Time to go on offense to take care of this mass shooting problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just like bullet-proof cockpit doors, how about using bullet-proof classroom doors with gun ports (only open from inside)?

This will at least provide teachers/children means of immediate escape/protection until armed teachers can engage the shooter.
 
Yes, we know that about city police and county sheriff deputies.

But law enforcement officers HIRED SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT SCHOOL CHILDREN from active shooters HAVE DUTY TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN.
 
indeed, mass shootings make up a small proportion of the total number of gun homicides in the USA. but those shootings are seen as more shocking. similar to how plane crashes draw a lot of media attention, even though the number of people killed on roads dwarfs those killed while travelling by air.

The further away you from a disaster, the larger the number of people killed needed to make you care and read the story.200 folks at once in a plane crash seems more horrific than 50,000 killed 1 by 1 in auto crashes as an example.

Remember the mantra of any media outlet - if it bleeds, it leads........
 
Just like bullet-proof cockpit doors, how about using bullet-proof classroom doors with gun ports (only open from inside)?

This will at least provide teachers/children means of immediate escape/protection until armed teachers can engage the shooter.
That is putting a bandaid on a severed artery. Until the CAUSE is addressed, nothing changes. Instead of a gun, they make a bomb or use poison or any number of things, directions readily available on the Internet.

Hmmmm maybe we should sue Al for inventing the internet, Apple for inventing the smart phone, and the liberal media for over-sensationalizing everything???
 
When terrorists hijacked airplanes, we armed the pilots with guns so they can protect themselves and passengers.

So has arming the pilots worked to stop airplane hijackings? I believe so.

You do realize that it took the better part of a century to get pilots armed and even then not all airlines allow for armed pilots. Before 9/11, it had been over 7 years since the last hijacking and that was a non-passenger Fedex flight where an employee attempted the hijacking. Prior to that, the last American passenger flight hijacking was 1987. It wasn't until well into 2003 that pilots were legally allowed to be armed.

I don't know that arming pilots has stopped hijackings. Fortifying the cockpits so that they cannot be breached probably has done more than arming pilots (early 2002). Remember, the barriers and locked doors came first and we haven't had any successful hijackings once they were in place. Then came some airlines allowing some pilots to be armed.
 
I have a feeling images of screaming dying school children will tug at the hearts of law makers in Washington much harder.

Fortifying the cockpits so that they cannot be breached probably has done more than arming pilots (early 2002). Remember, the barriers and locked doors came first and we haven't had any successful hijackings once they were in place. Then came some airlines allowing some pilots to be armed.
I agree.

But the pressure to "DO SOMETHING" will resonate and hardening/bullet-proofing classroom doors can be done. But schools are not like airplanes and active shooters are not interested in taking over the principal's office - killing children is the objective.

And simply bullet-proofing classroom doors won't stop killing of children outside the classrooms.

We would need something more to stop the shooters and that's where armed teachers come in - First and last line of defense to protect the children.

This may become the new normal where job description for school teacher includes firearms training.
 
Last edited:
That's not true at all, Most teachers are going to panic and as a long time competitive shooter I don't agree with you, I would rather they put real guards who do just this for a living, than multi task teachers into gunfighters. I would like to see a simulation of what might occur if people who trained a few times were confronted by a shooter, and had to pick out the shooter from the kids, while making sure their bullets went where they were supposed to. My wife shoots, so where you get that from is ridiculous, this is not about carrying gun, it's about skill levels. And if teachers were going to train with professional trainers twice a month, it might work, but just like every other government program, it won't happen. Just put Vets, ex military shooters who have the skillset to be able to pull this off. If someone is middle age and doesn't carry or shoot a gun ever, this is not for them.
 
I would rather they put real guards who do just this for a living
The armed "protector" of the school stayed outside while children were being killed - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/2...who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html

In my opinion, armed teachers getting shot at are more likely to return fire to protect their lives and lives of children, of course with proper training and certification.
This may become the new normal where job description for school teacher includes firearms training.
 
Instead of a gun, they make a bomb or use poison or any number of things, directions readily available on the Internet.
What would you suggest then? Just watch more children die?

