Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Las Vegas Oct 2017 mass shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    I 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.
    Agreed.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      An armed security guard (School Resource Officer from the Sheriffs Dept) didn't keep this kid from walking onto school property with a long gun.
      Columbine 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.
      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 Post
        I 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 Post
          An 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.
          We have something similar but the the range is out to 10 meters plus we have transition from standing to kneeling positions with a reload included. It' also pass or fail (with a requirement that certain specific sets all the rounds have to be in the black). Fail and you lose your firearm etc until you requal all sections,which to be honest doesn't usually take long because the instructors are very good at their jobs.

          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 Post
            You'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.
            Well, 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.

            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 Post
            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.
            I don't think it makes sense to arm teachers with anything other than long guns. I think in a school setting pistols are actually more hazardous than long guns, and I think a teacher who is trained and armed with a long gun would actually do better in these situations than a typical LEO with a pistol.

            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.
            Hahahaha yeah I can see that.
            Last edited by citanon; 17 Feb 18,, 07:18.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
              Under 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.
              Mmm. 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).

              Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
              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.
              Eh, we do have people like that over here who think that way too. And usually that's the same people who give their kids a gun or at least some pepper spray to take to school "to protect themselves against bullies".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                I 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.
                It is just a diversion. These same people are the ones who blast the incompetence of teachers and the lack of discipline in classrooms but then throw out this red herring any time there is a shooting at a school. Even if implemented, it wouldn't last long after the first teacher got dropped by a SWAT team because they saw them with gun in hand. They are also the same people who throw out mental illness as the problem while supporting cutting programs that help mentally ill people. No congruence whatsoever to their positions.

                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 Post
                  Mmm. 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).
                  From what I'm able to gather, Amoklauf is the essentially same thing as an active shooter here. Are there any examples of multiple murders that are not considered Amoklauf in Germany?
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                    Columbine 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.
                    Which brings to mind an interesting point regarding the program in Colorado that trains teachers. Kids at any school are going to sus out pretty quickly (by the end of day 1) who those armed teachers are. Which means in most cases the shooter will know to.
                    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 Post
                      From what I'm able to gather, Amoklauf is the essentially same thing as an active shooter here.
                      An "amok situation" is pretty generally defined as one in which a perpetrator either indiscriminately or targeting uses weapons, explosives or other dangerous devices in either having killed or injured multiple people or is about to do so and who is currently at large within this context (the precise definition is actually classified).

                      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 Post
                      Are there any examples of multiple murders that are not considered Amoklauf in Germany?
                      Gang shootouts and similar incidents are usually never treated as amok situations.
                      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


                      • Then Amoklauf isn't any different than active shooter.
                        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                          Well, 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.
                          Unless that teacher was a former combat veteran with 10 years experience, then you are asking for a shootout in a crowded school.

                          Originally posted by citanon View Post
                          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 don't see any room-to-room combat training.

                          Originally posted by citanon View Post
                          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?
                          The situation is urban combat. The answer is get the hell out of the way so the doorkickers can do their jobs.

                          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.
                          They're building codes, ie firedoors to prevent the spreading of fire. But you also have to include drills into the equation. The teachers have to know when and how to lock the doors and get the students away from the fields of fire.

                          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.
                            Sorry. 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.

                            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 Post
                              Sorry. 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.
                              Then you should have looked further on the JAMA page.

                              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.
                                And of course the State of Florida has been constantly cutting that budget since 2007.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X