• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Lt. Col. Grossman: Virginia Tech Tragedy Report Misses Point

Status
Not open for further replies.

cngerms

member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
186
Location
The Beautiful Shenandoah Valley, VA
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/20/112817.shtml?s=ic

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:21 a.m. EDT
Lt. Col. Grossman: Virginia Tech Tragedy Report Misses Point


A leading expert on mass violence has taken issue with a presidential task force report delving into the Virginia Tech shootings and school violence in general, saying it fails to address the key issues.

The report, released to the public on June 13, was issued by a panel that included Michael Leavitt, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and was officially titled "Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy.”

But Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former West Point instructor, declared: "I think they missed the boat.”

Grossman is the author of several book including the Pulitzer Prize-nominated "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” which is required reading for FBI recruits.


After reading the government report, Grossman told NewsMax exclusively:

"All they are reporting on is largely mental illness, sharing information about threatening individuals, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, getting help to mentally ill people, and improving emergency preparedness and violence prevention.

"A full spectrum plan looks at: Deter, Detect, Delay, and Defeat.”

Grossman elaborated on each of the four points:

"Deter: The killer can be deterred. That is why there are seldom any successful workplace massacres in police stations. We need to start putting pressure on schools that refuse to arm their police.


"Most colleges and universities are small cities. Any city leadership that refused to arm their cops, and then had people murdered, would be put out business at the next election. We entrust our kids in the care of organizations that neglect the most fundamental aspect of public safety: armed cops.

"And of course we have the whole issue of not permitting concealed weapons permits to apply on campus. These are laws that disarm law-abiding citizens, and attract killers who want a body count.”


On "Detect,” Lt. Col Grossman told NewsMax:

"The whole focus of the president's task force report was on detecting mentally ill killers before they strike. But most of the high school killers were not mentally ill. The kids that gave us Jonesboro in the middle school and Columbine in the high school are now showing up in the colleges. And the high schools are getting very good at identifying these wannabe killers. All the methodologies learned in blood in the high schools now must be applied in the college.

"An alternative is to identify (‘detect’) and list in a national database all the colleges that refuse to arm their police, and to recommend that parents not send their kids to these colleges. Instead of trying to detect the killer, just detect the negligent schools.”



As for "Delay,” Grossman says: "This generally means lockdown drills and securable facilities. Lockdown is to violence what fire drills are to fire. Every classroom must be quickly securable. How many teachers and professors and students have to die blocking doors with their bodies before we learn this lesson? "Also, every classroom must have two exits, even if one is out the window. And colleges have to do lockdown drills, just like high schools. The faculty must be briefed on where and how to secure their students.

"Defeat: This brings us back to our cops again. First, armed cops need to be onsite. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 in nine minutes. How many more would he have killed if armed police were not onsite?

"Secondly, the police need rifles so they can defeat body armor (the high school killer of seven at Red Lake, Minn., was wearing body armor) and so they can effectively engage snipers. The campus police need SWAT teams trained in explosive breaching so they can quickly and effectively respond to barricaded gunmen scenarios.

"Remember, if a gunman is trapped in a bank or convenience store with hostages, he isn’t there to kill people. But if a gunman takes hostages in a school, he can be there for only one purpose: to kill kids and to carve his name in history in your children's blood.”

The expert concludes: "In these scenarios, seconds equal lives, and just as colleges have fire hoses and fire extinguishers on site, they need to have the tools to respond to violence on site.


"If they are not going to permit their citizens (students and faculty) to carry lifesaving tools (firearms), then they must provide those lifesaving tools, in the hands of trained professionals. This is a moral, legal obligation.”



© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
 
This is another reason why I'm going to talk to my college before I go there, and make sure they will let me carry a gun. After all, if you cannot trust a ARNG soldier with an immaculate record and a security clearance, just who can you trust?
 
Drill Instructor

Immaculate record, security clearance, etc, -- the issue is not "trust", it is "control". The sooner you understand that the nature of all bureaucratic organizations is control, the sooner you can begin to address the real issue.
 
Immaculate record, security clearance, etc, -- the issue is not "trust", it is "control". The sooner you understand that the nature of all bureaucratic organizations is control, the sooner you can begin to address the real issue.

that's why we need someone who will only control what is alotted by the constitution... (yea yea another shameless plug)

I'm happy that a military official has stated this. Who thinks it will get overlooked? (raises hand)
 
He raises excellent points ... unfortunately, the blissninnies will not pay any attention.

Example: The local high school serving my town just completed a major renovation/expansion program that involved adding a number of new classrooms. I know the local building inspector, and I happened to see the plans one day while in his office. Imagine my surprise when I espied (after having read articles in the local newspapers about "enhanced security") glass sidelights adjacent to the door of each new classroom. Oh, yes, of course the glass is tempered glass so the kid who sticks his hand through it probably won't self amputate at the wrist -- but 1/4-inch tempered glass won't stop a bullet, or even a moderately healthy kick. I went over and discussed it with the principal. He said they liked the feeling of openess the glass provides. :banghead:

I took that opportunity to ask if they have a lockdown policy. Oh, yes indeed. Good. Then I asked if all teachers remain in the same room all day, or if they "float." He said a good number of them float. What about substitutes? The custodian opens the classroom for them -- they don't have keys.

