School Cops and TSA-Style Security Probably Won't Prevent Tragedies Like the Uvalde Shooting
Making schools more like prisons would not appreciably decrease violence.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9956b/9956b1886ea6fad3b244ffacc81cd74acfcfa6e8" alt="zumaamericasthirtyfour542048 | San Antonio Express-News/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom"
After horrific school shootings—this time at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were gunned down on Tuesday—the public has an understandable desire to want to do something to prevent further violence. For people on one side of the political spectrum, the answer is more gun control, even though the most commonly proposed restrictions on firearms would have probably failed to prevent the most recent mass shootings.
Some conservatives who support the Second Amendment tout enhanced school security as a superior, alternative proposal. A guest on Sean Hannity's Fox show last night went as far as to suggest that schools should install "a series of interlocking doors at the school entrance that are triggered by a tripwire." The Federalist's Tristan Justice laments that "Sandy Hook Proved The Need To Enhance K-12 Security. Congress Armed Ukraine Instead." Some ideas floated by people on the right include adding metal detectors, arming teachers, and hiring additional security guards. "We know from past experience that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus," said Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) in the wake of the shooting.
If there was a simple, practical, cost-effective policy that could make schools 100 percent safe, lawmakers would be well-advised to implement it. Today, U.S. air travel is essentially safe from the threat of hijacking because planes are required to lock the cockpit doors: a simple innovation that makes a 9/11-style event basically impossible. Similarly, schools are probably well-advised to at least lock or monitor the doors and install cameras (something 95 percent of public schools already do).
Most of the post-9/11 enhanced air travel security measures, however, are worse than useless, and the same could likely be said for most if not all proposed school security innovations. School shootings are not particularly common. The risk of gun violence is generally higher in the home. The overwhelming majority—99 percent—of gun deaths are suicides and one-off homicides.
This implies that any theoretical policy idea, on both the gun control side and the school security side, should have a fairly high bar to clear before being implemented. It should appreciably improve safety without unduly burdening students, teachers, or other law-abiding people.
No idea fails this test more than the proposal to put more cops in schools. While it's not yet clear what role a school resource officer (SRO) played in the Uvalde shooting—some reporting suggests an SRO may have engaged the shooter but failed to stop him—school security officials have performed unimpressively during previous crises. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School's SRO infamously hid during the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Moreover, placing cops in schools is not a cost-free intervention: The surest consequence is to increase the likelihood that routine disciplinary matters are handled by law enforcement rather than by teachers, counselors, and principals. Doubling the number of SROs in the state of Florida, for example, caused a fourfold increase in incidents of students being physically restrained by cops, according to a study done by the Education Policy Research Center at the University of Florida. Fights between students, sexting investigations, and even problems on the playground involving very little kids can become the purview of the criminal justice system. An SRO once tried to arrest a teenage girl for violating the dress code.
If making schools more like prisons was an unfortunate but much-needed strategy to combat an epidemic of violence that SROs were uniquely adept at handling, perhaps hiring more of them would be a reasonable strategy. But in the vast majority of educational settings, this is not the case.
Conservatives who understand that the calls to do something, anything about gun violence invariably produce bad gun control policies should consider that this same rule applies to many of their favorite security proposals. The TSA should be abolished, not expanded into schools.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why aren’t the doors locked?
YES! Why was a grade school, only 2nd, 3rd,and 4th grades at that, an open campus? Really?!
The doors should be locked for external access. My workplace is more secure. Students, teachers, and employees should have badge access, like any business.
Cops on the premises are not needed. Well, maybe in Chicago.
School doors weren’t locked half a century ago.
50 years ago most businesses were not locked during the work day either.
And 50 years ago it was not unheard of for kids to bring guns to school for after school target practice. Not to mention, 50 years ago, guns were carried onto commercial airplanes, a practice which only ended with the rash of hijackings to Cuba in the 1970s.
Gun safety should be taught in grade schools. I learned in the Boy Scouts when I was 11.
