Thread: Another School Shooting

Originally Posted by Hassun

Well, if you don't know why something is done it's often hard to try and find a solution to the problem. And these problems need to be prevented, not fought against. Prevention is better than repression.

I actually spent some time thinking of a prevention way, and so far here is what I can come up with. Not sure how other schools are, but for us the campus police is all located in one building and that makes it very inefficient for them to get anywhere whether it is across campus or into a building. The best way is the spread out these campus officers to teams in each building. At the hint of danger in any building, all the doors are electronically locked from inside and outside and then everyone in the building is gassed (not the officers of course).

It'll give time for authorities to react, and hopefully no one bangs their head on a desk on the way down.

Originally Posted by _gwenibe_

But how many people have to die before the problem of 'why' is sorted out?
While people are jumping up and down saying and trying to fix 'why' - kids are going to school with guns and shooting each other.

As I've already said, I agree with you, it's the people that's the problem - they pull the trigger - what I'm trying to get at is that solving peoples problem is a long term issue. Why should people die needlessly as we are trying to solve the 'why'. There is no short term solution to the 'why' in society, it takes time research and money. Stricter gun laws can prevent it in the mean time.

Sometime it's best to sacrifice something for the benefits of society

Ta some extent, limitin' access ta guns will help; but it won' solve the problem. Ppl will still die though, even wit stricter gun laws, and no solution that can b proposed will solve the problem 100%. Like I said, "There's more than one way ta skin a cat." I agree that stricter gun laws would help, like I've said already, but it wouldn' b as effective as one might think. It takes more than that. We need better trained officers and various individuals (like psychologists and others) who can identify such individuals and stop them before they can act. That's the best that can b done, sacrificin' all of our rights won' end scenarios like these. It'll only create oppression, which is a different problem.

@Hassun-- Although I don' agree wit havin' guns on campus, I have ta say that ur arguement is a bit flawed. 1."If a gunman suddenly bursts into a classroom guns blazing (as they probably usually do) the only thing you should do is take cover and try ta call 911. Although most will be too busy trying to save their own lives at such a time to call 911. There r some problems wit this arguement: a. You cut ur own point off at the knees wit ur second statement. Like u said ppl would probably b to busy tryin' ta save their lives ta bother wit a cell phone. Tryin' ta call some1, when some1 else is tryin' ta kill u, is rather difficult ta do.
b.One could easily make the arguement that havin' an armed person in the room would prove more benefical 'cause that person could kill the gunman 'fore he got off a shot or could have pinned him outside the doorway, thereby allowin' the others enough time ta find cover and dial 911.
c.On average it takes the police (not campus police, mind u) 10 to 20 minutes ta respond ta a call, dependin' on certain variables; such as; region, location of units, etc. Also, they must assess the situation, once they arrive, 'fore takin' action. In the meantime, more ppl r dyin' and one could easily argue that it would b as a result of this time-lapse.

2."Starting a firefight would be a very bad thing to do at such a time because of all the innocent bystanders and general panic." a.One could argue that it would happen only "if" there were a firefight. If the gunman were killed the moment he burst through the door, one could argue, then a firefight would never occur. This arguement depends very heavily upon the variable that a firefight would occur and this isn' always the case.
b. One could also argue that chances r, more than likely, that the innocent bystanders would be runnin' in the opposite direction of the gunman and/or duckin' for cover and that they're not stupid enough ta go runnin' inta a crossfire, should it ever happen. And that some1, wit a gun, could delay the attacker long enough for many ppl ta get away ta safety, 'cause he would b coverin' their escape. They could also argue that the gunman would b too busy (unless his objective was die 'fore takin' any1 out) tryin' ta dodge the incomin' fire ta get off many effective shots, thereby limitin' casualities.

3."You basically don't have a lot of chance to end up with 0 casualties in a situation like the recent one in Illinois. Having another armed person in the room would not have changed the outcome of that event."

a. Again this arguement is flawed, one could easily argue that havin' another armed person could've greatly changed the outcome of that event. In an event like that there's no way that there wouldn' be casualties (I don' think that there's any1 who would argue that point), but one could argue that havin' another armed person in the room could've greatly reduced those casualties, either by killin' the gunman 'fore he killed more ppl or pinnin' him down long enough ta allow more ppl ta escape and enough time for the proper authorities ta arrive.

