which is probably where the SRO's were)

 

These turds are thinking before acting, layers are needed

 

 

 

I hear what you're saying, I just don't want to have to ask a teacher to do that.  You're essentially putting someone with limited training in a spot where they should expect someone more heavily armed then them to show up.  Do you understand why I don't like that, either?  We agree there needs to be layers, but I don't agree with this specific layer.  

 

I'd say that if the shooter can't get in the classroom do to re-inforcement, there doesn't need to be multiple people throughout school tasked with preventing them from trying or getting to certain parts of the school, focus should be targeting limited resources on finding the shooter and neutralizing as quickly as possible.  Everyone with a gun should be closing in on the shooter because they are typically going to be outgunned individually.

[twa]

24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I hear what you're saying, I just don't want to have to ask a teacher to do that.  You're essentially putting someone with limited training in a spot where they should expect someone more heavily armed then them to show up.  Do you understand why I don't like that, either?  We agree there needs to be layers, but I don't agree with this specific layer.  

 

I'd say that if the shooter can't get in the classroom do to re-inforcement, there doesn't need to be multiple people throughout school tasked with preventing them from trying or getting to certain parts of the school, focus should be targeting limited resources on finding the shooter and neutralizing as quickly as possible.  Everyone with a gun should be closing in on the shooter because they are typically going to be outgunned individually.

 

If you think you can prevent access to a room then how does that differ from a hall?

 

Closing with a shooter should be left to professionals or those with worse options.(such as the shooter already close)

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

If you think you can prevent access to a room then how does that differ from a hall?

How many halls do you see with doors?

 

In fact, you know what, you could add those, too, and have it so they can be locked remotely to help trap the shooter in a certain part of the school.  I've been in schools where there was a line of doors to get into another part of the building, they lock those for afterschool functions so only a part is open to the public, but not the entire school.  We can put those at choke points instead, reinforce them, and wire to be locked remotely.

 

Quote

Closing with a shooter should be left to professionals or those with worse options.(such as the shooter already close)

 

Left to professionals, yes, but if the shooter is close are you talking about if all the rooms are reinforced and the shooter can't get in, or people outside cornered?  I mean, there's always the chance there's going to be people in the hallways during the lockdown, I need to see how that's already addressed, because by time I left high school they were just starting to take the lockdown drills seriously.  

 

Do you want the good guy with a gun roaming the school looking for students locked out to help them out?  Interesting thought, but do they need to be armed to do that?

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Renegade7

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

How many halls do you see with doors?

 

 

 

 

we had fire doors in halls ages ago.

Much like secure ****pit doors they make sense(till the pilot tries to take ya down)

 

it adds a layer such as when people are moving between classes or start/end of school

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, twa said:

(till the pilot tries to take ya down)

 

Can you please explain why you put that out there?  

 

I feel like for the most part were on the same page about what we do or don't agree with, but I don't understand why you said this or what possible scenario you are putting out there that needs to be compensated for.  In the Flight 9525 crash, the pilot left the cabin and the keypad for re-entry was disabled from the c*ckpit panel by the co-pilot.  US already had a "rule of two" in c*ckpit at all times, Europe at the time didn't.  Is your example in regards to a teacher going rouge?  Well, that's a big reason I don't want them to have guns to begin with.

 

Again, if you're going to throw out ideas that need to not be lost in the discussion, can you at least frame them in the context of probability of that happening?  I'll try harder to do the same.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Renegade7

[twa]

It goes back to what I said before about securely locking people in, the risk is certainly lower, but the risk exists.

Just as there is a added risk by arming teachers/staff that is lower than the risk of shooters...two armed teachers in a hallway are probably safer than one since one might be nuts.

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

54 minutes ago, twa said:

It goes back to what I said before about securely locking people in, the risk is certainly lower, but the risk exists.

Just as there is a added risk by arming teachers/staff that is lower than the risk of shooters...two armed teachers in a hallway are probably safer than one since one might be nuts.

Ya, I get that, but in this case (hall doors locking to trap shooter), what risk are you talking about?  

