Finally! A solution to prevent mass shootings in school. Not from a Politician, Not from a lobbyist.......

[darthtang aw]

Whether you agree that guns like those used in the Sandy Hook Elementary killings should be banned, or the NRA's suggestion that more police are needed at schools, there is an growing acceptance that neither will stop the next madman.
But there is hope. Enter Dale McClellan, a former Navy SEAL and president of Special Tactical Services in Virginia Beach, which trains elite police and military units on how to stop attacks, including those like the Sandy Hook school.
Arming teachers with pistols, or eliminating assault weapons isn't the answer, he told Secrets. And putting police in every school room is unrealistic, he adds. But there is an easy, though initially pricey, answer that schools can adopt fast.
"You have to create a first line of defense," he said. That, he said, should include training teachers and school officials how to react to an attack. Then schools should install ballistic doors with magnetic locks, put Kevlar blankets in every school room and even put Kevlar sheeting on desks for kids and teachers to hide behind.
"You want to have a way to let teachers and principals buy time for the cops to arrive and deal with the active shooter," he said.
Also, teachers should receive a TASER, with training, to shock an attacker. "It's easy to use and very effective," said McClellan.
His is an idea that is catching fire, though he said the heated debate over gun control is stealing time and attention away from effective prevention measures for schools. Jed Babbin, a columnist for the American Spectator and a friend of McClellan, wrote that the SEAL school defense plan would have been effective at Sandy Hook.
"Newtown school principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach confronted shooter Adam Lanza, and were killed trying to stop him. Had they a TASER, perhaps the killing would have ended, and without their lives being taken," he wrote.
McClellan told Secrets that he plans to make a mock school shooting scene to prove his idea works and hopes school officials from around the nation come see it. "You have to do something yourselves," he said.

 

[reefraff]

Some good ideas and some not so much. Tasing someone with a gun is a long shot at best. I still like the idea of cops in schools because there are benefits beyond security. I'd also allow teachers who are willing to take a class to allow them to carry on campus whether the gun is on their person on locked in a safe. Just the knowledge there is a good chance someone is armed would be enough to prevent some of the wackos from hitting schools. Nothing is a sure fix but the fear of meeting armed resistance is the strongest deterrent.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508857
Whether you agree that guns like those used in the Sandy Hook Elementary killings should be banned, or the NRA's suggestion that more police are needed at schools, there is an growing acceptance that neither will stop the next madman.
But there is hope. Enter Dale McClellan, a former Navy SEAL and president of Special Tactical Services in Virginia Beach, which trains elite police and military units on how to stop attacks, including those like the Sandy Hook school.
Arming teachers with pistols, or eliminating assault weapons isn't the answer, he told Secrets. And putting police in every school room is unrealistic, he adds. But there is an easy, though initially pricey, answer that schools can adopt fast.
"You have to create a first line of defense," he said. That, he said, should include training teachers and school officials how to react to an attack. Then schools should install ballistic doors with magnetic locks, put Kevlar blankets in every school room and even put Kevlar sheeting on desks for kids and teachers to hide behind.
"You want to have a way to let teachers and principals buy time for the cops to arrive and deal with the active shooter," he said.
Also, teachers should receive a TASER, with training, to shock an attacker. "It's easy to use and very effective," said McClellan.
His is an idea that is catching fire, though he said the heated debate over gun control is stealing time and attention away from effective prevention measures for schools. Jed Babbin, a columnist for the American Spectator and a friend of McClellan, wrote that the SEAL school defense plan would have been effective at Sandy Hook.
"Newtown school principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach confronted shooter Adam Lanza, and were killed trying to stop him. Had they a TASER, perhaps the killing would have ended, and without their lives being taken," he wrote.
McClellan told Secrets that he plans to make a mock school shooting scene to prove his idea works and hopes school officials from around the nation come see it. "You have to do something yourselves," he said.
I think these are all excellent solutions. Unfortunately, school districts are already struggling to meet their budgets, and unles the Feds are willing to kick in a few billion to provide these materials for every single school in this nation, I don't see where the money would come from.
Tasers can be an effective defense if a person has enough time to prepare to use it. Lanza didn't shoot all those kids through the door. He opened the door, walked into the classroom, and opened fire. If a teacher armed with a Taser could've looked through the small glass window (if their doors had one), and was able to guestimate when he would enter the class, he/she could easily be standing just to the right of the door opening and hit the assailant with the Taser before he even got into the classroom. You could say they could do the same thing with a firearm (which is true), but at least with a Taser a teacher wouldn't have to delay their "attack" on anyone who opened the door, since it's a temporarily disables the person, as opposed to potentially shooting someone whose actually there to save you (i.e. a copr walking into the door). That slight hesitation with having to determine "friend or foe" before firing, may be an effort in futility if it gave the assailant enough time to react and shoot first.

