Home Forums Hunting Firearms Legislation Discussing and Implementing Ideas for Protecting Our Schools

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 150 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    If it was a discussion, and you actually read, thought about then processed what I am saying, you might understand what I have to say. As it is, you don’t want a discussion, you just want people to agree with you.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: mhock

    As the title suggests, let’s all appreciate the DISCUSSION.

    BID, I absolutely appreciate where you are coming from and applaud you putting forth a few OPTIONS of measurs that could, in theory, be implemented to make our schools safer for our children and teachers and staff.

    In my opinion, retrofitting our schools physically would be the cheapest, quickest, and most widely accepted way to START.

    I caught a quick news story yesterday of a HS in Indiana, I believe, that retrofitted their school with stronger doors, specialized locks that are controlled by someone in a security room. Cameras everywhere, and the ability for the local police department and/or dispatch to communicate with and see all the camera feeds. The news reporter put himself in the school as the intruder. He was located on the cameras. He was locked into an area through the use of the cameras and remotely locked doors. The cherry on the cake was once they had the “threat” quarantined, they also had a smoke system in place along side the sprinkler system. They have the ability to flood the confined area with this smoke screen to dissorient the threat and make a plan to apprehend. He couldnt see 2 fert in front of him. It was very interesting. I believe that particlular school spent something like $400,000 on these upgrades. I think they also had bullet proof glass installed.

    Maybe these upgrades aren’t for all schools. Maybe one or two of these options would help. Maybe federal funding could be used for portions of it. Use it for security or you don’t get the use of the funds type of policy?

    Keep these DISCUSSIONS going guys.

    Thanks mhock. I absolutely support retrofitting our physical school buildings. I’d be interested in obtaining more information about what could be done, and the expenses associated with each. My thought process on this is that heavier doors and bullet proof glass are great ideas, but don’t do much when a gunman can simply shoot through the walls. That’s why I tried to focus my points on deterring the threat from ever approaching and entering the building, and then confronting and taking the threat out once in the building. The lock-down smoke room is a pretty cool idea though.

    Federal funding would be much appreciated for whatever additional security measures could be implemented.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: river

    Excellent conversation. Talk to your local officials and on up the ladder. Each community has people whose thoughts are out there, though maybe voiceless, try to get them engaged. This is something we have to do. We simply cannot sit on our hands. Someone said: Where there is a will there is a way. Lets find a way.

    Absolutely river. Thank you!

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    If it was a discussion, and you actually read, thought about then processed what I am saying, you might understand what I have to say. As it is, you don’t want a discussion, you just want people to agree with you.

    llewellinsetter, you and I could talk in depth about the depravity of our culture and discuss our ideas for fixing it. I imagine we would be in-sync with many of our ideas. Unfortunately, this is not the forum for that particular conversation, and I stated that up front. The reason I made this statement initially is because it’s too large of a topic that I didn’t want to dilute this conversation. Also, I personally recognize the depravity of our culture as being the main driving force behind school shootings, (and I have plenty of ideas of how to fix it), BUT… changing our entire culture to combat school shootings is not plausible, feasible, or logical.

    I read every word you’ve written and processed what you’ve said, and understand what you have to say. I’m a relatively intelligent man, believe it or not… I do want a discussion, and much of my dialogue within this topic proves this. It’s unfortunate that you feel this way.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    BUT… changing our entire culture to combat school shootings is not plausible, feasible, or logical.

    …and yet “Make annual self defense and firearm training courses mandatory for all faculty” is.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    BUT… changing our entire culture to combat school shootings is not plausible, feasible, or logical.

    …and yet “Make annual self defense and firearm training courses mandatory for all faculty” is.

    YES!

    AvatarIowaSportsmanGuy
    Participant
    Post count: 142

    What about less than lethal, like a taser?

    Avatardoubledrop
    Participant
    Post count: 315

    Getting the school to advocate guns as a solution is a nonstarter. Over and over guns are demonized. To reverse that course is impossible, even if it is logical. Unfortunately logic, is being trumped by emotion on this subject. Now the other security measures that have been discussed have merit. I am in and out of several schools most days. Security varies from location to location even within the same school system. It ranges from none, walk right in the woman behind the desk may see you as you walk by the office, to buzzer, camera, secured foyer, entrance only thru 2nd door with remote lock into the office.That system will work.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: IowaSportsmanGuy

    What about less than lethal, like a taser?

    Training for and possibly carried by faculty, you bet. It doesn’t have the range of a firearm, so you’ve got to be up close and personal, but it’s better than nothing.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: doubledrop

    Getting the school to advocate guns as a solution is a nonstarter. Over and over guns are demonized. To reverse that course is impossible, even if it is logical. Unfortunately logic, is being trumped by emotion on this subject. Now the other security measures that have been discussed have merit. I am in and out of several schools most days. Security varies from location to location even within the same school system. It ranges from none, walk right in the woman behind the desk may see you as you walk by the office, to buzzer, camera, secured foyer, entrance only thru 2nd door with remote lock into the office.That system will work.