Yep. Pre-Columbine, a classmate got pulled out of class by the cops because a drug sniffing dog had pointed out his car in the school parking lot. So he popped open his trunk and the cops found about a half dozen rifles and shotguns in there, but no weed. So the cops apologized, and wrote him a note to excuse him for missing class.
It was hunting season, and he was going hunting after school with his friends, which is why he had so many guns in his trunk.
You don't need guns to eat your bugs.
Half a century ago you didn’t have boys systemically emasculated and pumped full of antidepressants and ADD drugs because they acted like normal boys. This is the goddamned problem, and not guns.
Strangely I’m the only person here aging this.
‘Saying’
^I might not be saying this, but I'm thinking it, and have been for years.
The psych profession has been getting off scot-free. Why? We need to take a good hard honest look at just WTF they're doing to us.
Yep. It’s not guns. Guns have been around long before all this shit started. It’s all the psych drugs and emasculation.
So basically, it’s all the democrats fault. Just like almost every other horrific thing.
Are the democrats responsible for mass shootings in other countries as well?
No, Just droning schools, weddings, and Doctors Without Borders.
You’re not alone in thinking that.
So weird. Apparently nothing can prevent school shootings. They are just going to happen and we must just learn to live with it. But oddly all of our peer countries do not seem to have problems with school shootings.
Then provide a solution that doesn't violate the 2A or anyone's civil liberties, including the mentally ill.
Most of the proposed 2A violations are simple violations of the 2A that don't actually solve the problem. There's a lot of shitty "Do anything" suggestions. None of them work.
There's no panacea that makes this never happen again. France and the UK also have school shootings, on occasion, so even with all the civil liberties they've given up, they can't stop this.
But let's look at the nature of the problem.
1) It's a bit of copycat syndrome. School shootings basically didn't exist until Columbine, and then became much more frequent following. There are people who want to be remembered and are willing to die to have their name be relevant, or at least spend the rest of their life in jail.
2) Gun-free zones. Basically, every school is a target. One guy tried to shoot up a Texas church and the way that was quickly handled has foiled copycats. I'm not saying we mandatorily arm all teachers because that's bullshit, but we need to stop stigmatizing guns so that people can wear and carry everywhere, and encourage more people to undergo weapons training. School shooters want target rich environments where there's little chance of return fire.
3) Better quality of life. Basically, if we improve economic conditions to the point that everyone feels they not only can, but will succeed in life, there's much fewer people who are willing to throw everything away in acts of violence. We need to make sure people have opportunities everywhere, cut back restrictions on life, increase freedom and economic freedom. And we need to stop demoralizing everyone about the future-all the "sky is falling" environmentalists are creating people who are fine with not living to old age, and the "White Patriarchy is making sure you'll never succeed" racists are making people feel so demoralized they have nothing to live for.
Notice how none of this is as easy as slapping a band-aid on something and pretending we've solved the problem. Because this phenomenon is so outlandish that there's no straightforward answer.
Your third point is, I think, a bit too focused on economic conditions. The real frustration is too many people minding everyone else's business. Everything people want to do has government regulations getting in the way, and no matter how good the intentions are, all that meddling rankles. Buying groceries? Forget one-use plastic bags; pay for expensive ones, or bring reusable ones. Want light bulbs? Those are regulated too. Want baby formula? Nope, it was regulations which shut down the plant, and regulations which forbid European imports.
This psychological meddling is worse than merely high gasoline and inflation. It's invisible, it's everywhere, and you can't do anything about it -- you can't move to a less meddling location or buy a cheaper substitute or drive less.
It's not just government regulations getting in the way. Let's be honest- some teenager isn't pissed about Hair Salon Licensing.
But our society as a whole *has* created a permanent state of anxiety in our world. It is fashionable to cart around a teenage autist who thinks climate change is going to kill everyone on the planet in 20 years. We encourage kids to sue oil companies for the same crime. We tell them they are systemically oppressed by Whitey, and that for half of them, it's partially their fault. We tell others that Mexicans are going to come over the border and kill their parents. And tell others that every encounter with the police means death. We tell yet others that we are going to tax the shit out of them for a retirement program for their parents that will be bankrupt by the time they retire.