 

Students being locked in the section with the shooter?  Someone should be watching the door remotely and letting them through then relocking it.  In every scenario we each put out, there will be risk of a grey area that includes the possibility of a judgement call (like the shooter before close enough to students trying to get out a section that the person has to decide if to let the students through or not because shooter may be too close and end up getting through, too).

 

I think no matter what we do, there's a percentage of each idea not being enough or failing.  We have to be careful in this discussion because every idea will have this built-in probability of going wrong, in a situation that we might not be able to make school shooting impossible, just so improbable that people consider it not worth it (which is IT Security in a nutshell).  In IT we accept that most of us don't have the resources to stop a full on state-sponsored attacker no matter how prepared we are (the government can for the most part, like DoD, but they get knicked sometimes, too), but these school shooters are taking cold-blooded advantage of soft targets that are completely unprepared for them (that's different).

 

Right now, we need to be thinking about the counter-measures for the patterns we are already seeing.  If someone goes to a level beyond that, like 3 or more shooters in one school at the same time, you have a different problem.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Renegade7

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

What is this "nonsense" you speak of?  That it will always go south? We agree that's not what either of us are talking about. How is this "self-defense" if we're asking the teacher to go find the shooter?  Are we instead saying "protect the classroom", because that sounds more like giving every teacher a gun, which I hope nobody wants.  

 

I think we’re both speaking to general things we hear from people we disagree with and applying it to each other. I think that’s muddying the waters here. But to address a few of these.  

 

Yes, that’s the nonsense I’m talking about. It’s referenced and applied often. I felt like you were implying it. Sorry. 

 

I brought up self defense stats because it’s the closest thing we have to what we are talking about. A good guy with a gun intervening in a situation (not all self defense gun situations are where the person with the gun was the victim. Sometimes it’s a 3rd party and the person with the gun intervenes. It still falls under self defense legally. In my state this is legal. The ‘self’ in self defense is a bit misleading.). I realize it’s not a perfect comparison. It’s just the closest we have and I don’t think it’s far off. I think it has merit. 

 

Ive never been a “go find the shooter” proponent. I’ve always been a “protect the classroom” person. always as in - since it recently became a thing. I don’t think that requires every teacher have a gun. But it does require every teacher have the option to do what’s required to have one. 

 

I want to explain my current mindset so that you understand I’m not just some nut repeating nra rhetoric (even if some of the ideas are the same...)

- we have far too many guns in society and lost control too long ago

- we don’t have a scotus or political leadership to do anything about the guns in society

- to reiterate, the genie is out of the bottle

- we don’t appear to have the political leadership or scotus in place to *stop the the guns in society problem from getting *worse**

- because of all that, a reasonable and doable option is to have good people take on the responsibility of carrying a gun and acting if something tragic takes place

- that is an incredible responsibility I would never demand if anyone, **but** I wish my fellow citizens would be more respectful of those willing to do it

 

you all want increased gun control. I get it. I actually agree with many of you on many things. I’d be cool with banning and confiscating  **all** semiautomatic weapons. Including handguns.  I refuse to give the nra money. I am not one of the ones standing in your way. 

 

But...

 

when end I hear/read the pro-control people talking about playing Rambo, citing the concern of a good guy being shot by the cops, prentending intervention by citizens is pointless, etc... then in the same thought telling us how we need more gun control...

 

it comes across is completely disrespectful of the people who have already thought of this and chosen to accept the responsibilities. It comes across as a complete disrespect of their intentions. It’s a complete lack of knowledge about the situations we know about. And a complete naïveté of the current political landscape. 

 

At some point you have to quit waiting for the political aperstus to chance. You have to work with what you got. Even if what you got sucks. 

[zCommander]

Every school needs to have an x-ray machine installed to scan the body and the backpacks.

 

 

An AI will determine if the student is clean or else will be locked in between the entrance and the exit hall. No need for TSA type of personal on every door. Problem solved.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by zskins

[twa]

You are going to subject them to x-rays daily and ya'll worry about second hand smoke?

 

[tshile]

You don’t miss a beat and I love you for it