13 Dead, 20 Wounded...

[Psychic Missile]

Please define "Gun Control" and how you would address the millions of projectile weapons already out there?

How is gun control other than a liberal political club with which to bludgeon conservatives?

The question was "Anyone else ever wonder why, after every school shooting here in the U.S. the resulting political discussions center around gun control instead of school security?" I was trying to answer myth's question, not claim that gun control would solve school shootings. I don't think gun control is able to address current weapon owners or current weapons. However, it has the potential to address future weapon owners and future weapons.

[myth]

I think a major issue is that while school shootings have great impact, they are not very frequent. Most schools will go many if not all of their years of operation without a school shooting. Because of this, some of the solutions you offer aren't very practical, especially since school budgets are so tight.

We also have to remember the security response to 9/11. The TSA has proven to be totally ineffective, and even practical measures like reinforced cockpit doors are questionable. Before any new policy, it should be determined whether the measure will be effective and whether the measure has unintended consequences.

Taking these two points into consideration, gun control would theoretically have a further-reaching effect than school security, since it would affect other types of shootings and not put a burden on schools.

Ok, so we should stop spending money on fire alarms, sprinklers, fire drills, and fire retardant material in schools. I'm having trouble finding record of even one child dying this way in the last 50 years in the U.S., but we spend all that money on it. Do you advocate reduction in fire prevention spending at schools?

Also, I'm curious what you mean when you say the TSA "has proven to be totally ineffective". I'm not a big fan of the TSA either, but exactly how many commercial airliners have been hijacked in the USA since the TSA was founded? Your definition of "totally ineffective" must be different than mine. And, what's wrong with reinforced cockpit doors, exactly?

I actually think my suggestions are fairly practical. For most schools (read: everything below university/college level) you could implement these changes for a one-off price of a couple thousand dollars, to probably max of $50,000 plus of course the cost of an additional staff member (the armed guard). If we were to change our mindset a little, some schools could probably get away with using volunteer armed guards (queue the outrage here).

Security is about having multiple, redundant layers to prevent undesirable outcomes. I'm advocating for a pretty basic level of security because I acknowledge the budget problems. If limited funding weren't a problem, I'd have a whole lot of other suggestions to make.

I just think governments and school administrators ought to place a little more value on school security. I don't understand why its acceptable to parents for school administrators to just put their heads in the sand and hope a massacre doesn't happen in their backyard. The fact that it's unlikely to happen is little comfort, I'm sure, to the grieving parent after the 'unlikely' happens to their child.

[rogue06]

So why is the elite media trying to re-write history wrt the Umpqua Community College shooter? Some news outlets are trying to portray him as being a white supremacist where in fact he is multi-racial with a black mother and white father. Here supposedly is his mother^[1]

0000000000osm.jpg



CNN even went so far as to alter the photo of the shooter

0000000000m.jpg

To left is the picture that he posted on social media while on the right is CNN's altered image. They lightened his skin, narrowed his nose and thinned his lips. What can their explanation for this possibly be?

And how exactly does being half-black and going and shooting white Christians make him a white supremacist? A white supremacist who apparently posted on one website his approval of Black Lives Matters disrupting one of Bernie Sanders' rallies a couple months ago saying "Good job! %#$@ white racist pigs like Bernie" [*edited by rogue06*].

Not long after the shooting someone changes the name of the poster from his name to that of another name. Some screen captures show the original name and after the change other poster pointed out the change.














1. Supposedly because another picture looks like its of a different woman. His mother is on the right

shooting-oregon-school-2nd-day.jpg

[seanD]

Ok, so we should stop spending money on fire alarms, sprinklers, fire drills, and fire retardant material in schools. I'm having trouble finding record of even one child dying this way in the last 50 years in the U.S., but we spend all that money on it. Do you advocate reduction in fire prevention spending at schools?

Also, I'm curious what you mean when you say the TSA "has proven to be totally ineffective". I'm not a big fan of the TSA either, but exactly how many commercial airliners have been hijacked in the USA since the TSA was founded? Your definition of "totally ineffective" must be different than mine. And, what's wrong with reinforced cockpit doors, exactly?