And then we tell these kids that there is nothing we can do about it. How many years did the Democrats control all levels of federal government and do nothing about Immigration? How long have Republicans had their share and do nothing about spending?
We sit kids- especially young boys- down and tell them the entire world is going to hell, and that we are all powerless to stop it. Even worse, we lock them in their house and force them to wear a muzzle for 2 years. We deny them even the basic indulgences of childhood- hanging out with friends, going to school dances, looking at pretty girls.
This is one giant mind fuck to these kids. We amp up their fear and tell them to either conform or sit down and stay quiet. Is it a shock that they increasingly kill themselves? That violent incidents at my kids' schools is up 10x since covid? That a small, small number of them snap and go on a horrible killing spree?
As a libertarian, I look at most problems and see a government. And that is certainly much of it. But so many people are also complicit- because in order to control the government, they increasingly market in paranoid delusions and flame-throwing.
Well said.
We might throw in the Collectivist/Group thinking that comes down from academe and is taught in our schools and rampant everywhere. When people aren't looked at as individuals but merely part of some Collective, be it white, black, rich, poor, male, female, nationality or all of humanity or whatever, what's a few shootings just for kicks or because someone's feelings are hurt? Those individual lives mean nothing, right?
Right, fair enough.
The larger point is that, even though these are rare, they are indicative of society problems. You can't throw a political band-aid onto a societal problem, you have to fix society. Grabbing all the guns doesn't work and isn't feasible, and it still leaves the problem of people having Red SUVs.
I can't tell you why this guy did this. There's no signs I've seen, yet, of premeditation, no manifesto or suicide note. But he seemed to be in a bad position, didn't like the trajectory of his life, and decided he might as well shoot up a school. Perhaps there's a story there of undiagnosed mental health issues, we haven't learned that yet and may never know.
It is a gang problem, pure and simple.
Except almost none of the shooters are in a gang.
That would be news to the families of Shevon Dean, Stephanie Kuhen, Joseph Arthur Swift, and Jamiel Andrew Shaw.
Then provide a solution that doesn't violate the 2A or anyone's civil liberties, including the mentally ill.
Why? The idea that you can prevent someone who intends to do harm to defenseless schoolchildren from succeeding is ridiculous. He could have just waited and killed even more by jumping the sidewalk in his truck at release time.
The only solution is for the media to horribly shame the perpetrators. Throw out defamation rules for these assholes and let anybody and everybody slander them with horrible stories about their incontinence, fetishes and stupidity. Don't make them famous, or perhaps even worse, infamous. Make them pathetic and ludicrous, their names synonymous with embarrassment. Chop them up and feed them to the pigs. Literally, if metaphorically doesn't do the trick.
A Museum of the Tiny Phalluses of Mass Murderers would be a good start.
"Throw out defamation rules for these assholes and let anybody and everybody slander them with horrible stories "
Existing law isn't really preventing this sort of defamation. Not like the perps would have any sort of good name to harm, or estate left to protect assuming any case would ever be brought to trial.
This takes the cake for the dumbest solution. Loosening libel laws will do nothing. If you shoot up a school you already don’t care about your reputation.
Not only that, many gangbangers are un der the impression that doing a drive-by would enhance their reputation on the streets.
If you shoot up a school you already don’t care about your reputation.
Molly really is the perfect troll account. Killing children is not about the terror it inspires? LMAO! Keep 'em coming, G!
There’s plenty that can be done.
Arming teachers would prevent most school shootings.
Holding teachers legally accountable for injuries to their charges would reduce school shootings.
Reducing single parenthood and drug addiction would reduce school shootings.
Perhaps you would be happier in a safer country.
Don't base the policy choices and restrictions of all Americans on your ignorance.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewCFollett/status/1529577076419923968
A thread on how the media is telling you two major lies about mass shootings and gun control
1: Other countries with vastly stricter gun laws than the US have higher rates of mass shootings.
2: US jurisdictions w/ gun laws have exponentially higher rates of gun violence
Although events in the U.S. tend to get the lion's share of media exposure, mass shootings are clearly a worldwide issue.