 

[darthtang aw]

I think these are all excellent solutions.  Unfortunately, school districts are already struggling to meet their budgets, and unles the Feds are willing to kick in a few billion to provide these materials for every single school in this nation, I don't see where the money would come from.
True, but the cost would be up front. Unlike every other idea proposed concerning security or police, the cost would not carry forward year to year. Installed equipment and kevlar purchased and that is it. Unless the kevlar is shot it will last.

 

[beth]

Without some meaningful security upfront (school entrances) a shooter such as in Conn isn't going to be stopped. However, in a situation like V. Tech or Columbine just having secure, bullet-proof doors with locks would have helped tremendously.
During the height of the Cold War, the Fed. Government supplied the nation with Fallout Shelter supplies in many schools, hospitals, public buildings, etc. If we stop wasting money on foreign aid and use that saving on our own people for safety, then it could work.
Why isn't just securing entrances in to schools a viable option?

 

[snakeblitz33]

In louisiana they are doin this thing where the doors around campus have to all be locked from the inside. Even classrooms. People can get out but not in, unless someone lets them in. Simple as changing locks.
I would say, leave some decisions up to the principals and teachers. Let citizens buy and use their own safety means, at least until the federal doller trickles down to the schools for safety funding.

 

[reefraff]

They could utilize retired cops and military. Offer them like 10 bux an hour TAX EXEMPT as a way to subsidize their retirement. They already have medicare or pension health benefits so it would be cheap and I'd bet there would be no shortage of people wanting to do it.

 

[beth]

Of course, that still leaves the malls, movie theaters, and restaurants available to the nutjobs. At the end of the day, something has to give on the mental health side of things, so disturbed individuals do not have easy access to weapons.
I think Congress may actually do something in this regard. Hope it is aggressive enough.

 

[reefraff]

Even in totalitarian states (like New York or Chicago LOL!) where guns aren't allowed this stuff still happens. Some things we have to accept as the downside of living in a free society but I agree the mental health system needs revamping.

 

[acrylic51]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508909
Of course, that still leaves the malls, movie theaters, and restaurants available to the nutjobs. At the end of the day, something has to give on the mental health side of things, so disturbed individuals do not have easy access to weapons.
I think Congress may actually do something in this regard. Hope it is aggressive enough.
Not arguing your point Beth......But this idea has been mentioned before with NO real solution.....How would you go about determining who is mental disturbed and who isn't.....Who do you suppose would come up with a set of guidelines to determine the criteria.....What would it be like an annual or semi annual "mental inspection"......We talk about deficits, taxes and what not, and you really thing the "average" person could stomach more taken from their paycheck to facilitate something of this nature.....Sound thinking, but the money has to come from somewhere....
I guess part of my argument is we keep referring to weapons......Anything can be used as a weapon, and it's been done before. So what you eliminate guns from "nutjobs", but someone who is dead set on inflicting carnage will find other means......

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508877
True, but the cost would be up front. Unlike every other idea proposed concerning security or police, the cost would not carry forward year to year. Installed equipment and kevlar purchased and that is it. Unless the kevlar is shot it will last.
Yes, but what is the initial cost for kevlar and other required equipment to cover some 300,000+ doors?

 

[beth]