Hmmm ... so if Miss Mercy's home room is Room 23 but she's teaching over in Room 39, she doesn't have a key to Room 39. And if Mr. Peebles is substituting in Room 28 ... well, he doesn't have a key, either. So how in the world are they going to lock the door if there's a lockdown? :banghead::banghead:

Funny thing about classroom doors -- they don't have a thumbturn on the inside, for the simple reason that teachers long ago got tired of the kids locking them out of their own classrooms. You need a key to open the door, and you also need a key to lock the door -- from the hallway side.

There's a solution, folks -- and those of you with kids in the school system pay attention. There is (in response to Columbine) a new type of classroom lock, that has a key cylinder on the hallway side and another on the classroom side. This allows the teacher to lock down from inside the room, rather than standing in the hall playing target with a key. But -- the floaters and the substututes still don't have a key. So I asked the people who make the locks. And they told me that nobody ever asked, but there is no reason in the world why the lock on the inside has to be the same as the one on the outside.

Which means that a school could set a single key to work the inside of every classroom door, and give every teacher a copy of that key. In the event of a lockdown, any teacher can lock the door to any classroom they happen to be in, using the same key. Yet on the corridor side it would be business as usual ... each room has its own key to open the door from the corridor.

Think about it. Then go talk to the security officer at your school.
 
Is it just me or don't most fire codes require two exits for every room in a public building in case of fire? What if the idiot at VT had had a couple gallons of gas and some matches along with his guns and ammo? :mad:

Those students shouldn't have had to choose between getting shot or getting injured jumping out a window. (Of course, they should have had the option of being armed, too.)
 
Well I do disagree with this:


''We entrust our kids in the care of organizations that neglect the most fundamental aspect of public safety: armed cops.''


Not that cops should be disarmed but armed cops simply are not the most fundamental aspect of public safety. Law abiding citizens are. But otherwise he seems to get it.
 
Virginia Tech Tragedy

Virginia is a State full of "free thinkers".
After the massacure, I wonder how many of the older students have/will got CCWs and carry, against VT's gun free zone desires.
It may be better to be armed than dead....
 
There would be a couple of points I'd take against him:
How many more would he have killed if armed police were not onsite
Police being on site did not stop him from killing 32, and since he had complete control of the building, he could have kept going if he had wanted to.

The campus police need SWAT teams trained in explosive breaching so they can quickly and effectively respond to barricaded gunmen scenarios.
So we add more SWAT teams to an already-overexploited scare tactic justification. Looking at all the abuses SWAT teams are known for now, such as wrong house, no-knock raids, having more won't help.

And, I agree with Titan6, armed citizenry is always the first response. I wouldn't advocate a CCW walking the halls trying to hunt Cho down, but if he had opened a door and had shots taken at him, that would be a classroom he'd skip. If that had happened at every classroom door, the number of deaths would have been much lower.
 
If they are not going to permit their citizens (students and faculty) to carry lifesaving tools (firearms), then they must provide those lifesaving tools, in the hands of trained professionals. This is a moral, legal obligation.”

Better than nothing, but arming cops is an easy out, the blissninny approach. The fine print will still read that no one is liable for ones personal protection.
 
Interesting that Grossman claims that the study on VT misses the point, and yet some of what he proposed would not have made a lick of difference at VT. As noted, the police at VT were armed, not with rifles, but then again this was not a hostage situation with a trapped gunman either. It was just a lunatic who apparently felt persecuted who decided to kill people. The gunman killed 30 people, not 32 (and not including himself) in 9 minutes. The other two were killed much earlier. Yes, the police need rifles to defeat body armor and they need actual AP ammo to defeat hard body armor. Most of the school shooters don't wear soft or hard body armor, however, and it wasn't worn at VT.

Do I think we could use more police at various places such as campuses? Sure. Will it cost money? Sure, lots of it. We don't want just police, after all, but individuals who are continually trained in rapid response active shooter situations and who are property outfitted to respond accordingly. By trained, I don't mean those guys who qualify once a year on stationary targets, but the guys that continually train like or as SWAT officers. Of course, we don't want such officers to give our various campuses the feeling of being armed compounds that would kill the learning experience of our kids, so we would want them to be present, but clandestine as possible.

How much money are we willing to spend to make this happen? How much do college tuitions have to be to provide the proper type of protection actually needed? How much will our home taxes be raised to cover the costs of municipal schools police to make this happen? How many such police do we need per school? Is it one cop per city school? Is one enough in a high school of 2000 or 3000 kids?

What is the appropriate response time? If we follow Grossman's note of 32 deaths in 9 minutes with armed cops on campus, then we obviously much have cops who can respond much quicker. That many death in that long of a time period simply is not acceptable.

