General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[twa]

7 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Yeah and in the recent Colorado shooting one of the armed school guards shot at deputies and students (I presume accidentally) and going a little bit further back an armed (black) security guard at a bar in Chicago was shot dead by police responding to a shooting incident at that bar. 

 

So that's all working well. Having more untrained or half trained people running around with guns in a highly charged and confused situation is a recipe for (even bigger) disaster.

 

Did they ever determine that?

He did capture one of the shooters.

 

Friendly fire occurs even with trained police and military unfortunately.

 

 

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's a training issue, not a reason to say that won't help.  Someone has to show up first, if anything to help relay scope of the situation to the help that's supposed to coming.

 

If you are a cop attending a live shooting incident how much harder is it for you if there are multiple people running around armed?

 

Even in the military friendly fire is a big issue. 25% of US casualties in the last Gulf War came from friendly fire.

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Did they ever determine that?

 

 

They have not confirmed as far as I know - just confirmed his weapon was fired.

[twa]

2 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

If you are a cop attending a live shooting incident how much harder is it for you if there are multiple people running around armed?

 

 

I'm sure it is much simpler if they wait till the shooting is over or the swat team arrives.

 

Of course the drawbacks to that is why they abandoned that model.

 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

If you are a cop attending a live shooting incident how much harder is it for you if there are multiple people running around armed?

 

Even in the military friendly fire is a big issue. 25% of US casualties in the last Gulf War came from friendly fire.

 

Slow down, we're not talking about random people running around to save the day, that's the teacher with guns plan.  You train for stuff like that and hope for the best.  What, don't send SWAT in because they might shot each other, what's the higher risk for lose of life, having no one there for immediate response or someone there?

[MartinC]

12 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I'm sure it is much simpler if they wait till the shooting is over or the swat team arrives.

 

Of course the drawbacks to that is why they abandoned that model.

 

 

I don't advocate they wait until the incident is over - but I do think that having teachers who have had a couple of hours instruction and armed security guards with a bit more (but not THAT much more) training is actually more likely to make things better than worse. 

 

Apparently trained police officers hit what they shoot at about 25% of the time. What do you think the percentages are for a highly stressed social studies teacher?

[twa]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

I don't advocate they wait until the incident is over - but I don't advocate that having teachers who have had a couple of hours instruction and armed security guards with a bit more (but not THAT much more) training is actually more likely to make things better than worse. 

 

Apparently trained police officers hit what they shoot at about 25% of the time. What do you think the percentages are for a highly stressed social studies teacher?

 

The security guard you mentioned earlier probably is better trained than the deputies arriving. (BOSS does a lot of shooter training)

https://www.highlevelprotection.com/services/private-school-protection/

 

Depends on the teacher and what you expect from them.

[MartinC]

Just now, twa said:

Depends on the teacher and what you expect from them.

 

Personally I expect them to get my 16 year old to a C or above.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

36 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You wouldn't even notice if the glass is bulletproof and they typically have an armed guard in their now anyway.

 

Bs, 2-3% show me the numbers, we talking about eliminating schools as a soft target, not trying to factor in how often it happens, it happens now more then ever, doing nothing based on percentages is a cop out.

 

My daughters school is a fairly newer one (by newer, meaning 14 years old, so not a relic yet) and it was built for their safety.  All the doors lock, magnetic locks so you have to be buzzed in if you have to go in there.  All parents have to let them copy your drivers license and take a picture of you to  have on file if you need to pick them up early.  They have a school resource officer who is a local PD that is on site at all times.

 

There is zero reason for the government to not budget more $$$ to allow for all schools have some sort of minimal security upgrades to keep the shooters out.  Sure, it's not something that is going to be upgraded in one year if they did up the budget to do so, but the least they could do is increase the budget and specify that this extra billions (5, 10, etc. - whatever the amount is) is to specifically be used to upgrade security at the public schools and it will be provided each year until all the upgrades are completed (5 years, 6 years, 10 years?).    

 

Is this a final solution to fix the problem?  Of course not, but nobody will convince me that it's something not worth investing in.  

[MartinC]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

what's the higher risk for lose of life, having no one there for immediate response or someone there?

 

I strongly suspect (but don't know and I don't think there is data on this) that having more armed people/weapons in a school (or workplace, nightclub etc) increases the chance of injury or loss of life rather than decreases it.

 

That's the case with weapons in the home so I suspect it would be the same for a school.