All I was doin' wit this was pointin' out the flaws of this arguement, this doesn' mean that I support guns bein' on campus. The point was that we can make all of the suppositions that we want, but we really can' say what the outcome would b if we had done this or that; 'cause we don' know. It's way too late for "woulda, shoulda, coulda," it's already happened and I don' think that any1 could truely know what they would do in that situation unless they've all ready been in it. Would it help, if guns were banned all together, so that a tragedy like this one could b avoided? Possibly, but I wouldn' stake any money on it. Thing of it is, if some1 is determined ta kill others, they will find a way. The only thing that we can do is educate ourselves and take proper precautions, but most importantly; we need ta understand that these things r goin' ta happen and that no amount of preventative measures is gonna completely eradicate this. We shouldn' have ta trade our rights for oppression, jus' so we can think that we're safe.

Originally Posted by Joe Mage

@Hassun-- Although I don' agree wit havin' guns on campus, I have ta say that ur arguement is a bit flawed. 1."If a gunman suddenly bursts into a classroom guns blazing (as they probably usually do) the only thing you should do is take cover and try ta call 911. Although most will be too busy trying to save their own lives at such a time to call 911. There r some problems wit this arguement: a. You cut ur own point off at the knees wit ur second statement. Like u said ppl would probably b to busy tryin' ta save their lives ta bother wit a cell phone. Tryin' ta call some1, when some1 else is tryin' ta kill u, is rather difficult ta do.

I added that people probably wouldn't think of grabbing their phone in a situation like that because that's realism. I didn't make a point there at all. I'm just predicting how it would happen.

2."Starting a firefight would be a very bad thing to do at such a time because of all the innocent bystanders and general panic." a.One could argue that it would happen only "if" there were a firefight. If the gunman were killed the moment he burst through the door, one could argue, then a firefight would never occur. This arguement depends very heavily upon the variable that a firefight would occur and this isn' always the case.
b. One could also argue that chances r, more than likely, that the innocent bystanders would be runnin' in the opposite direction of the gunman and/or duckin' for cover and that they're not stupid enough ta go runnin' inta a crossfire, should it ever happen. And that some1, wit a gun, could delay the attacker long enough for many ppl ta get away ta safety, 'cause he would b coverin' their escape. They could also argue that the gunman would b too busy (unless his objective was die 'fore takin' any1 out) tryin' ta dodge the incomin' fire ta get off many effective shots, thereby limitin' casualities.

You fail to realise that the gunman has the absolute initiative in this kind of situation. If someone barges into your classroom and starts shooting the armed student can NEVER shoot the attacker before he can start shooting. That's just unrealistic.
Secondly, I don't know if you have ever been in a situation of panic but panicking people do not do the most logical things. Most people who panic first freeze up and then run for their lives. It's the survival instincts kicking in.
The ways to get out of the room are the doors or the windows. The attacker will most likely already be blocking at least one door.

a. Again this arguement is flawed, one could easily argue that havin' another armed person could've greatly changed the outcome of that event. In an event like that there's no way that there wouldn' be casualties (I don' think that there's any1 who would argue that point), but one could argue that havin' another armed person in the room could've greatly reduced those casualties, either by killin' the gunman 'fore he killed more ppl or pinnin' him down long enough ta allow more ppl ta escape and enough time for the proper authorities ta arrive.

Again, the defending armed person will never have the initiative. And if for example the attackers attack multiple classrooms/areas like at Columbine High School I imagine that the armed student(s) not directly involved in the shooting will either:
a) Try and track the attacker(s), creating a firefight if they do find them.
or
b) Lock themselves in the classroom, keeping the weapon with them in order to protect themselves if the attackers decide to attack their classroom. In which case they won't make much difference if any at all. It's probably more helpful if you just try to barricade the doors.


And yes, if someone really does want to attack a school they will find a way. The two kids who executed the attack on Columbine High School even wanted to detonate propane bombs which luckily didn't happen in the end.