It is all very interesting when the meat of the considerations come out.

Of course in such matters, we could alleviate much of the burden by allowing those who are legally able to carry to be able to do so on school campuses. This would not guarentee that we have a responsible armed adult in every room or one who knew how to respond to an active shooter situation ever time, but it would increase the odds a tad and be a helluva lot less expensive than exploding our police systems with having to train not just cops, but very expensive active shooter cops and arm them with all of the necessary gear.

I wonder how many teachers (pre-K to college) would be willing to carry on campus and be willing to take advanced gun training courses if they were allowed to carry on campuses?
 
Despite the fact that locking down classromms gives a determined killer a set of trapped helpless victims, provern over and over again by these incidents, all of the plans still call for a lockdown rather than a rapid evacuation.



The stupidity of this is incredible.


I agreed with the colonel until I read this part:

"The campus police need SWAT teams trained in explosive breaching so they can quickly and effectively respond to barricaded gunmen scenarios."

They dont need SWAT teams, they need to empower the idea of armed self defense, and the idea of rapid evacuation.

The whole worry about school shooters is nonsense, its so small a risk that its not worth considering. Way more college students and high school students are killed in automobile accidents than by school shooters. Money would be better spent on teaching safe driving skills, it woudl save way more young lives as well.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in most of the discussions about allowing firearms, especially concealed ones, on campus: the fact that, in most states, the majority of college students cannot legally purchase a handgun, and cannot get a CCW permit, for the simple reason that they're not 21 years old. Most students turn 21 sometime during their junior year.

So, in addition to getting the bleating blissninny sheeple who administer most universities to treat their students and faculty like adults, you need to get the state legislature to treat those aged 18-20 to do so as well.
 
I wonder how many teachers (pre-K to college) would be willing to carry on campus and be willing to take advanced gun training courses if they were allowed to carry on campuses?

Oh, but the thorny question will be whether they will accept responsibility for students and whether insurance companies will go for it. Ain't gonna happen.
 
It's just common sense. Though in this case something tells me the junior birdman is getting lubed up for some expert witness fees.
 
"The campus police need SWAT teams trained in explosive breaching so they can quickly and effectively respond to barricaded gunmen scenarios."

You know, for all the hubbub about Campus CCW making people uncomfortable, how comfortable do you think people are going to feel when we have SWAT teams roaming around campus all the time?

Moreover, what if one of those SWAT members, wearing body armor and carrying an MP5, goes nuts and starts shooting students? Who is going to stop them?

It's much simpler to just allow students and faculty to arm themselves. All this crap about new door locks, bullet proof glass... it's all a feel good waste. What if a shooter locks themselves IN one of those rooms with students? How will the police shoot through the window or unlock the door if locked from the inside?

Forget the locks, give 'em Glocks.
 
I taught as a grad student at OU in Norman. Then as an assistant Prof at RSC in Claremore. Now I'm trying to get hired as a teacher in middle or high school. I'm also an Army vet and an NRA Instructor in Rifle, Pistol, and Shotgun.

I would be perfectly willing to carry every day when teaching.

I can't be that unique!

Gregg
 
You know, for all the hubbub about Campus CCW making people uncomfortable, how comfortable do you think people are going to feel when we have SWAT teams roaming around campus all the time?

Moreover, what if one of those SWAT members, wearing body armor and carrying an MP5, goes nuts and starts shooting students? Who is going to stop them?

It's much simpler to just allow students and faculty to arm themselves. All this crap about new door locks, bullet proof glass... it's all a feel good waste. What if a shooter locks themselves IN one of those rooms with students? How will the police shoot through the window or unlock the door if locked from the inside?

Forget the locks, give 'em Glocks.

The numbers don't agree with you.

  • At least half of the students on campus cannot own pistols due to age, much less carry them.
  • The age cohort that attends college has a much lower uptake of handgun carry licenses than the general population. ~ .56% of 20-24 year olds have CHLs. For comparison, ~.91% of 75-84 year olds have CHLs...
  • Most handgun carry licensees do not routinely carry. I would be shocked if half of Texas concealed handgun licensees routinely carried.
  • As for the likelihood of hordes of armed faculty... Well, odds aren't good.
  • Just because someone carries doesn't mean they'd be effective in hunting down a shooter...

Just doing quick and dirty number crunching shows that somewhere between 1:500 to 1:1000 of students would be armed during a school shooting.

At my alma mater, Texas A&M, assuming that 1:500 students are armed and all students are on campus at the time, that's a whopping 90 armed students spread out over 5200 acres... Nope, ain't buying that CHL holders would provide for effective campus defense. As personal defense in a school shooting? CHLs are great. But as a campus defensive plan? Completely ineffective unless you start forcing people to carry. Which, of course, would be insane.

Lockdown with good intra-campus communications capability, heavy barricadable doors, and a small on campus quick response team would be exponentially more effective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top