 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

13 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I strongly suspect (but don't know and I don't think there is data on this) that having more armed people/weapons in a school (or workplace, nightclub etc) increases the chance of injury or loss of life rather than decreases it.

 

That's the case with weapons in the home so I suspect it would be the same for a school.

 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

 

I'm not a fan of teachers with guns at school.  Even those that would want to be trained and carry.  Primarily because it's not their job, imo.  Having an armed LEO at each school (School Resource Officer - SRO) is a start.  During the local sheriff elections one of the candidates (who won) stated that he thought it would be better to allow the SROs access to semi-automatic rifles while on duty at the school.

 

That way if a shooter managed to get on school grounds, he would be on even ground as the shooter would not have the tactical advantage over the officer because of them only having their side arm.  I'm down for this.  Teachers being armed, not so much.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[Renegade7]

Just now, MartinC said:

 

I strongly suspect (but don't know and I don't think there is data on this) that having more armed people/weapons in a school (or workplace, nightclub etc) increases the chance of injury or loss of life rather than decreases it.

 

That's the case with weapons in the home so I suspect it would be the same for a school.

 

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/

 

I know this correlation and its a dangerous one in the context of this conversation. 

 

This is about stopping mass shootings in schools and enclosed buildinga, this is not the same as not locking your gun up at home correctly.  In clubs armed personnel is a deterrent and some places in north Carolina trying to make it a requirement based on number of people.  We're talking past deterrent once they are already in the building shooting, then what?

 

The question we need to ask is are yalls worst case scenarios outweighing these worst case scenarios happening everyday?  Are more people getting killed in friendly fire during mass shootings then the actual mass shooting itself?  Every situation or scenario has this thing called acceptable risk because zero risk is impossible (or worth something no one wants to give up)

 

 

[MartinC]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

The question we need to ask is are yalls worst case scenarios outweighing these worst case scenarios happening everyday?  Are more people getting killed in friendly fire during mass shootings then the actual mass shooting itself?  Every situation or scenario has this thing called acceptable risk because zero risk is impossible (or worth something no one wants to give up)

 

 

 

I agree the correlation re home storage/ownership is difficult to extrapolate. 

 

And I just don't think we have data on what happens re injury/death rate in shooting situations relative to the presence of armed security or armed civilians. We certainly will not know what the impact will be of arming teachers until its happened. Much more research into the whole are of gun violence is needed - but of course the NRA have very successfully lobbied against funding that kind of research. 

[twa]

12 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I agree the correlation re home storage/ownership is difficult to extrapolate. 

 

And I just don't think we have data on what happens re injury/death rate in shooting situations relative to the presence of armed security or armed civilians. We certainly will not know what the impact will be of arming teachers until its happened. Much more research into the whole are of gun violence is needed - but of course the NRA have very successfully lobbied against funding that kind of research. 

 

Arming teachers/staff has been in place here since I was a kid, and armed police, of course since we have had no mass shootings yet hard to gather data there.

 

Can't recall anyone getting shot on accident

[thegreaterbuzzette]

On 6/2/2019 at 2:49 PM, Renegade7 said:

 

I work for federal court system in dc, there are at least 6-7 armed personnel protecting the entrances to the building which involving buzzing in, man traps, and metal detectors.  If schools have lockdown procedures, this shouldnt be a public sector issue. 

 

At this point there needs to be bulletproof glass and mandatory door locking mechanisms standard in public and private sector, this is bare minimum **** that some school districts in midwest are already ahead of the game on.

I mentioned this the other day, but workplace violence and mass shootings are not the same MO. Meaning, it's best to not lump them together and try to do a one-size-fits-both solution. Particularly because in a workplace occurances the shooter is known, has access, time to plan, and direct targets. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Real ****. Story time. 

 

CEO of my last opportunity moved the office from Moco to DC. In a....more urban....part of DC and it made them uncomfortable. I was tasked with finding how to make the employees (60% young white women) more comfortable in the setting. Specifically, when they have to work late and there is no parking on site. 

 

Came up with many ideas. Most notably, ****ing lights in the alleyway behind the building and doors that auto lock after a certain hour. The lights, though a good idea, where too bright and hurt there sensitive eyes. The doors, while secure, where hard to get into. So both ideas where scrapped early. 