Hardening classroom doors and arming teachers voluntarily is response to specific threat of active shooters that can be accomplished.

If/when bombs/poisons are used, then there can be additional responses but that threat has not happened widely or recently.
 
I would rather be proactive than reactive. Neighborhood watches, for example are proactive; police response afterwards is reactive.

As to WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING hysterics, doing things based on hysterical emotions is never a good idea

As for watching kids die, more teens are killed while texting and driving, drinking and driving, doing illegal drugs, suicides, and a myriad of other things than by school shootings.
 
Are you willing to vote to increase your school taxes to pay to arm, train and supply teachers?

Absolutely! Personally, I've been an advocate of this for years.
1) they get their tools of choice, 100% paid for (firearm, 2 holsters, magazines, 2 belts)
2) they get REAL training. Cops take their issued box of practice ammo (or whatever their dept has decided they get) to a target range. Target ranges have huge limitations. The training needs to be in dynamic situations. Soldiers (in general) are taught how to function in groups, and in a war environment. Proposed teacher training needs to be catered to the environments they are in.
3) the condition is that they carry it ON THEIR PERSON, no bags, purses, desk drawers or briefcases. ON THEIR PERSON, open or concealed, I don't care.
4) Teachers and admin get OT pay for the classes, and the ongoing refresher training.

Also:
Offer the Military Reserve folks the option to serve their 2-days/month by serving at a local school, create a hard schedule. They also get situational specific training. 1 soldier present, and armed, and with communication device per 1,000 students.

I will cut a check for $500 right now to fund my portion of this proposal at my local school district, and I promise you it won't come to $500 per household to fund this proposal.

PE
 
(rant on)Personally, I'd rather we close the public schools entirely, take ALL of that money and invest it in doing a better job of educating kids. Home school, church/religious groups, on-line education - all are available for a LOT less, and typically deliver a better result. No wasted money on asinine bureaucracies and administration, no huge sums wasted on government unfunded mandates, no buildings and grounds to maintain, no socialistic indoctrination, and no need for kids to attend classes in a building where most are already designed like a prison (and folks want to make them even more so). We have one of the least educated societies in our youth than most first-world nations. The entire system is a waste of money an no amount will fix it, or stop a determined kid from causing harm to others when they masses together like sardines in a can. (rant off)
 
Personally, I'd rather we close the public schools entirely, take ALL of that money and invest it in doing a better job of educating kids. Home school, church/religious groups, on-line education - all are available for a LOT less, and typically deliver a better result.
+1. Our daughter switched from public High School to online school and she was happier, graduated from High School 6 months early without bullying or teenager drama.

Best part? K-12 "public school" program was free to us. They simply took money that previously went to public school - http://www.k12.com/

And no, only shooting she was exposed to was the range sessions I took her to.
 
The idea of reservists in schools is one of the better ideas. You were right about that cop who just sat outside, many people who have good intentions can't unfreeze themselves when something like this happens. That's what I fear, you need top operators to be able to pick out a bad guy in a split second and hit just him. My fear is that a kid get's shot by someone we put there to protect them and the entire program gets shut down the next day. All of this comes down to money. Just to put in steel doors that take too long to gain access to for a shooter to try and open, is a good idea, but when you multiply the amount of doors, meta detector and whatever else is decided may work, then you have to get the legislators to provide the money to implement the changes. Forget what they are saying this week, if the doors for 1 school are a million dollars and we have hundreds of schools, are they going to approve it? That goes for everything, this is running on emotion right now, but are the funds available to do these things, Or is it just a bone, to arm a few teachers in the school, because it's the least expensive way to go? People are funny when it comes to actually spending their money, I see people who own homes , "nice homes" and have alarm systems who are too cheap to pay for the monitoring charge until they get robbed. At this point I just hope they do something, because my grand daughter was in that school for 8 hours and then de briefed by the FBI for another 3. and she almost ran right into the shooter, but an adult stopped her. So I am all for doing something, but it has to be well thought out and not just a band aid. And I understand what happens when shots are fired, and it's really hard to train for that unless it's happened to you. Teaching someone what to do, and having the actually do it while under fire are quite different. Tunnel vision, hearing loss, breath control, all the things that the body does to protect itself must be overcome.
 