    I’m not promoting the NRA with my response, but I share their mentality that ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’. That’s the direction I chose to approach this topic from. I realize, that getting firearms into our schools as a means for protecting our children is going to be a battle, but, I also recognize the need for them in today’s cultural climate. Since the reverse course is impossible, then no matter how big the battle may be, implementing armed guards and arming those who are responsible for the protection of our children, is the logical decision. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like the idea and wish it weren’t the case, but unfortunately it is.

    I’m a huge supporter of all other security measures that you’ve shared doubledrop. Thank you.

    AvatarTrapCyclone
    Participant
    Post count: 2552

    I haven’t read every post here, but I recently came across something that really fascinated me. I’m sure most of us have heard of the movie Minority Report wherein some “precogs” are able to predict when and where crimes of passion will occur and the police are then dispatched to stop the criminal act when or before it happens. Fascinating stuff and pure science fiction, right? Or is it? Turns out there actually is something akin to this and it is called Predictive Policing. There is an informative web page on the National Institute of Justice on this (https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/predictive-policing/Pages/welcome.aspx). They describe Predictive Policing as follows:

    Predictive policing leverages computer models — such as those used in the business industry to anticipate how market conditions or industry trends will evolve over time — for law enforcement purposes, namely anticipating likely crime events and informing actions to prevent crime. Predictions can focus on variables such as places, people, groups or incidents. Demographic trends, parolee populations and economic conditions may all affect crime rates in particular areas. Using models supported by prior crime and environmental data to inform different kinds of interventions can help police reduce the number of crime incidents.

    Seems this is basically the kind of thing that could be useful in predicting and preventing mass shootings. I don’t know exactly how these computer models work, but I would imagine they can and do mine data from peoples’ social media postings, from crime trends in specific locations, from firearms purchases, and so on and so forth and issue a probability analysis that predicts whether a crime is likely to occur. This is both fascinating and yet a bit scary in terms of how the information could be gathered and used (see also http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/can-predictive-policing-prevent-crime-it-happens.

    Seems this approach is something that could be and perhaps is being used to help deter these types of events.

    Avatarnorthwoodsbucks
    Participant
    Post count: 1519

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    The express purpose of the act was to prevent US Military from being deployed on US soil in a law enforcement capacity. It seems pretty clear.

    Beyond that, there are right around 100,000 public schools in the US. Most have multiple entry points and many have multiple buildings. There are roughly 350,000 people in the national guard in the US. If we had 100% of the national guard deployed all the time and 100% of them were in this role that would be 3.5 per school which would likely not be enough on average.

    Add to that most national guard are not deployed 100% of the time and if they were enlistment and retention would plummet especially if the deployment was being a security guard at a school. This idea cannot work even if it was legal.

    Asgrow’s options on building and security and funding are about the closest thing to reality.

    The other ideas are about as realistic as me saying I will start a Dragon hatchery and build an army of Dragons to protect our schools.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: TrapCyclone

    I haven’t read every post here, but I recently came across something that really fascinated me. I’m sure most of us have heard of the movie Minority Report wherein some “precogs” are able to predict when and where crimes of passion will occur and the police are then dispatched to stop the criminal act when or before it happens. Fascinating stuff and pure science fiction, right? Or is it? Turns out there actually is something akin to this and it is called Predictive Policing. There is an informative web page on the National Institute of Justice on this (https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/predictive-policing/Pages/welcome.aspx). They describe Predictive Policing as follows:

    Predictive policing leverages computer models � such as those used in the business industry to anticipate how market conditions or industry trends will evolve over time � for law enforcement purposes, namely anticipating likely crime events and informing actions to prevent crime. Predictions can focus on variables such as places, people, groups or incidents. Demographic trends, parolee populations and economic conditions may all affect crime rates in particular areas. Using models supported by prior crime and environmental data to inform different kinds of interventions can help police reduce the number of crime incidents.

    Seems this is basically the kind of thing that could be useful in predicting and preventing mass shootings. I don’t know exactly how these computer models work, but I would imagine they can and do mine data from peoples’ social media postings, from crime trends in specific locations, from firearms purchases, and so on and so forth and issue a probability analysis that predicts whether a crime is likely to occur. This is both fascinating and yet a bit scary in terms of how the information could be gathered and used (see also http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/can-predictive-policing-prevent-crime-it-happens.

    Seems this approach is something that could be and perhaps is being used to help deter these types of events.

    I appreciate the feedback TrapCyclone. IF it worked, it could be a way to identify when to beef up security or look into specific individuals, but I don’t like the idea of using predictive modeling to charge people for crimes they have yet to commit, (as in the movie). My response to this is that there were lots of red flags raised about this recent FL shooter, and nothing was done about it. So, no matter what types of extensive predictive models we put in place, unless we have qualified resources to interpret and respond accordingly, (take action), it won’t give us a very good ROI. My ideas concentrate on putting the ability to protect our children directly in the hands of the people who are physically with and responsible for our children.