The US makes up about 1.15% of the world's mass shootings while having almost 5% of the world's population.
Out of 97 countries with data, the US is 64th in frequency of mass shootings and 65th in murder rate.
And rates of mass shootings elsewhere are rising faster
Can't build a Nazi-Regime without Nazi-Propaganda....
My god the amount of stupid in some of the replies makes Molly look like a goddamn normal person.
Read what I said above. It’s the emasculation and drugs. So it’s all your fault.
So weird. Apparently nothing can prevent school shootings. They are just going to happen and we must just learn to live with it. But oddly all of our peer countries do not seem to have problems with school shootings.
There is a way to stop it, but I guarantee you don't want to hear how to do it.
I'd be interested to know what countries you think are "peers" of the U.S.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
Whatever you do, do NOT send your kids to private or charters schools much less home school them.
Otherwise your children won't be able to get a participation trophy for being in a mass shooting, and the public education employees won't be able to get more money for combat pay.
Yes!!! I was going to say that both sides are missing the obvious here. Thus far, 99.999% is school shootings have happened at PUBLIC schools. If the same percentage of a certain kind of aircraft was crashing, the FAA would have grounded it decades ago.
^THIS; Yep; I was also going to say perhaps the problem is Commie-Education.
You have to wonder at the wisdom that forces kids to go to school with those they may hate.
Making schools more like prisons would not appreciably decrease violence.
Because there's no violence in prisons.
That's dang near a fist comment
A true compliment.
But drug use would skyrocket!
And DIY tattoos.
This teardrop tattoo under my eye represents getting a B in AP Chemistry.
We could take the Swiss approach to gun control
1. Get rid of gun-free school zones. Do none of these politicians notice how many mass shootings are in gun-free zones? Get rid of them!
2. Allow teachers and staff to carry, their choice.
School shootings will stop so fast, it will be like a night and day difference.
Lock the doors.
Won't stop the kid with a gun in his backpack.
That kid can shoot maybe one or two other kids before a teacher puts a stop to it.
Lock what doors. All exterior doors? People need to get in and out of the building. Schools are not prisons.
No grasshopper, they do not.
My charter school does it just fine.
My kids schools lock all doors but the front entry. Which is also locked but can be buzzed in.
In NYC, when I grew up, all the school entrances were like airlocks. There was an outer door, then a space, and then an inner door.
Most of the outer doors had no exterior handle. The main door had handles and the one by the kitchen had handles.
So most of the doors could simply not be opened from outside.
Allow? Why not require?
Teachers claim that they care about kids as if they were their own. Any mom would pick up a gun to defend their own kid. We should expect no less from teachers.
Because require is the opposite of liberty.
Most every condition of employment has that defect, but overall I'd say the argument to not make it mandatory is to point at the firearms skills of the average cop and recognize that most teachers would only be worse.
Teachers aren’t at school for their personal enjoyment, they are there as employees.
It does not violate anybody’s liberty to require teachers to be armed on school grounds as part of their employment contract.
closing the conformity factories easier and less bloody than taking the guns.
Unironically great solution. Schools are a breeding ground for bullying and harassment that exacerbate fly-off-the-handle responses from many school shooters. Schools also generally present a very enticing target as they are poorly defended and target rich environments. Mass shooters are often out to trade their lives for the highest kill count and places that are essentially undefended mass gathering points are juicy targets for that kind of derangement.
Funny you mention closing schools. They did that during the pandemic and if you remember Republicans were whining and complaining about it.
Libertarians are not Republicans, not most.
Juvenile correctional facilities have more gang members per capita than schools in general.
And yet, I can not recall the last time there was a shooting at a juvenile correctional facility.
So clearly we need barbed wire and armed guards at every school? Fuck off.
and also to imprison the kids indefinitely over night so that they are never un-supervised off campus.
We need barbed wire and armed guards. No doubt about it.
What would help is arming every school teacher and drilling into them that it is their job to defend the lives of the children, if necessary with deadly force.
We all know how angry these leftist teachers can get: just look at them screaming and ranting. If they channeled all that anger into defending their charges, nobody world dare come close to those kids.