In my opinion, the school in Illinois pretty much has a very good system in case of an attack. And it will not become any better if you arm certain students.

The real way to handle this type of occurrence is preventing it from ever happening. Taking away the reason why some people would get it in their heads to commit suicide in this manner.




And Joe Mage, please make an effort to improve your spelling and grammar.

Originally Posted by Hassun

I added that people probably wouldn't think of grabbing their phone in a situation like that because that's realism. I didn't make a point there at all. I'm just predicting how it would happen.



You fail to realise that the gunman has the absolute initiative in this kind of situation. If someone barges into your classroom and starts shooting the armed student can NEVER shoot the attacker before he can start shooting. That's just unrealistic.
Secondly, I don't know if you have ever been in a situation of panic but panicking people do not do the most logical things. Most people who panic first freeze up and then run for their lives. It's the survival instincts kicking in.
The ways to get out of the room are the doors or the windows. The attacker will most likely already be blocking at least one door.


Again, the defending armed person will never have the initiative. And if for example the attackers attack multiple classrooms/areas like at Columbine High School I imagine that the armed student(s) not directly involved in the shooting will either:
a) Try and track the attacker(s), creating a firefight if they do find them.
or
b) Lock themselves in the classroom, keeping the weapon with them in order to protect themselves if the attackers decide to attack their classroom. In which case they won't make much difference if any at all. It's probably more helpful if you just try to barricade the doors.


And yes, if someone really does want to attack a school they will find a way. The two kids who executed the attack on Columbine High School even wanted to detonate propane bombs which luckily didn't happen in the end.

In my opinion, the school in Illinois pretty much has a very good system in case of an attack. And it will not become any better if you arm certain students.

The real way to handle this type of occurrence is preventing it from ever happening. Taking away the reason why some people would get it in their heads to commit suicide in this manner.




And Joe Mage, please make an effort to improve your spelling and grammar.

First off I merely pointin' out the flaws of your arguement and I don't disagree with you about having guns on campus, they simply do not belong. However what you have stated was merely conjecture and not fact. I was merely pointing out that someone could argue that an armed person being present could have kept casualties to a bear minimium by either killing the attacker or pinning him down, again conjecture; not fact. And no two circumstances are exactly alike, EVERY situation is different and just because an attacker has the initiative does not guarantee his objective. Luck and chance are also factors in a situation like this, initiative may give an attacker the advantage; but not in all situations does it give him the edge. So saying that an armed person (note that I said "armed person" and not "student") would NEVER be able to shoot an attacker before he is able to get off a shot is not unrealistic, just not very likely. There have been reported cases that I studied in collage where an attacker was unable to even fire off a single round because of the quick reaction of armed intervention.

And I have been in situations of panic and know exactly how people react in a situation like that first hand. And barricading a door doesn't guarantee safety, and an armed person could very well make the difference between life and death for the people in the room. Again, this is conjecture just like the opposing arguement is.

Now with that being said, I not agreeing with "arming" students, that's why I took great care with saying "armed person" in my previous post, instead of armed students. I do not agree with students being armed on campus, there are too many variables and risks involved for armed students to be running around on a campus. And yes, the best way to handle a situation like Illinois is to prevent it from ever happening in the first place. I feel that campus police shouldn't be located in a single place, they should be located in different places through out the campus and should be making regular patrols of the campus. And if they have any buildings of importance, they should have posted campus guards. And if anyone suspicious comes onto the campus, then campus police should approach them to ascertain if they pose a danger to anyone. I believe that this would go far in stemming incidents like this from happening.

Last, but not least, I type the way I do; usually; because I have a pinched nerve in my shoulderblade and if I type for any extended period of time; it begins to throb and ache. I take shortcuts, so that I might be able to say more in less time and avoid having to take medication for the pain. That's why it seems like my spelling and grammar are off, I would appreciate any sensitivity regarding this issue.

