Originally posted by Bigfella
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Las Vegas Oct 2017 mass shooting
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostAn armed security guard (School Resource Officer from the Sheriffs Dept) didn't keep this kid from walking onto school property with a long gun.Last edited by Ironduke; 17 Feb 18,, 07:06."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostI spend a lot of time trying to explain to left wing Australians that America is not at all what they think. So much better in so very many ways. Then I read supposedly rational people advocating for the arming of teachers with anything up to & including AKs & I realize that I am probably wasting my time. You are fucked in ways so deep & so profound that I think some of you have actually lost the ability to see it. Not all, but WAY too many. I cannot tell you how pleased I am that we never have these conversations here.
You and me both. Arming teachers. Makes complete sense. What could possibly go wrong?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostAn armed security guard (School Resource Officer from the Sheriffs Dept) didn't keep this kid from walking onto school property with a long gun.
Depending on the training the armed teacher received, it would be easy to show that they had gone "Above the scope of their training" which opens them up for a lawsuit. Its the same as if a First Responder goes beyond their training.
FDLE weapon standards are
Commission’s Approved Course of Fire for the Firearms Qualification Standard
Stage 1 hip position from holster
Stage 2 Two-hand high point from Ready Gun
Using single target from the 1 to 3-yard line shoot:
2 rounds in 4 seconds
Repeat one time for a total of 4 rounds
Using single target from the 3-yard line shoot:
2 rounds in 1 second
Repeat two times for a total of 6 rounds
Stage 3 Two-hand high point from holster
Stage 4 Two-hand high point from holster
Using single target from the 7-yard line shoot:
2 rounds in 4 seconds from the holster
2 rounds in 4 seconds from ready gun position
2 rounds in 4 seconds from ready gun position
Using single target from the 7-yard line shoot:
3 rounds in 5 seconds.
Repeat one time for a total of 6 rounds
Stage 5 Two-hand high point from holster
Stage 6 Two-hand high point from holster
Using single target from the 7-yard line shoot:
12 rounds in 45 seconds. (Mandatory Reload)
Using single target from the 15-yard line shoot:
6 rounds in 30 seconds.
Passing Score. A passing score is a minimum score of 80%, which is 32 of 40 rounds in the scoring area.
Scoring. The scoring shall be any hit that is inside or touches the exterior scoring line of the 4 and 5 zone of a commercially produced
B-21E target or equivalent Pride Enterprises (P.R.I.D.E.) target.
This is what your local PD or State Trooper is going to teach.
That said long distance shooting (say over 7 meters or so ) is H.A.R.D. hard to do consistently despite what non shooters may think from watching television which in part is why when first respondents arrive they go in with long arms assuming they have them - and I don't know of a force in the US that doesn't. I would hate to be a teacher moving out into a corridor to take on an active shooter armed with what seems to be the weapon of choice these days, an assault rifle.
As an aside I know a few teachers and based on conversations with them if you are going to make the carrying of sidearms by educators in the States compulsory you will also have to bring in rule making it compulsory for them to disarm prior to any parent teacher meeting - a lot of parents will be lucky to leave (alive) otherwise.Last edited by Monash; 17 Feb 18,, 08:13.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WABs_OOE View PostYou're asking way too much for a part time security guard. Even soldiers reving up for deployment gets extensive range time before they're sent out for combat. Target selection would be probamatic and I would count on friendly fire, especially when cops arrive on scene and can't tell bad guys from good.
You'd have to have them co-train with the local LE agencies so the real cops would know who they are if something happens. A lot of middle aged teachers also have lots of free time that they can use to attend training (though that would vary greatly by district and school.
I think two questions you got to ask:
1. How would such a person perform relative to a typical police officer in a similar situation?
2. Would you rather have said person be there than not there if the SHTF scenario does happen?
But I agree that physical security measures such as secured and limited points of entry to campus, stronger classroom doors would be easier and no brainer as long as schools can afford them.
Originally posted by Monash View PostThat said long distance shooting (say over 7 meters or so ) is H.A.R.D. hard to do consistently despite what non shooters may think from watching television which in part is why when first respondents arrive they go in with long arms assuming they have them - and I don't know of a force in the US that doesn't. I would hate to be a teacher moving out into a corridor to take on an active shooter armed with what seems to be the weapon of choice these days, an assault rifle.