Last edited:
Good post.

You know, life happens ... that's life.

But it's how we choose to respond to what happens in life is what DEFINES us.

Perhaps it's time for all of us to put down our political differences and DO SOMETHING TOGETHER productive and worthwhile to protect our children.

In the recent school shooting, hardened/bullet-proof doors may not have saved lives but trained and armed teachers may have as the paid "protector" failed to take down the shooter and just stood outside the school during the shooting.

So looks like paid "protector" option won't ensure the safety of children.

What other options do we have to ensure the safety of our children?

Yes, cost is a factor but voluntary grant/rebate programs for gun purchase/training for teachers can start next week and can be subsidized or fully paid even to include public donations like fund me, telethons/national fundraisers etc.

Are we back to arming the teachers or are there more viable "immediate" cost-effective solutions?
 
Last edited:
That's not true at all, Most teachers are going to panic and as a long time competitive shooter I don't agree with you, I would rather they put real guards who do just this for a living, than multi task teachers into gunfighters.

But some teachers turned out to be heros. Why handy cap this teachers by taking away the option?

Why do you portray this as an either or?

No one has said teachers need to be gunfighters.

No one has said it should be mandatory for teachers.

Make it an option for teacher just as it's an option for you and me.
 
But some teachers turned out to be heros.

No one has said teachers need to be gunfighters.

No one has said it should be mandatory for teachers.

Make it an option for teacher just as it's an option for you and me.
If I was a teacher, I certainly would welcome the option of carrying a firearm for self-protection in lieu of being killed.

Will or can I shoot to protect children? I may not but when the shooting starts and children starts getting killed and adrenaline rushes, things may change and I may overcome my fears to shoot to protect my life and lives of children.
 
I have been a teacher - elementary - while most of the teachers I worked with were actually more Republican/Conservative leaning NONE of them owned a gun (they all knew I did) - they weren't against them, they just didn't feel the need to own one themselves. These were in two different mostly conservatives areas of two states. I seriously doubt you'll get many volunteers in huge liberal areas. They WANT something done (libs), they just want someone else to do it and take responsibility for the action.
 
How can a teacher who isn't a gun person be expected to fire at a target that is moving amongst hundreds of kids?, he is responsible for every shot he fires. So what happens if the teacher starts shooting without knowing where those rounds are going to end up. He or she could easily kill more kids than the shooter. If these rounds go through walls and kids are hiding behind them, then what. This is a stupid thing to consider, you need sniper quality people to shoot into crowds and hit their target.
We all know many cops can't shoot for crap, so if you give them the same training the police have, in some places that is little to no training. Plus Reloads and firing on the run, it's going to be a mess. Imagine when a teacher hits another student by mistake, because he didn't know the bullet flight or time it would take to get there. I would not want that job, with too many moving parts. Treating them like what used to be called 600 schools when I was kid, is a better idea. One way in and one way out. Put your metal detector there and 2 guards, these new schools have too many entrances and exits, along with too many buildings, they need to build them higher instead of wider. It would take time but forget the beautiful campuses' and concentrate on safety.
You can also have emergency doors that open if there was an attack, to allow everyone to escape, but are locked during normal hours.
So you're saying it's no good having peace officers in schools either, since they are not "sniper quality".

You are not required to reach that mark for any of these, nor concealed license holders who could equally find themselves defending their own life, or third parties in a crowded place.

There are basically three responses to gunshots; run like hell away from the source being one, panic and freeze - cower and hide. A few, very few might fight, even if the odds are against them.

In such an environment there are going to be opportunities where a badguy is in relative isolation. Minimizing casualties is the goal, and the second an identifiable badguy is in view and relatively clear of anyone else ...bang bang bang...

It really is that simple, and that is exactly where any peace officer present, private contractor, or good guy with a gun will be.
 
If I was a teacher, I certainly would welcome the option of carrying a firearm for self-protection in lieu of being killed.

Will or can I shoot to protect children? I may not but when the shooting starts and children starts getting killed and adrenaline rushes, things may change and I may overcome my fears to shoot to protect my life and lives of children.


This is, imo, a very honest self evaluating reply.

Thank you
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top