Look, I appreciate Suave's points, but it also isn't as easy as locking doors.
My kids' schools (and in fact many California schools) are almost completely outdoors. The elementary and middle schools do not have lunch rooms, gyms or other indoor common areas. Even classes that are in the main building have their own door to the outside.
I see a couple of things needing to happen.
1) Society should collectively reject the doom-selling of our media and politicians.
2) Teach schools real threat avoidance. It isn't about shelter in place. It is about locking down, sheltering in place, and having a plan to fight and flee if that all fails. Sandy Hook, and likely this last school were examples of kids being trapped in a room and failing to try and flee when the guy came in.
3) Remove gun-free restrictions.
My kids' schools (and in fact many California schools) are almost completely outdoors.
Check out mr hippie alternative education over here.
"Ok kids, shape of tree!"
Not only that, after school there are bustling activity all around the campus - students in parking lots, crossing the street, parents forming queue in cars to pick up their kids, etc. Some gang bangers with a couple hand gun could waste 6,7 of them in a blink of an eye and drive away.
Fences. Single point of entry next to the driveway.
I'd be fine with armed security at every entrance. I find it pretty dodgy to say "school shootings are still rare in the grand scheme of things", then go on to say "discipline by force has increased 4 times when a cop is present!!", as if that is also not also rare compared to 99% of school discipline. I still could not imagine any of my grade-school teachers carrying in class and could never trust elementary-ed Mrs. Walter with a gun anyway. But still, why not non-cop armed security who is strictly prohibited from any sort of discipline? That would be as good as arming a portion of the teachers anyway.
I have noticed that most public schools have done away with special Ed classes to be more “inclusive”. Well guess what? There are some kids who can’t handle being in a regular classroom because of behavior problems, family problems, etc. and the teachers don’t know how to handle them, or warning signs to look for that they might be about to get into trouble. How about schools hire more special Ed teachers to set up classrooms instead of cops?
Today, U.S. air travel is essentially safe from the threat of hijacking because planes are required to lock the cockpit doors
Germanwings Flight 9525.
Crazy pilot was able to lock his copilot out of the cockpit and drive the plane into a mountain because of locked doors. You've fallen for the classic Security Theater blunder Robby: The bad guys are easy to spot and there's an easy way to keep them out of [insert thing/place you care about]. All we need is this one simple trick!
The real answer is that nothing is truly 100% safe. Children are about as likely to die from lightning as they are from school shootings and, like making every child carry a lightning rod with them at all times, any universal action you take is going to create far more harm by way of extra hassle and danger than the supposed threat.
I definitely don't endorse it, and would vociferously fight against it, but probably the best way to end most mass shootings would be to restrict firearms ownership to people above the age of 25. Most shootings are performed by disaffected males in their late teens to early 20's. Of course many of them would still get guns, but not all of them.
Mostly, people need to accept that life is inherently dangerous, and there is nothing more or less terrible about 30 people dying in a car wrecks than being gunned down in a class room. It is still arbitrary and terrible.
To the extent that anything can reasonably done, I think regulating armed guards on campus could help. These armed guards should be legally only allowed to respond to armed violence. They should be required to undergo regular gun training/testing, psychiatric evaluation, and meet fitness requirements. There should also be a law that says that if they are on-duty and fail to actively engage the shooter within five minutes (and cannot pass a reasonable person test for why they did) they are automatically guilty of manslaughter for every person that dies, and can be civilly liable for damages. In other words, if that is your job, you have no excuse for turning coward when your number gets called.
I think there are a lot of ex-veterans which would be great at this kind of job and would thrive in such a position. No doubt insurance would evolve to cover medical and liability claims. It wouldn't be "cheap", but it would still be cheaper than turning schools into prisons.
Good idea, but wouldn't restricting who's allowed to kill people be more effective?
Definitely should make some more laws!
So you want to create more victimless crimes.
I'll note that Robby touts the concept of locking plans as a great solution to 9/11 style threats, but almost entirely skips past the idea of locking doors during school hours.