Also, in these situations you do not want just ONE person armed, you need several. With one person your ability to do something is greatly limited. Even with 2 people your options improve exponentially.
Biggest problem I think is not the teacher but where do you keep the gun? How do you secure it in the school? What happens when everybody goes home at the end of the day?
As an aside I know a few teachers and based on conversations with them if you are going to make the carrying of sidearms by educators in the States compulsory you will also have to bring in rule making it compulsory for them to disarm prior to any parent teacher meeting - a lot of parents will be lucky to leave otherwise.Last edited by citanon; 17 Feb 18,, 07:18.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostUnder the mass shooter label, active shooters gets lumped in with, for example, gang members who perform hit-and-run drive-bys, yet intends to live and get away with it. Even though multiple people are shot in both scenarios, the motivations behind the acts and the methods used are different and a distinction is warranted. The first is an active shooter, the latter is not.
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostThen I read supposedly rational people advocating for the arming of teachers with anything up to & including AKs & I realize that I am probably wasting my time. You are fucked in ways so deep & so profound that I think some of you have actually lost the ability to see it. Not all, but WAY too many. I cannot tell you how pleased I am that we never have these conversations here.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostI spend a lot of time trying to explain to left wing Australians that America is not at all what they think. So much better in so very many ways. Then I read supposedly rational people advocating for the arming of teachers with anything up to & including AKs & I realize that I am probably wasting my time. You are fucked in ways so deep & so profound that I think some of you have actually lost the ability to see it. Not all, but WAY too many. I cannot tell you how pleased I am that we never have these conversations here.
I grew up around guns and own guns, and I am fine with tighter regulations. People simply do not need a lot of these range queen guns that are finding there way into the mass killers' hands. As far as I am concerned, the NRA & company put my right to have a firearm in jeopardy by taking a hard right hardline on anything having to do with firearms as eventually that dam will break and when it does, it won't be pretty for people who hunt or who own less extreme firearms perfectly capable of being used in self-defense.
Comment
-
Originally posted by kato View PostMmm. Interesting, as we don't have an active shooter label. We have an "amok situation" in police procedures, but that does not define the perp's motivations or methods as that's not really relevant (and there's no distinct "typical amok runner" from a psychiatric view)."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostColumbine had one too. The shooters there were surely fully aware their school had one. Virginia Tech has its own police force and security guards, didn't pre-emptively dissuade the shooter there either.If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostFrom what I'm able to gather, Amoklauf is the essentially same thing as an active shooter here.
Whether the perpetrator is e.g. suicidal or only targeting a particular group does not play into it, it basically just defines the broad situation - in order for police to assume certain procedures (don Class IV protective equipment, get the MP5s from the car, call in situation if not reported yet, then if on site start house clearing in buddy formation even before backup arrives in order to preempt further casualties, canalize all civilians to places where they're less likely to become victims).
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostAre there any examples of multiple murders that are not considered Amoklauf in Germany?
Domestic violence sorta sits on the fence and depends on the exact situation; an amok situation is usually only called there if the perpetrator is not encountered on site and at large (i.e. if other people remain endangered).
Comment
-
Originally posted by citanon View PostWell, on the plus side, the average teacher who volunteers for this sort of thing is going to be older, more mature, better educated, more mature, have a better temperament, and is probably more trainable than your average security guard. They are also likely to be more motivated than private security.
Originally posted by citanon View PostYou'd have to have them co-train with the local LE agencies so the real cops would know who they are if something happens. A lot of middle aged teachers also have lots of free time that they can use to attend training (though that would vary greatly by district and school.
Originally posted by citanon View PostI think two questions you got to ask:
1. How would such a person perform relative to a typical police officer in a similar situation?
2. Would you rather have said person be there than not there if the SHTF scenario does happen?
Originally posted by citanon View PostBut I agree that physical security measures such as secured and limited points of entry to campus, stronger classroom doors would be easier and no brainer as long as schools can afford them.
I have a nightmare scenario though. The gunman walks in during class change. I don't know the answer to that one.Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 17 Feb 18,, 17:02.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by rosspoons View Post
I grew up around guns and own guns, and I am fine with tighter regulations. People simply do not need a lot of these range queen guns that are finding there way into the mass killers' hands. As far as I am concerned, the NRA & company put my right to have a firearm in jeopardy by taking a hard right hardline on anything having to do with firearms as eventually that dam will break and when it does, it won't be pretty for people who hunt or who own less extreme firearms perfectly capable of being used in self-defense.