I actually think my suggestions are fairly practical. For most schools (read: everything below university/college level) you could implement these changes for a one-off price of a couple thousand dollars, to probably max of $50,000 plus of course the cost of an additional staff member (the armed guard). If we were to change our mindset a little, some schools could probably get away with using volunteer armed guards (queue the outrage here).

Security is about having multiple, redundant layers to prevent undesirable outcomes. I'm advocating for a pretty basic level of security because I acknowledge the budget problems. If limited funding weren't a problem, I'd have a whole lot of other suggestions to make.

I just think governments and school administrators ought to place a little more value on school security. I don't understand why its acceptable to parents for school administrators to just put their heads in the sand and hope a massacre doesn't happen in their backyard. The fact that it's unlikely to happen is little comfort, I'm sure, to the grieving parent after the 'unlikely' happens to their child.

That's not a good argument in favor of TSA. How many hijackings occurred prior to TSA? 911 was a rare anomaly, so you can't compare the effectiveness of TSA post-911 because there are little to no prior statistics to compare. That logic is as absurd as the Bush admin patting themselves on the back because no other 911 event occurred on their watch after 911. TSA has also been proven grossly ineffective aside from the fact of being a miscreant organization.

The only way to curb mass school shootings is open carry in the schools (armed security, teachers, etc.). I know liberals have mass freak outs about that, but it is what it is.

[myth]

That's not a good argument in favor of TSA. How many hijackings occurred prior to TSA? 911 was a rare anomaly, so you can't compare the effectiveness of TSA post-911 because there are little to no prior statistics to compare.

There were quite a few airliners hijacked in the U.S. prior to the TSA, so I have no idea why you think that can't be used as a measurement of success. Actually, isn't that rather the point of a security agency like the TSA? You can't quantify they number of potential hijacking plots the TSA has discouraged just by their existence, since there's no way for us to know what everyone on the planet plans to do. The nature of the security business is that it is hard to differentiate success from luck, and very easy to demonstrate failure.

Commercial hijackings were actually a major reason why Delta Force in the U.S. Army was initially formed (or at least, what their initial training was focused upon). The U.S. government wanted a go-to team to handle airline hijackings. In the early days of of the unit's development, they used old aircraft to practice assaults against hostage takers. They coordinated with manufacturers to obtain measurements they would need (height of door to the ground, window size, layout, etc.) for every commercial aircraft they could think of, putting it all together in an airplane "bible". They trained heavily on close-quarters combat, and did practice runs with live fire and their own team-mates playing the role of hostages (read: firing live rounds into mock targets, with their comrades faces a few inches away). This was done as confidence builder, because they knew in the event of an airplane assault they'd be in very tight quarters, shooting at bad guys with hostages all around. (Source: a book I read written by one of the first members of the unit. Can't recall the name at the moment).

[myth]

That's not a good argument in favor of TSA. How many hijackings occurred prior to TSA? 911 was a rare anomaly, so you can't compare the effectiveness of TSA post-911 because there are little to no prior statistics to compare. That logic is as absurd as the Bush admin patting themselves on the back because no other 911 event occurred on their watch after 911. TSA has also been proven grossly ineffective aside from the fact of being a miscreant organization.

The only way to curb mass school shootings is open carry in the schools (armed security, teachers, etc.). I know liberals have mass freak outs about that, but it is what it is.

I also meant to add - I am a supporter of allowing teachers to carry weapons in schools. With the proper training and coordinate with law enforcement, it'd be a cheaper security mechanism. But it's easier to argue for other security measures, since the gun-fearing liberals get upset about the concept of arming teachings. The fact remains that having even one armed person present in a school deters mass shooters (since they most fear failure, not death, they're looking to maximize their chances of success). I don't mean that schools with SROs never have shooting incidents, but its still a deterrent.