There's also a difference between SROs and simply armed staff. With Parkland (and it seems this case), the SROs basically retreated for their own safety. An SRO is a useless solution if they are not actually in the school. Having actual armed staff/teachers in the schools (physically inside them, in the classrooms) is a qualitatively different idea than putting in a cop who is under no obligation to protect anyone and might not even be on the campus at all times.
Schools have implemented truly armed staff that are present during all hours of the school day and I have yet to see any shootings incidents at these locations. That's not to say that they can never happen, but in any case where a shooting begins it always ends when someone with a gun (in this case a border patrol agent who went in without backup, rather than cowering like the SRO) confronts the shooter. Sadly, in most cases, the good guy with a gun is a team of cops who shows up far too late to make a difference for too many people. Just because you have a coward SRO doesn't mean the idea that armed confrontation with the shooter isn't the quickest solution to stopping said shooter. As with the Buffalo shooting, there was one security guard and the shooter had the element of surprise + body armor. The shooter still gave up when the police arrived. These attacks end when the shooter lacks fire superiority. Saying "well we hired one SRO and he gave up so the idea of defending ourselves is caput" is laughable. Get more security. A cost-efficient way of doing this is arming teachers and staff. If its still too costly, then its time for us to say these almost universally gun-free public schools packed full of hundreds of defenseless target are just too enticing of a target for madmen and parents would be better served by putting their kids in smaller, more contained educational environment (such as a home school or a private school) where they are choice victims by virtue of the fact that they are a defenseless and target-rich environment.
Cops once again standing around while shooter's shootin'.
Uvalde, Texas (CNN)The gunman who killed 19 students and two teachers at a Texas elementary school Tuesday was on the premises for up to an hour before law enforcement forcibly entered a classroom and killed him, officials said Wednesday.
"It's going to be within, like 40 minutes or something, (within) an hour," Texas Department of Public Safety director Steven McCraw told CNN's Ed Lavandera at a news conference.
The 18-year-old shooter, Salvador Ramos, was in a standoff with law enforcement officers for about a half-hour after firing on students and teachers, Rep. Tony Gonzales, whose district includes Uvalde, told CNN's Jake Tapper, citing a briefing he was given.
"And then (the shooting) stops, and he barricades himself in. That's where there's kind of a lull in the action," Gonzales said. "All of it, I understand, lasted about an hour, but this is where there's kind of a 30-minute lull. They feel as if they've got him barricaded in. The rest of the students in the school are now leaving."
NPR: UVALDE, Texas — Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman's rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as investigators worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of 40 minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was killed by a Border Patrol team.
"Go in there! Go in there!" nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.
Javier Cazares, whose fourth grade daughter, Jacklyn Cazares, was killed in the attack, said he raced to the school when he heard about the shooting, arriving while police were still gathered outside the building.
While the gun control debate amplifies, the overwhelming emotion in Uvalde is grief
NATIONAL
While the gun control debate amplifies, the overwhelming emotion in Uvalde is grief
Upset that police were not moving in, he raised the idea of charging into the school with several other bystanders.
"Let's just rush in because the cops aren't doing anything like they are supposed to," he said. "More could have been done."
"They were unprepared," he added.
Minutes earlier, Carranza had watched as Salvador Ramos crashed his truck into a ditch outside the school, grabbed his AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle and shot at two people outside a nearby funeral home who ran away uninjured.
I've yet to read any evidence that someone was shot and killed while they were standing around. Two cops were shot trying to mount an assault. They pulled back until reinforcements arrived and then they took out the shooter. Again there is only BS and no facts indicating any student was killed while they were standing around. It appears he quickly executed everyone and the killings were over and the shooting stopped; the shooter was in a classroom with the dead and the other kids were exiting out the back. 40 minutes is the total time of the event. For all we know the 19 died in the first few minutes.
From what I've heard, that scenario seems most likely.
I'm a Texas resident whose wife contracts at various small schools in Texas and the doors are always locked with controlled access. It's extremely saddening to hear that a door was left unlocked for side entry at this incident. The attack was likely far more lethal because of it.
