So now we get into analysis and then running what-ifs on the situations. Sometimes there is an armed person there in time to take action. One time it was an off duty police officer who happened to be there because of something to do with their kid at the school. A couple of times it was a school resource police officer that was in the building. Another time it was the principal who had the time to run out to his car and retrieve his pistol and then confront the bad guy. Other times there were adults who were possibly violating the law by having their concealed handgun on them in the school. One time the bad guy was tackled by a student football player. IN the cases where the bad guy was confronted by the good guy with gun, in all the cases I know of, except for one, the bad guy immediately stopped attacking, and either suicided or surrendered. The one other case the bad guy was able to shoot the good guy with a gun, wounding them enough that they were able to get away. I don't recall if the officer was killed or not.
Now the what-ifs. ONe of the conclusions drawn from the Columbine shooting analysis was that the police responding acted according to their training and followed their rules by establishing a perimeter around the school and whistling up the swat team. But this gave the shooters plenty of time to wander around the school killing kids more or less at their leisure. So police doctrines changed to have the first responding officers enter into the building as soon as they had two or three officers to enter and disrupt the bad guys shooting spree. This was followed in the Sandy Hook shooting, some of officers entered the school and confronted the bad guy, who suicided more or less immediately after being confronted. The assumption was that this kept him from shooting even more kids. There are other things to try that don't involve arming school staff. Mostly this is the concept of lockdown. You keep the bad guy from getting at more victims by locking them out of the victim tanks, I mean the classrooms. That means sturdy lockable doors, windows that are too small for the bad guy to shoot through or clamber through, and some form of alarm system to put the whole school into lockdown. The disadvantage of this is that you are locking the bad guy in with some unknown number of kids, staff and visitors, and there is small chance of escape for them. Hopefully the exterior doors are sturdy and locked, and the bad guy is detected by alert staff who lock the bad guy outside for the police to deal with. You can install surveillance camera systems, but these have little utility in preventing shootings. But they are darn useful to the police afterwards for completing the investigation. Too bad the kids died and the tape got leaked to the media to boost their ratings. Alarm systems to call the police are nifty, but in this age of ubiquitous cell phones, the police will usually be swamped with calls about the situation before the alarm company calls it in.
I'm getting tired here, so I'll sum it up. In the cases where the bad guy can be interfered with by a good guy with a gun, they need to be there as soon as possible. LIke the saying goes, When seconds count, the police are minutes away. OUt in the rural areas, where police response can be halfway across the county and will take half an hour to get there, the need is even more dire. Now I am not advocating requiring any school staffer be forced to carry a gun. But for any school staffer who is willing to take up that additional responsibility of carrying a firearm in a school should be supported in that, and given the appropriate training. Everyone today working in a school has already passed a background check of some kind. So I don't expect getting a license from their state will be an issue.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-10-25 04:00 am (UTC)So now we get into analysis and then running what-ifs on the situations. Sometimes there is an armed person there in time to take action. One time it was an off duty police officer who happened to be there because of something to do with their kid at the school. A couple of times it was a school resource police officer that was in the building. Another time it was the principal who had the time to run out to his car and retrieve his pistol and then confront the bad guy. Other times there were adults who were possibly violating the law by having their concealed handgun on them in the school. One time the bad guy was tackled by a student football player. IN the cases where the bad guy was confronted by the good guy with gun, in all the cases I know of, except for one, the bad guy immediately stopped attacking, and either suicided or surrendered. The one other case the bad guy was able to shoot the good guy with a gun, wounding them enough that they were able to get away. I don't recall if the officer was killed or not.
Now the what-ifs. ONe of the conclusions drawn from the Columbine shooting analysis was that the police responding acted according to their training and followed their rules by establishing a perimeter around the school and whistling up the swat team. But this gave the shooters plenty of time to wander around the school killing kids more or less at their leisure. So police doctrines changed to have the first responding officers enter into the building as soon as they had two or three officers to enter and disrupt the bad guys shooting spree. This was followed in the Sandy Hook shooting, some of officers entered the school and confronted the bad guy, who suicided more or less immediately after being confronted. The assumption was that this kept him from shooting even more kids.
There are other things to try that don't involve arming school staff. Mostly this is the concept of lockdown. You keep the bad guy from getting at more victims by locking them out of the victim tanks, I mean the classrooms. That means sturdy lockable doors, windows that are too small for the bad guy to shoot through or clamber through, and some form of alarm system to put the whole school into lockdown. The disadvantage of this is that you are locking the bad guy in with some unknown number of kids, staff and visitors, and there is small chance of escape for them. Hopefully the exterior doors are sturdy and locked, and the bad guy is detected by alert staff who lock the bad guy outside for the police to deal with.
You can install surveillance camera systems, but these have little utility in preventing shootings. But they are darn useful to the police afterwards for completing the investigation. Too bad the kids died and the tape got leaked to the media to boost their ratings. Alarm systems to call the police are nifty, but in this age of ubiquitous cell phones, the police will usually be swamped with calls about the situation before the alarm company calls it in.
I'm getting tired here, so I'll sum it up. In the cases where the bad guy can be interfered with by a good guy with a gun, they need to be there as soon as possible. LIke the saying goes, When seconds count, the police are minutes away. OUt in the rural areas, where police response can be halfway across the county and will take half an hour to get there, the need is even more dire.
Now I am not advocating requiring any school staffer be forced to carry a gun. But for any school staffer who is willing to take up that additional responsibility of carrying a firearm in a school should be supported in that, and given the appropriate training. Everyone today working in a school has already passed a background check of some kind. So I don't expect getting a license from their state will be an issue.