[Psychic Missile]

Ok, so we should stop spending money on fire alarms, sprinklers, fire drills, and fire retardant material in schools. I'm having trouble finding record of even one child dying this way in the last 50 years in the U.S., but we spend all that money on it. Do you advocate reduction in fire prevention spending at schools?

Also, I'm curious what you mean when you say the TSA "has proven to be totally ineffective". I'm not a big fan of the TSA either, but exactly how many commercial airliners have been hijacked in the USA since the TSA was founded? Your definition of "totally ineffective" must be different than mine. And, what's wrong with reinforced cockpit doors, exactly?

I actually think my suggestions are fairly practical. For most schools (read: everything below university/college level) you could implement these changes for a one-off price of a couple thousand dollars, to probably max of $50,000 plus of course the cost of an additional staff member (the armed guard). If we were to change our mindset a little, some schools could probably get away with using volunteer armed guards (queue the outrage here).

Security is about having multiple, redundant layers to prevent undesirable outcomes. I'm advocating for a pretty basic level of security because I acknowledge the budget problems. If limited funding weren't a problem, I'd have a whole lot of other suggestions to make.

I just think governments and school administrators ought to place a little more value on school security. I don't understand why its acceptable to parents for school administrators to just put their heads in the sand and hope a massacre doesn't happen in their backyard. The fact that it's unlikely to happen is little comfort, I'm sure, to the grieving parent after the 'unlikely' happens to their child.

Fires are much, much more common than school shootings.

The TSA has utterly failed tests. 1 2 And as seanD pointed out, the lack of hijackings doesn't indicate the effectiveness of the TSA.

The questions regarding reinforced doors involve the door not being closed the whole flight due to practical concerns like meal service, staff meetings, and bathroom breaks, as well as the possibility of a pilot hijacking the plane. 3

The money spent on security could statistically be better spent on materials and programs, since the vast majority of schools will never see any benefit to those measures.

I'm going to comment on your suggestions. These aren't meant to be arguments against them (except for one) (so I will not defend them), but reasons to reconsider how common-sense and obvious they are.

Single point of entry

What happens when police want to stop a spree shooter? The shooter now has a defensible position. Also, can't a shooter just prop an exit door open?

Security screening at the entry point

Can't someone just shoot their way past this?

Armed security of some kind at the entry point

What if the security decides to go on a shooting spree? What if this person is the first victim?

Randomized security screenings of students/staff

This is illegal.

Classroom doors than can be locked with a dead-bolt style lock on the inside

What if police or teachers want to get into a locked classroom?

[Starlight]

Anyone else ever wonder why, after every school shooting here in the U.S. the resulting political discussions center around gun control instead of school security?

Because turning all schools into fortress is so ridiculous that it comes across as a parody.

I haven't seen reliable data showing a nation in a similar position as the U.S. both culturally and with regard to the number of guns owned, which has been able to enact gun control and achieve effective results

Australia and the UK both achieved very successful outcomes via gun control. You could look up their experiences.

-Single point of entry
-Security screening at the entry point (there are various ways to implement this, depending on what is practical)
-Armed security of some kind at the entry point (can be School Resource Officer, private security, or any trusted person trained in the use of their firearm)
-Randomized security screenings of students/staff (ideally they'd all be searched every time they enter the premises, but that's just not very practical)

Other things that can be somewhat helpful in optimizing school security:

-Bullet resistant window films on exterior and interior windows
-Classroom doors than can be locked with a dead-bolt style lock on the inside (or something similarly easy to lock, the idea being that during a crises event teachers will loose small motors skills due to stress and thus take a longer time to find their door key, fumble with it, and finally lock the door)
-Resource kits accessible to responding law enforcement officers with maps of the premises and master keys to access the entire facility unimpeded
-Frequent active shooter drills for students and staff, just like they do fire and tornado drills
-Video surveillance systems, with the someone trained and able to monitor the situation in a safe location and provide updates to responding law enforcement (most schools, or businesses for that matter, do not have such a set up and therefore their only usefulness is to document the bad things happening. Remember, video doesn't deter someone who plans on committing suicide anyways.)