I agree that any place where the government deems citizens cannot carry and protect themselves should be a hardened target through other means, sufficient armed security, sufficient barriers to entry, etc. It's frustrating that Robby's statement seems to blanket these implementations as TSA-Style security. Just because the TSA is useless and overly wasteful doesn't mean all efforts would be similarly encroaching and wasteful. Ultimately it's the government's fault for making these gun free zones and then not appropriately securing them from attack.
How do you really deal with shootings committed by a kid when the reason is expressed as I don't like Mondays
I would not put a cop or a rent-a-cop. Most cops are basically bullies, they won't risk their lives to save anyone. There was a recent video of a shooting downtown here in St. Louis, a guy filming cops at another incident and the cops all hide until the shooting stops, then they run towards it (meanwhile the cameraman didn't hide).
On the other hand, what if we treated them like an embassy? A Marine, or ex-Marine?
Risking their own lives is one of the few things that can get a cop fired because officer safety is priority number one.
Most mass shootings are kamikaze acts. The gunman charge the school, sometimes to their detriment. I'm pretty sure the only long distance mass shooting is the Vegas shooting.
Assuming that these mass shooters don't deviate from this method, it's best that they run into armed personnel.
We could have cops posted at or patrolling the perimeter of the school, or near empty spaces. They effectively become sentries. The school is in charge of running metal detectors or discipline from within the campus. If kids start fighting, it's the school's job to break that up. Cops wouldn't get involved at all.
There are anecdotal evidence of violence increasing in schools that ditched SOR. I have no issues with cops working inside schools within proper parameters. But we live in volatile times, and cities will burn if some rookie cops drop the ball. Some kind of compromise is probably for the best.
School shootings 2022 : USA : 288.
Next country is Mexico with 8.
You are obviously fine with letting your children die at rates unseen anywhere else.
I guarantee that the rates of people dying in car accidents will be drastically lower in a country that has banned all cars. We should therefore ban all cars despite their utility.
You’re a faggot.
Cars are useful to essential in the US. AR-15 are useless and other guns only barely useful.
Tell the President of Ukraine how useless ARs are when he wished desperately to have a second amendment and tried to arm his public.
In the face of potentially repressive governments, be it in or outside ones own country, ARs are actually bare minimum. I am very happy millions of Americans have one.
"You’re a faggot." Your point is what?
Youre a faggot.
You should read this NPR story about the misreporting of school shootings.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
Cite your source.
Here's mine
https://reason.com/2022/05/26/uvalde-texas-mass-shooting-statistics-gun-crimes-misleading/
(do you even read the articles here?)
The children in Mexico die in the war zones between the Government and the Cartels, wthe latter of whom are de facto Governments in some States of Mexico.
Start again...
As noted, no other developed country has the problem with mass shootings or gun deaths as the US, but somehow we can't figure out what the problem is. What could it be? Gee, I am at a loss. Can you guys figure it out? So puzzling!
Meanwhile the 2A is moot, based on an archaic concept called the militia which was to be organized and trained by the Congress and under it's direction to put down insurrections, etc.
"Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
Abyone belong to this organization, heard about it's meetings for training, etc? Yeah, me neither.
Your 2A is based on a non-existent 18th century concept which is gone, dead, not happening!! Any SC judge not making shit up out of thin air will see this and poof! No right to bear arms. Hey, we'll compromise. We can bear arms, but no more walk in and buy military weapons meant to kill humans to be used on 4th graders and no more untraceable unregistered purchases. Probably a good idea to require 21 years of age to purchase. You never grown up fuckers can keep playing cops and robbers and "army man", but not with real assault rifles. Got it? That's the future. It will take awhile but we'll get there.
So then, if "OMB and his fascist followers" take control of the government, who will be armed to oppose them? I keep hearing about "the end of democracy" and how dangerous OMB and his gang are, so what is the end game if defeating them at the ballot box doesn't work?
No, you won't. You want some guns now, the rest later. The reason you don't like untraceable is because you eventually want to confiscate them all. This last incident, it didn't matter what kind of gun he had - the perp was in the classroom for several minutes before police arrived, didn't need "military weapons" to kill, had enough time could have killed as many with a lever or bolt action.