Originally Posted by Joe Mage

First off I merely pointin' out the flaws of your arguement and I don't disagree with you about having guns on campus, they simply do not belong. However what you have stated was merely conjecture and not fact. I was merely pointing out that someone could argue that an armed person being present could have kept casualties to a bear minimium by either killing the attacker or pinning him down, again conjecture; not fact. And no two circumstances are exactly alike, EVERY situation is different and just because an attacker has the initiative does not guarantee his objective. Luck and chance are also factors in a situation like this, initiative may give an attacker the advantage; but not in all situations does it give him the edge. So saying that an armed person (note that I said "armed person" and not "student") would NEVER be able to shoot an attacker before he is able to get off a shot is not unrealistic, just not very likely. There have been reported cases that I studied in collage where an attacker was unable to even fire off a single round because of the quick reaction of armed intervention.

And I have been in situations of panic and know exactly how people react in a situation like that first hand. And barricading a door doesn't guarantee safety, and an armed person could very well make the difference between life and death for the people in the room. Again, this is conjecture just like the opposing arguement is.

Now with that being said, I not agreeing with "arming" students, that's why I took great care with saying "armed person" in my previous post, instead of armed students. I do not agree with students being armed on campus, there are too many variables and risks involved for armed students to be running around on a campus. And yes, the best way to handle a situation like Illinois is to prevent it from ever happening in the first place. I feel that campus police shouldn't be located in a single place, they should be located in different places through out the campus and should be making regular patrols of the campus. And if they have any buildings of importance, they should have posted campus guards. And if anyone suspicious comes onto the campus, then campus police should approach them to ascertain if they pose a danger to anyone. I believe that this would go far in stemming incidents like this from happening.

Last, but not least, I type the way I do; usually; because I have a pinched nerve in my shoulderblade and if I type for any extended period of time; it begins to throb and ache. I take shortcuts, so that I might be able to say more in less time and avoid having to take medication for the pain. That's why it seems like my spelling and grammar are off, I would appreciate any sensitivity regarding this issue.

Errr. All ideas about preventing future school massacres are conjecture. You're not exactly making a point by saying it's conjecture. We're all hypothesizing here. Arrianna thinks that concealed carry in schools would improve the situation, I don't. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at by saying the posts are conjecture.

However, some of the things I said are hard to call conjecture as far as I am concerned. Are you claiming that if a person barges into your classroom guns blazing, the person carrying the weapon will unholster it and shoot back before the attacker can shoot?
The attacker having the initiative sounds pretty logical to me.

Originally Posted by Hassun

Errr. All ideas about preventing future school massacres are conjecture. You're not exactly making a point by saying it's conjecture. We're all hypothesizing here. Arrianna thinks that concealed carry in schools would improve the situation, I don't. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at by saying the posts are conjecture.

However, some of the things I said are hard to call conjecture as far as I am concerned. Are you claiming that if a person barges into your classroom guns blazing, the person carrying the weapon will unholster it and shoot back before the attacker can shoot?
The attacker having the initiative sounds pretty logical to me.

There have been reported incidents, similar ta this one, where the attacker was prevented from harmin' any1 'cause of the quick reaction of an armed person, who was well trained enough ta assertain the situation and respond quickly enough. My point 'bout conjecture is that there's no real absolute answer ta a problem like this. And although an attacker may have initiative, it doesn' necessarilly guarantee that he can capitalize on it. Like I said, no two situations r exactly alike and that there r other variables that come inta play in a scenario like this one. I agree wit u that "students" do not need ta b runnin' around a campus armed, there r too many risks involved in havin' them do that. I went ta collage and know how it is there and there's always the lingerin' possibility that a student could get shot 'cause of an accident, or 'cause the student wit the liscense ta carry the gun might get drunk; get inta a brawl and shoot some1, or 'cause another student is angry wit the victim for some various reason, etc. Yet this doesn' mean that Arrianna's idea was a bad one, it jus' needs some "improvements." I feel that a better equipped, better trained, and more visible personnel would b a much more effective solution than either a group of armed students runnin' around on campus or havin' a completely vulnerable staff. I feel that in order ta come up wit a more effective solution ta a problem like this, we need ta look at it from all angles.

Originally Posted by Joe Mage

There have been reported incidents, similar ta this one, where the attacker was prevented from harmin' any1 'cause of the quick reaction of an armed person, who was well trained enough ta assertain the situation and respond quickly enough.

I'm going to need some proof of that.