Are you actually for real? Who exactly are you suggesting is going to pay for all this? And how much counselling are these psychologically traumatized kids going to need after years of attending such fortress-schools?

[myth]

What happens when police want to stop a spree shooter? The shooter now has a defensible position. Also, can't a shooter just prop an exit door open?

That's why we have things like master keys and battering rams. And yes, a shooter CAN just prop a door open. But I guess you'd rather we just leave all exterior doors open on all schools so that every Tom, Dick, and Harry has unimpeded access?

Can't someone just shoot their way past this?

Yes, but its harder to do that when the armed guard at the screening point is shooting back.

What if the security decides to go on a shooting spree? What if this person is the first victim?

What if aliens land? We can't guard against every possibility, PM. The object is just to make the undesirable outcome harder.

This is illegal.

I'm sorry you think so, but that's debatable. Since I didn't really explain what I meant by that, I can understand why you might have assumed the worst. It can be done (consider license checks on public roadways). Whether or not it is legal, laws can change. I'm just making suggestions.

What if police or teachers want to get into a locked classroom?

Did you not read the part about master keys? It'd be nice to have an electronic system that can control access points, but that'd be more expensive, of course.

I hope you don't think you're making a great argument by suggesting one way in which a security measure can be defeated. As I've said before, the whole concept is that the layers of security can and will be defeated. To create a secure environment you have to have multiple, redundant layers of security.

Restricting access is to a building is a prime example. Sure, the shooter could have a buddy prop the door open for him. Or if he's an school administrator, he already has all the keys. But those measures are just as ineffective if the shooter is a student at the school and makes it in without being searched. The point isn't that locking all the doors is a complete solution, it's that if you make it harder for random people (terrorists, former students, angry parents, etc.) to get inside the school, then its harder for them to kill students in the school.

Security screenings of students (and staff not authorized to carry weapons) help address the situation if the shooter is not a random person.

But let's imagine, for a moment, a school where all my suggestions have been followed. First off, random shooters can't easily get into the building because they have to go through a metal detector with an armed guard standing nearby (I know, a careless person left a door open on the backside and he might get it. But at least now he's relegated to walking the perimeter and trying all the door handles -- so there's an increased chance LEOs will be notified before the shooting begins about a suspicious person trying to gain entry to the school). If they try to go in guns blazing, the sound of gunshots gives the front office personnel time to hit a panic button (which all schools should have, consequently) or else make an announcement and/or call 911. Any delay to the shooter at this point saves lives. So now, teachers are locking their classroom doors. Law enforcement is on the way, and the shooter is limited to targeting whomever he can find in the hallways. The potential impact has been mitigated because the security measures have slowed the shooter down.

Or how about if the shooter is a student? I've already said that I think teachers should be able to carry weapons. If we're doing randomized (or better yet, mandatory for all) screenings then the weapon they brought in was found before the shooting started. Or perhaps they were discouraged about their chances of success and never tried. Or, maybe they found a way to get the weapon in anyways and have started shooting people. At this point, locked down is the name of the game and any armed teachers nearby are free to engage to the shooter.

The measures I've suggested are about discouraging would-be mass shooters, and keeping the body count lower when they can't be discouraged.

I'll comment on the rest of your post shortly.

[myth]

Because turning all schools into fortress is so ridiculous that it comes across as a parody.

Australia and the UK both achieved very successful outcomes via gun control. You could look up their experiences.

Are you actually for real? Who exactly are you suggesting is going to pay for all this? And how much counselling are these psychologically traumatized kids going to need after years of attending such fortress-schools?

I've already addressed that I think school security is a separate (though related) issue from gun control.

Obviously, I'd want you to pay for all this, Starlight. You, personally, for every school in America.

Counselling? Because they went to a school were adults acknowledged risk and took steps to mitigate the risk? I'll bet people thought the same thing when the first implemented fire drills (in fact, I've heard people discuss it). "We can't possibly teach kids about Stop, Drop, and Roll because they'll be traumatized for life just thinking about it! They'll all have nightmares of being on fire!"