 

Eventually, as anyone with half a brain could have assumed, **** broke loose and they decided that we needed something. Anything! Kids not going to school would gather in the alleyway to smoke. Cars being broken into on the daily. People being approached by randoms looking for a good time or offering one. People asking for money. The whole deal. Of course no lights and no auto locking doors. So I offered to just put up a chain link fence around the doorway in the back of the alley. You know what this **** told me lol. She said "You dont understand the community and this would be too unwelcoming" @tshile 

 

They ultimately decided to do nothing. We had a "readiness" conversation about disgruntled employees too. Worried about shootings. 

 

Ended the same way. 

 

Interesting, and sad. I work remotely, but when I visit our huge corporate offices....it def crosses my mind.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Bruh, two jobs ago someone walked all the way from outside into my managers office accusing an employ of finding her cell phone and keeping.  Her reaction to her brother who owned the company was locking the f'n front doors, buzz people in, all they had to do was enable it.  But no, he wanted the company to be inviting.  That's his own sister bro, we are past the point of reevaluating this whole office space being inviting thing, its not a f'n public park, its private property.

That's not the point, there a millions of soft targets all over the country this would effect, think of how many school killings this could've limited?  How many come in the building and go room to room like this and Virginia Tech?

 

Yes, which to me is why the mass shooting conversation is much different than gun control. Were mass shootings to be eliminated, I doubt the total number of death by guns would really see much change.

 

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If it cost that school system 2.1 million to retrofit 8 schools you are looking at around $25billion dollars to retrofit every public school.

 

you could buy back a lot of elephants with that.

Imagine if the companies that provided these services were able to be contracted for a FAIR profit and not get blinded by $$$$. Bet prices could be cut 10 fold.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

25 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Imagine if the companies that provided these services were able to be contracted for a FAIR profit and not get blinded by $$$$. Bet prices could be cut 10 fold.

 

 

What is a fair profit?  Do you consider opportunity costs in your profit analysis?  It would seem unfair to me to require a company limit their profit to say... 25%... to install cameras in a school when they could be installing cameras somewhere else at a 50% profit margin.  Do you really want the company that is willing to take less profits installing the cameras and security cameras at your school? What else were they willing to let slip.

 

 

[tshile]

3 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

It's not the only option. Pretty much the rest of the known world shows us other much better options (gun control) - there just is not the political will to take them up. 

 

 

 

Right. It is the only option. 

 

If it wasn’t something would have been done after sandy hook. 

 

So it’s the only option. At least, in the real world. It’s not for message board arguing I suppose. If you like taking positions that won’t happen and arguing about them. 

Edited June 3, 2019 by tshile

[thegreaterbuzzette]

56 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

What is a fair profit?  Do you consider opportunity costs in your profit analysis?  It would seem unfair to me to require a company limit their profit to say... 25%... to install cameras in a school when they could be installing cameras somewhere else at a 50% profit margin.  Do you really want the company that is willing to take less profits installing the cameras and security cameras at your school? What else were they willing to let slip.

 

 

 Why do you only see the world in black-and-white? 

 

I think you use fancy words and phrases, without necessarily understanding what these concepts really mean.

 

Have you ever worked in government contracting? Meaning the proposal, quoting, award process? If so, you'd understand how over inflated government contracts are. I would even suggest maybe more so then the private insurance sector!

 

I am not sure if you are aware, but the new craze in entrepreneurship is social responsibility and being community centric. (Think Bombas,  ThirdLove , Warby Parker, or Parachute).

 

So yes, I think there are many companies out there that would do so. I would much rather a contract be awarded to USA Joe's Bulletproof Glass Co, where he makes a nice profit and his employees are paid well for installing a superior product in the country's schools. Rather than Dick Cheney's college roommate making an outrageous profit, not passing it on to the employees, and installing a sub par product with no care in the world.

 

 

 

I'll also add, you seem to be quite intent on finding error in anything I post. If you take the time to read what I wrote (and what you quoted), you'll see I in no way suggested any power should limit or dictate what qualifies as a "fair profit". Instead, I posed the question of what those costs would truly be if someone took on this deliverable out of a desire to help communities and not just line their pockets. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

I’m pulling for Joe’s Bulletproof Glass Company.  They seem like nice guys.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Have you ever worked in government contracting? Meaning the proposal, quoting, award process? If so, you'd understand how over inflated government contracts are. I would even suggest maybe more so then the private insurance sector!

 

I would blame the government for that, not the contractors.

 

Quote

 

I'll also add, you seem to be quite intent on finding error in anything I post.

