In other words, the "news" services are being as accurate as they normally are, i.e. they aren't at all.
No matter what:
1) This is a terrible thing
2) It will stimulate a HUGE emotional (read: non-thinking) response in a lot of people
3) It will certainly garner a huge anti-gun backlast
...and with those put together, my STRONG suggestion to folks is to stay calm when arguing with people who are about to start shouting for gun control. When people get emotional, they stop thinking, and when that happens, not only do they say stupid things that they don't mean (or even that they do mean) it also means that if someone responds to them with similar anger (whether justified or not) it will simply make them MORE likely to dig in and keep not-thinking.
Yes, we are going to have a fight on our hands because of this. We all know it. Make sure you fight smart. Not angry. Even at idiots who will take this as an excuse to wave the bloody flag to try to stop the rest of us from being able to defend ourselves and the people we love.
With regard to what Shawn said:
While I am in no way against allowing armed citizens in schools, that wont stop these kinds of attacks. There simply aren't enough motivated people willing to arm and train. Teachers on this forum have stated that, even if armed, it wouldn't be their responsibility to move to the gunfire and stop the shooter.
That wasn't quite what was said, nor was it the context in which it was said.
For example: I'm a school teacher. I wish I could carry in school. And if the state would pay to send me to an active shooter response class, I'd go in a heartbeat and take on that responsibility. I know several others who would. Many? No---because these people are teachers, not necessarily fighters. But some would go.
For people who
haven't had that training, we'd probably be told that we shouldn't respond in that fashion---which doesn't change the fact that it would certainly be true that there would suddenly be areas of the school in which it was much more likely that students would survive.
Saying "there aren't enough motivated people" is nonsense, in my opinion. After all, there generally aren't enough people who will run
towards gunfire in ANY given situation.
And again, if nothing else, we would certainly note that in my room, at least, students would have a better chance.
As I said way back, when we discussed guns in schools in the first place:
"Let's see: active shooter in the school. Choice is a 1) armed teacher with extra training, 2) an armed teacher with basic training, or 3) unarmed victims. Of course we'd pick #1, given that choice---but why in the world do people seem to think that #2 isn't any better than #3?"The answer is simple (read Terror at Beslan and look at the Israeli security model). Every school should have, along with metal detectors and limited ingress and egress, a dedicated, armed security team. A team whose job is to move to the sound of gunfire and stop an active shooter.
But of course the anti gun far left will protest. The nut job far right will also cry foul and protest state sponsored military style security in state run schools and the tax increase that would pay for it.
In the end nothing meaningfull will be done at all and children and adults will continue to die in these types of attacks.
I don't see any chance of this happening. Let's see---how many police departments (in small towns) have to
share their SWAT teams? (How many don't even
have SWAT teams?) And you want a team in each school? My district has four schools (larger districts have many more). You want a team in each building? How about LPS---how many buildings is that?
Never going to happen.
And if you are saying "one per district" then you aren't talking any better of a response time than local police. (Probably worse, unless you were planning on making the security team sit in the ready room all day.)
Let's be blunt: by their very nature, schools are open, soft targets. Unless you completely change the nature of the school far above what has already been mentioned (adding metal detectors which some schools already have and which the students have already figured out how to get stuff past; limited ingress and egress which many schools already do except kids don't do security well so people get in and out all the time, and armed guards in the hallways which is a little cost-prohibitive for most schools, though using local police as a "school resource officer" seems to work well for many places to at least get someone in the school part-time) it is going to stay that way.
Just as malls are wide-open, soft targets---so are schools. That isn't going to change. They can both be tightened up a bit, but I'd be interested to hear any comments from people on actual economically-feasible things that would have a real (not imagined emotional) effect.