Starlight, all of this is absurd to you because you live in a country were guns aren't very common and there is statistically less chance of this happening. But there are people in my community who have your same outlook on security measures. I can't help that they've got their heads in the sand and would rather tell themselves "it won't happen here" than take some small steps to mitigate the damage in case it does. I can't help they think protecting children's lives simply costs too much. They're either too afraid to think of how bad it could be, or else they are unwilling to acknowledge that it could happen here. I don't think there's any excuse for either.

The thing is, there are schools in the U.S. that require students to use only clear backpacks and go through metal detectors. Quite frankly, very few the measures I'm advocating are even all that intrusive. The main ones are security screenings and an armed guard. Everything else is already used in schools here and there (for that matter they all are). I'm just advocating for a more directed approach to school security.

[Sam]

So why is the elite media trying to re-write history wrt the Umpqua Community College shooter? Some news outlets are trying to portray him as being a white supremacist where in fact he is multi-racial with a black mother and white father. Here supposedly is his mother^[1]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10344[/ATTACH]



CNN even went so far as to alter the photo of the shooter

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10345[/ATTACH]

To left is the picture that he posted on social media while on the right is CNN's altered image. They lightened his skin, narrowed his nose and thinned his lips. What can their explanation for this possibly be?

And how exactly does being half-black and going and shooting white Christians make him a white supremacist? A white supremacist who apparently posted on one website his approval of Black Lives Matters disrupting one of Bernie Sanders' rallies a couple months ago saying "Good job! %#$@ white racist pigs like Bernie" [*edited by rogue06*].

Not long after the shooting someone changes the name of the poster from his name to that of another name. Some screen captures show the original name and after the change other poster pointed out the change.

I'd have to see an actual CNN screencap or something to believe that CNN so drastically altered an image like there. There'd be no upside to doing so. I'd think, at worst, a CNN-tern grabbed a picture circulating around reddit or something.

Media outlets are portraying the shooter as having white supremacist leanings because he apparently used variations of "ironcross" as his username on social media sites.

Probably not the left-wing conspiracy you're envisioning, here.

[myth]

Fires are much, much more common than school shootings.

The TSA has utterly failed tests. 1 2 And as seanD pointed out, the lack of hijackings doesn't indicate the effectiveness of the TSA.

The questions regarding reinforced doors involve the door not being closed the whole flight due to practical concerns like meal service, staff meetings, and bathroom breaks, as well as the possibility of a pilot hijacking the plane. 3

The money spent on security could statistically be better spent on materials and programs, since the vast majority of schools will never see any benefit to those measures.

I'm going to comment on your suggestions. These aren't meant to be arguments against them (except for one) (so I will not defend them), but reasons to reconsider how common-sense and obvious they are.

So, because you can point out instances where the TSA has failed we should just get rid of them? Because security measures aren't 100% successful, we shouldn't bother? I'm sorry but I disagree.

[myth]

I'd have to see an actual CNN screencap or something to believe that CNN so drastically altered an image like there. There'd be no upside to doing so. I'd think, at worst, a CNN-tern grabbed a picture circulating around reddit or something.

Media outlets are portraying the shooter as having white supremacist leanings because he apparently used variations of "ironcross" as his username on social media sites.

Probably not the left-wing conspiracy you're envisioning, here.

Maybe not, but after the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman fiasco I wouldn't put it past them.

[seanD]

I'd have to see an actual CNN screencap or something to believe that CNN so drastically altered an image like there. There'd be no upside to doing so. I'd think, at worst, a CNN-tern grabbed a picture circulating around reddit or something.

Media outlets are portraying the shooter as having white supremacist leanings because he apparently used variations of "ironcross" as his username on social media sites.

Probably not the left-wing conspiracy you're envisioning, here.

It's not like such a MSM "conspiracy" hasn't happened before. They're notorious at editing video and audio clips to emphasize a a political or racial angle where there was none.

[Cow Poke]

Because turning all schools into fortress...

Wow.... you got THAT from what was typed?