According to Civil Rights Era and pro-2nd Amendment Attorney Don B. Kates, Jr., the legislative history of the 14th Amendment reveals that supporters of the 14th Amendment supported it precisely so that the entire Bill of Rights applied to freed slaves, including the Individual Right to Keep and,Bear Arms. You can find the citations iof The Congressional Record in n his work Gun Control: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out.
By the way, Fuck Off, O'Brien!
Gun control has been and always will be the domain of racist slavers.
Falsehood is strong in the anti-gun advocates.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
Not quite. Heller v. D.C. McDonald v. Chicago
Teachers spew the BS about 'public schools' and then most send their kids to a private school. the rail against arming teachers but what school do you think they would send their kids to? The one with armed teachers or the one with the 'open doors'?
You can't solve a problem if you don't understand why the problem exists. Guns have always been available. Yet mass shooting incidents were rare. Dumb people think that guns are the problem because they don't have any critical thinking skills.
The question that needs to be answered before you can solve the problem is "why are men at this time in history significantly more likely to commit mass murder"?
The more significant issue is that we may find that there is no palatable solution.
Rather than expensive and bureaucratic solutions, why not empower parents to restrict the ability of their mentally ill minor children to buy firearms by placing them in the NICS database? Once they are an adult, they could petition the court for removing the restriction. While not perfect, many of the tragic shootings could have been avoided by simply restricting a troubled teen from buying a firearm.
Soave, you could not be more misguided. Are airports prisons? It seems they have kept nearly every gun out for YEARS with entry security. Sure, school yards need fences, so what? Where did those billions the Democrats legislated for "school security" go?
I have mental illness, but not a history of violence or schizophrenia, I am a safe candidate for owning a gun, both of the recent school shooters showed signs of violent tendencies, and both shooters expressed their violent intentions online and to peers. They should have been flagged and stopped from owning firearms. I literally don't care anymore about nitpicking over stuff. We have plenty of gun laws, but a mental health care system that can't handle things in a way that is on top of these violently ill people so as to stop them from ever getting guns in the first place. Fix healthcare, and let the current system work as it should so everyone else doesn't have to suffer more ridiculous gun laws from the Democrats.
There was a time when the President of the United States would pass amongst the citizenry unprotected from guns.
Four assassinations on, we came to understood that was unsafe.
During the hundred years between the first and last assassinations, some combination of underestimating the threat and overestimating the cost prevented us from adequately protecting the president.
Guns are the smallest part of the equation. We have politicians from both parties dividing us and now we have non-stop election cycles. So division 24/7 365 days per year.
This "Division Industry" is not just politicians but some news networks and media organizations. Anyone that agrees with us is not just wrong or has a different point of view, but evil compared to an enemy of the state almost - according the "Division Industry".
Some parents even condone violence and intolerance of anyone that disagrees with us.
A violent prone person solves issues with violence, the weapon has very little to do with it. A suicidal-attacker is nearly impossible to stop according to top government experts.
Possible solutions (to be expanded upon): give school/college credits to young kids to actually do physical work like summer jobs (ie: mowing yards, etc). Also minimize "isolation" of young kids who are social outcasts, etc. Incentivize "team building" - make every kid belong to some club of their choice.
Also without raising taxes, take police out of school hallways but they could be present outside schools. Magnetic door locks are also a powerful defense. One push of a button and every classroom could be locked down (allowing egress for fire codes). Magnetic locks running on 12 volt DC power can have 600 lbs of stopping force. How to fund it, defund the "unconstitutional" post-9/11 preemption doctrine. Since 9/11 it has had nearly a 90% failure rate and 99.9% of those blacklisted are non-criminals. Any legitimate program should net at least a 50% conviction rate based on number of persons searched. All that wasted taxpayer money could be used on real preemption tools like magnetic locks and nearby police.
Daniel Moynihan articulated your points back in the 1960s when he worked for LBJ. His observations at the time, based on data, have been echoed many times by leading black intellectuals like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Condi Rice, and others.