It's obvious that more armed protection for schools and a competent and pro-active FBI and local law enforcement could have, and should have, prevented this shooting. But the media firestorm surpasses anything I've seen in sheer emotionalism and ignorance.
None of them seem to know anything about the subject beyond parroting what they've seen in like minded media articles and news reports. The "NRA cash" refrain is typical. the NRA spends far less on campaign contributions and lobbying than any other major national organization. Yet it always ranks near the top in effectiveness. That's because it has a large and dedicated, active membership and a huge following of single issue voters, unlike the usual astro-turf type gun control groups with small real memberships or the bigger organizations that don't have an involved, single interest membership.
The gun issue is a major part of the US cultural wars, urban Liberals vs everyone else, and it's had major political repercussions, like driving the Democrats out of power. It really is the 3rd rail of American politics and despite the ranting of the anti-gun rights media the generally silent and delayed blowback has destroyed all efforts at gun control nationally and in 3/4 of the states.
As for gun control itself, all those gun laws, some 22,000 of them (before SCOTUS 2nd Amendment rulings), and gun control in general have to be the biggest failure of public policy since Prohibition. This fact seems to be affecting the general mass of voters and even media commentators, increasingly disillusioned about their ability to "do something."
It takes a lot of statistical trickery to show any positive effects, such as ignoring all violence except gun violence, cherry picking locations and times (AKA p-hacking) and selecting basic assumptions and methodology to get the desired results.
The following studies are definitive, showing how futile its all been. I hope someone will do a study showing how the threat of gun control and especially of confiscation and bans, has lead to a surge in firearms sales and to 320,000,000 firearms in America. The very quantity of US firearms make gun control a political delusion, utterly impossible yet a basic part of the Democrat's ideology.
Brady Act Effectiveness: JOC91749.pdf at http://jama.jamanetwork.com
Evaluation of Firearms Laws https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2...
DOJ: Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban: 1994-2003
Christopher S. Koper
Document No.: 204431
Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0039
Comment
-
Originally posted by jjk308 View PostSorry. I can understand how upset you are but you are wrong. Tighter regulations have proven useless - according to my own and other studies both in the USA and abroad, such as the failure of the Australian autoloader buy back to have any effect on the violent crime rate curve. And you misread the NRA influence and the reasons for gun control legislative failure.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...&redirect=true
Findings In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.
Conclusions and Relevance The strength of firearm legislation in general, and laws related to strengthening background checks and permit-to-purchase in particular, is associated with decreased firearm homicide rates. High-quality research is important to further evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. Legislation is just 1 part of a multipronged approach that will be necessary to decrease firearm homicides in the United States.
Comment
-
Originally posted by citanon View Post
But I agree that physical security measures such as secured and limited points of entry to campus, stronger classroom doors would be easier and no brainer as long as schools can afford them.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ney/339934002/
Districts 10 years ago divvied up a Safe Schools pot of about $75.6 million, a plateau that hasn't been seen, or even approached, since.
Since 2007, Safe Schools has been cut by 15% — little by little until it hit $64.4 million in 2011, according to the Department of Education.
Florida school enrollment, meanwhile, grew by more than 300,000 students over the same span, according to the state.
Each district gets a minimum lump sum every year for Safe Schools, plus extra money based on the county's crime rate.
That minimum was $73,485 in 2007-08 compared to $62,660 in 2017-18, according to the state.
The Department of Education has asked the Legislature for more Safe Schools funding each of the past eight years, records reveal.
Yet year after year, lawmakers have set aside no more than the same $64.4 million.
The first plea came before the 2012-13 school year, when the Department of Education requested a $1.9 million increase to Safe Schools.
Lawmakers said no.
Undeterred, the Department of Education returned in 2013-14 with a smaller request: a $394,832 boost to Safe Schools.
Still, nothing.
The Department of Education asked for about a $1.2 million Safe Schools hike in 2014-15. But the Legislature voted for the same $64.4 million.
But the Department of Education didn't give up after having nominal increases rejected year after year. Officials asked the Legislature for an extra $10 million for Safe Schools three years in a row, and will again for 2019-20.
If that money makes it to the state budget, Safe Schools finally would be back to pre-recession funding.
Comment
Comment