    AvatarBrownItsDown
    Participant
    Post count: 1066

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    The express purpose of the act was to prevent US Military from being deployed on US soil in a law enforcement capacity. It seems pretty clear.

    Beyond that, there are right around 100,000 public schools in the US. Most have multiple entry points and many have multiple buildings. There are roughly 350,000 people in the national guard in the US. If we had 100% of the national guard deployed all the time and 100% of them were in this role that would be 3.5 per school which would likely not be enough on average.

    Add to that most national guard are not deployed 100% of the time and if they were enlistment and retention would plummet especially if the deployment was being a security guard at a school. This idea cannot work even if it was legal.

    Asgrow’s options on building and security and funding are about the closest thing to reality.

    The other ideas are about as realistic as me saying I will start a Dragon hatchery and build an army of Dragons to protect our schools.

    Any manned front security / screening posts would be better than none, in that they would at least add some deterrence for terrorists who target soft targets. But, I hear what you’re saying. I wouldn’t be against combining the NG effort with volunteer security officials, local law enforcement, active military, retired military, etc. If the NG doesn’t have the capacity to provide this service, there are other groups to look to for helping to fill in the gaps. I ran with the NG because of the fact that they ‘should’ already have the appropriate training, or could get it relatively easily, and they are a tax paid, funded resource that is currently available.

    I’m all for building security into our school buildings as well. I see this as not being a very budget friendly option, (bullet proofing rooms, trapping and gassing terrorists, etc.), but I would be willing to entertain ideas, above and beyond making most exit/entry points Emergency Exits ONLY (alarms sounding if unauthorized open), and providing security devices for main manned entry points.

    Dragon’s aren’t real, or at least they don’t exist today… The threat of our children being killed in their school buildings by unopposed terrorists is very real. The original ideas that I’ve suggested are realistic methods to take into consideration, especially when compared to how realistic it is for attempting to ban and confiscate AR or semi-automatic rifles in general.

    AvatarTeamAsgrow
    Participant
    Post count: 9151

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Quote by: BrownItsDown

    Quote by: northwoodsbucks

    Its good that people are thinking, number 2 might even be practical.

    As already said, law would be state level, policy would be local districts.

    No 1 is a violation of Posse Comitatus and just plain bad policy. I disagree with the premise of armed guards but if you did is has to be law enforcement or private security, not military.

    No 3 would never work, lots of anti gun people in teachers unions and forcing them to train with a gun will be a no go. Allowing teachers to voluntarily participate may be viable although I dont know what it does to insurance. Voluntary would also likely be more effective or as least as effective as mandatory.

    I don’t believe No 1 is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that’s where attorneys would need to be involved.

    No 3, school faculty are government employees. They would really have no choice in the matter. Insurance should logically be in favor of qualified school faculty carrying firearms, in lieu of the school murders of the past 1-2 decades.

    The express purpose of the act was to prevent US Military from being deployed on US soil in a law enforcement capacity. It seems pretty clear.

    Beyond that, there are right around 100,000 public schools in the US. Most have multiple entry points and many have multiple buildings. There are roughly 350,000 people in the national guard in the US. If we had 100% of the national guard deployed all the time and 100% of them were in this role that would be 3.5 per school which would likely not be enough on average.

    Add to that most national guard are not deployed 100% of the time and if they were enlistment and retention would plummet especially if the deployment was being a security guard at a school. This idea cannot work even if it was legal.

    Asgrow’s options on building and security and funding are about the closest thing to reality.

    The other ideas are about as realistic as me saying I will start a Dragon hatchery and build an army of Dragons to protect our schools.

    Any manned front security / screening posts would be better than none, in that they would at least add some deterrence for terrorists who target soft targets. But, I hear what you’re saying. I wouldn’t be against combining the NG effort with volunteer security officials, local law enforcement, active military, retired military, etc. If the NG doesn’t have the capacity to provide this service, there are other groups to look to for helping to fill in the gaps. I ran with the NG because of the fact that they ‘should’ already have the appropriate training, or could get it relatively easily, and they are a tax paid, funded resource that is currently available.

    I’m all for building security into our school buildings as well. I see this as not being a very budget friendly option, (bullet proofing rooms, trapping and gassing terrorists, etc.), but I would be willing to entertain ideas, above and beyond making most exit/entry points Emergency Exits ONLY (alarms sounding if unauthorized open), and providing security devices for main manned entry points.

    Dragon’s aren’t real, or at least they don’t exist today… The threat of our children being killed in their school buildings by unopposed terrorists is very real. The original ideas that I’ve suggested are realistic methods to take into consideration, especially when compared to how realistic it is for attempting to ban and confiscate AR or semi-automatic rifles in general.

    Just because National Guard are tax paid would not make them budget friendly either! There are not nearly enough full time NG to come anywhere close to providing security measures. There are 357 school districts in Iowa, some districts have one building while others have multiple, the number of National Guard needed would be in the thousands that would need to be hired full time. Once again, just because they are “tax paid” doesn’t mean that money can just magically appear.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 150 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.