Gunman arrested at elementary school

Status
Not open for further replies.
And what would have been different in this case?

Maybe a dead armed school invader?

Just because no one was hurt here doesn't make this a "happy ending" necessarily. Schools are still vulnerable, no compelling reason for some other nutjob not to do the same.

A few of them die on the way in maybe that will change. Maybe not, hard to tell, but I'd rather risk the lives of a few criminals than a few children.

And as for the children which would be more traumatic long term?

1) Held at gunpoint in class, helpess and completely at the mercy of some armed criminal while the teacher just stood there.

2) Watching an armed criminal shot dead in front of them by the teacher in the room, an adult that they trust.

Which is more traumatic? Which instills some confidence that at least someone can protect them, that they don't have to live as victims?

I think I'd rather my son see the perp shot by his teacher and deal with that psychological scar than deal with the scar of feeling that he was helpless and the person in charge of him that day was just as helpless.
 
Maybe a dead armed school invader?
Maybe dead school kids.

Of course, having the kids see somebody shot and killed would just enhance the happy ending experience for them. :rolleyes:

Just because no one was hurt here doesn't make this a "happy ending" necessarily. Schools are still vulnerable, no compelling reason for some other nutjob not to do the same.

Well yeah, I would hate to call it a happy ending where absolutely nobody got hurt. :rolleyes:

Schools would still be vulnerable with armed teachers. The believe otherwise would be naive. Schools, such as this, are full of children. That alone makes them very vulnerable.
 
Of course, having the kids see somebody shot and killed would just enhance the happy ending experience for them.

As I said, I actually think it would. They would feel safe rather than spend the rest of their lives feeling vulnerable.

Well yeah, I would hate to call it a happy ending where absolutely nobody got hurt.

These kids now have to live with the fact that when the "SHTF" so to speak no adult was able to help them, they were totally at the mercy of a criminal.

For these kids, this will not be a happy ending for many years, if ever.
 
And as for the children which would be more traumatic long term?

1) Held at gunpoint in class, helpess and completely at the mercy of some armed criminal while the teacher just stood there.

2) Watching an armed criminal shot dead in front of them by the teacher in the room, an adult that they trust.

Which is more traumatic? Which instills some confidence that at least someone can protect them, that they don't have to live as victims?

It would be an extremely traumatic experience for them either way. Dead criminal is certainly preferable to dead child or teacher, but everyone alive and bad guy in police custody is the best possible outcome in such cases.

Yes, I, like most here, would love to hear that a would-be school shooter was killed in the act by an armed faculty member or other school employee/parent. But these children will do much better dealing with such a horrifying experience having not seen someone shot dead right in front of them.
 
But these children will do much better dealing with such a horrifying experience having not seen someone shot dead right in front of them.

I'm just not convinced that is true. Their trust in the "system" that is supposed to protect them, and adults that are supposed to do the same, is gone forever. I just can't get to where I think that's a "happy ending".

Sad no matter how it works out.
 
For all we know, the dude put on a puppet show then let the kids go when the cops showed up. Says it lasted all of 20 minutes, and he handed at least one gun to a hostage as he released them. Doesn't sound nearly as traumatic as some are making out, though I doubt there was a puppet show.

Anyone want to back up their absolute statements with facts, or is it all going to remain based on assumptions?
 
It was a "CRIMINAL ARMED WITH A GUN", not a gunman. The gun wasn't the cause of the crime, the criminal was.

jj
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top