 

Dont take it so personally. I quote a lot of people. Im probably wrong a lot. It’s just find a lot of people (like elizabeth warren for example) exclaiming that cooperations are too greedy and should “pay their fair share” and... should only make a “fair profit” without defining what is fair or why. If an company wants to be socially responsible and donate their resources, more power to them.

 

Quote

 I posed the question of what those costs would truly be if someone took on this deliverable out of a desire to help communities and not just line their pockets. 

 

Your question necessarily emplies that they are just interesting in lining their profit and are making a “more than fair” profit, does it not? What is a fair profit, then?

Edited June 4, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Passepartout]

It is not the guns themselves that are the problems. But the people. Mental illness, criminal records, no criminal records but those of lone wolves there. Also seeing red flags and not letting lightly if they say something that may offend people. Should be taken into consideration. But innocent lives are lost.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Your question necessarily emplies that they are just interesting in lining their profit and are making a “more than fair” profit, does it not? What is a fair profit, then?

Maybe my third time will be the charm?

 

Again, I'm not stating me, the Government, or anyone should dictate what an allowable acceptable profit would be.

 

I am suggesting that a company would step up with a solid bid with a goal of doing what's right, in lieu of over inflating costs simply to line pockets.

 

@TheGreatBuzz was it walk talkies you told me about recently-ish, that you had to procure $1000 ones that were identical to $35 ones at Walmart?

 

I also had a call center receive $900 desk chairs, and multiple large screen TVs (hooked up to nothing for years) because we had surplus at end of fiscal year to use or lose.

[Springfield]

8 minutes ago, Passepartout said:

It is not the guns themselves that are the problems. But the people. Mental illness, criminal records, no criminal records but those of lone wolves there. Also seeing red flags and not letting lightly if they say something that may offend people. Should be taken into consideration. But innocent lives are lost.

 

I think this is bs.

 

Even with red flags, the threshold to act against a suspicious person is so absurdly high that nobody is gonna stop a person who wants to shoot up a school, church, movie theater, office building, etc.

 

I posted about my personal experiences with someone who I think is perfectly capable and mentally unstable enough to shoot up a church.  You know what I got?  Well, let us know when he says he’s going to shoot up the church.

 

 

Also, $25B could buy back A LOT of guns.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Springfield

[thegreaterbuzzette]

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Also, $25B could buy back A LOT of guns.

I would be very interested in the logistics and metrics of a buy back program. A few hypothesi:

1- those willing to sell their guns are honestly probably folks that would never even kind of be involved in gun violence of any kind.

2- a large portion of the firearms returned would be non-working, old, or otherwise generally useless

3- the amount of $$ offered would need to be significant to motivate participation 

4- if #3 is true, I would anticipate increased robberies (and therefore violent crimes) as folks attempted to steal others' to return for profit. 

 

 

Again, just spit firing hypothesi 

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

@TheGreatBuzz was it walk talkies you told me about recently-ish, that you had to procure $1000 ones that were identical to $35 ones at Walmart?

 

 

It was a few years ago.  And the numbers were much worse than you remember.  I needed 6 walkie talkies that could have been had at Walmart for cheap.  I literally needed to communicate in a 50 yard wide area.  What we ended up getting were WAY beyond what we needed like in the link below.  Except those are ~$500 a piece.  We got 6 radios and a charging station for $30,000.

 

https://www.grainger.com/product/45CA56?gclid=Cj0KCQjwitPnBRCQARIsAA5n84kWkNy69qhbXOVnpl9tsJQfAb27XtGf27KzJLv-vMmnaly3dN3KSvsaAvhaEALw_wcB&cm_mmc=PPC:+Google+PLA&ef_id=Cj0KCQjwitPnBRCQARIsAA5n84kWkNy69qhbXOVnpl9tsJQfAb27XtGf27KzJLv-vMmnaly3dN3KSvsaAvhaEALw_wcB:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!2966!3!50916686877!!!g!88855256757!

[Springfield]

7 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

I would be very interested in the logistics and metrics of a buy back program. A few hypothesi:

1- those willing to sell their guns are honestly probably folks that would never even kind of be involved in gun violence of any kind.

2- a large portion of the firearms returned would be non-working, old, or otherwise generally useless

3- the amount of $$ offered would need to be significant to motivate participation 

4- if #3 is true, I would anticipate increased robberies (and therefore violent crimes) as folks attempted to steal others' to return for profit. 

 

 

Again, just spit firing hypothesi 

 

It would obviously have to be paired with some sort of ban.  Perhaps another AWB and only pistols/rifles in apparent working condition would be eligible.  Just spitballing.