There are no solutions because those that could put in place some preventative measures have completely ignored this (because it is politically incorrect to target persons with mental health issues).
First let me say that the vast majority of person who suffer from chronic mental health problems are not a threat (and never would be a threat) in terms of becoming a perpetrator of mass shootings. There are some persons however, such as schizophrenics, who should not have access to guns. Sorry, I know this targets a group of people who suffer from a horrible disease; but the truth is that persons who hallucinate, hear voices that give them instructions that can be terribly destructive, and are delusionally paranoid, should never have access to guns.
I would also put in place that children under 18 should never have access to a gun without the supervision of an adult who will be responsible, and held accountable, for what they do. This means that if you have kids in the house, then your weapons are secured, locked away, and stay that way until a responsible adult supervises a kid handling a gun.
Also, I would say that public places likewise have meaningful security. All malls have security teams. Arm them. Many schools have resource officers. Place them in all schools. Do not allow any city to override the 2nd Amendment in pubic places. What is up with that anyway? The 2nd Amendment is null and void because you walk in to a school, or a movie theater, or go to a certain city?
Yes, and put in place background checks for all persons acquiring a gun; to include checking with a national registry for excluded individuals with mental health problems.
Such measure will not eliminate the possibly of a mass shooting, but it will make it a heck of a lot harder. Better then a politically motivated move to ban certain weapons at the expense of rights given to us by our Constitution.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by acrylic51 http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508918
Not arguing your point Beth......But this idea has been mentioned before with NO real solution.....How would you go about determining who is mental disturbed and who isn't.....Who do you suppose would come up with a set of guidelines to determine the criteria.....What would it be like an annual or semi annual "mental inspection"......We talk about deficits, taxes and what not, and you really thing the "average" person could stomach more taken from their paycheck to facilitate something of this nature.....Sound thinking, but the money has to come from somewhere....
I guess part of my argument is we keep referring to weapons......Anything can be used as a weapon, and it's been done before. So what you eliminate guns from "nutjobs", but someone who is dead set on inflicting carnage will find other means......
Assessing someone's mental health at any given point is an effort in futility. So if some guy just randomly "flies off the handle" for whatever reason (bad day at work, argument with a friend, child, or spouse, etc.), do you automatically tag that person as someone who could be prone to commiting a violent act like Sandy Hook?
Guns are being "attacked" because of their easy accesibility by virtually anyone, and their ability to inflict major injury or death in a short period of time. Yes, there's a multitude of inatimate objects that could serve the same purpose, but they're not logical choices if the intent is to harm a large group of individuals in a short period of time. Do you honestly think Lanza would'e been successful in killing 20-something people in just one room if he'd walked into that school with just a bat or a knife? The principal and other admin staff went after Lanza when he was weilding a semi-auto rifle. Do you think they would've been intimidated at all if he walked up to the door and started swinging a bat? If he just had knives, could he have even gotten through the locked door in the first place? Rushing some person whose waving a knife or a bat isn't all that hard if you're using some form of protection as a shield (a chair, a coat rack, some other big item that would be in an office), and you have two or three people doing it at the same time. Unless you have some form of bullet-proof protection lying around, doing the same thing against someone firing multiple rounds at you is nothing short of suicide. Lanza wouldn't have even made it past the front door if he tried using a car for his attack. Do you think the Aurora theater attack would've had the same outcome if that guy walked into the back of the theater with just a bat or knife?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508970
There are no solutions because those that could put in place some preventative measures have completely ignored this (because it is politically incorrect to target persons with mental health issues).
First let me say that the vast majority of person who suffer from chronic mental health problems are not a threat (and never would be a threat) in terms of becoming a perpetrator of mass shootings. There are some persons however, such as schizophrenics, who should not have access to guns. Sorry, I know this targets a group of people who suffer from a horrible disease; but the truth is that persons who hallucinate, hear voices that give them instructions that can be terribly destructive, and are delusionally paranoid, should never have access to guns.
I would also put in place that children under 18 should never have access to a gun without the supervision of an adult who will be responsible, and held accountable, for what they do. This means that if you have kids in the house, then your weapons are secured, locked away, and stay that way until a responsible adult supervises a kid handling a gun.
Also, I would say that public places likewise have meaningful security. All malls have security teams. Arm them. Many schools have resource officers. Place them in all schools. Do not allow any city to override the 2nd Amendment in pubic places. What is up with that anyway? The 2nd Amendment is null and void because you walk in to a school, or a movie theater, or go to a certain city?
Yes, and put in place background checks for all persons acquiring a gun; to include checking with a national registry for excluded individuals with mental health problems.
Such measure will not eliminate the possibly of a mass shooting, but it will make it a heck of a lot harder. Better then a politically motivated move to ban certain weapons at the expense of rights given to us by our Constitution.
The main intent of the 2nd was to "form a militia" in the event of government tyranny or a foreign entity trying to invade this country. The NRA and gun advocates take the two words "bear arms" to an extreme meaning you have the right to carry a weapon wherever you choose. OK, so let anyone and everyone walk around with an AR-15 strapped over their shoulder. Make it the norm that anyone who wants to can walk around with any weapon they choose, and go anywhere they want to with it. Our society would then become complacent, and not be fearful that any one of those individuals could potentially go from being a "responsible gun owner", to some maniacle killer that simply pulls his weapon out and starts shooting indiscremantly at anyone in his/her field of vision. Yes, there would be someone there with a gun to defend themselves against the nut, but if even ONE person were to get hurt or killed, is that worth the price of allowing guns anywhere and everywhere you go? We don't live in the 1800's where the average population of any town was a few hundred. You have hundreds of thousands of individuals concentrated in small regions of this country. Put that many people in a small space, and confrontations and disagreements become quite common. Now stick a gun in everyone's hand, and just imagine what the consequences would be.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508978
Yes, there would be someone there with a gun to defend themselves against the nut, but if even ONE person were to get hurt or killed, is that worth the price of allowing guns anywhere and everywhere you go?
I think that the one person with a gun would not be there to just defend themselves in the case of a mass shooting (which is what we are talking about).
Any measures we take will only reduce the probability of great numbers of people getting killed. We can never hope for 100% safety. However, if a mass murderer plans to be successful, he will likely pick the most vulnerable target where he won't be stopped before his goal is accomplished.
Switzerland, which has more people per capita owning guns then the USA has virtually no gun related crimes. There are firearms virtually in every single household and carrying guns in public is commonplace.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508985
I think that the one person with a gun would not be there to just defend themselves in the case of a mass shooting (which is what we are talking about).
Any measures we take will only reduce the probability of great numbers of people getting killed. We can never hope for 100% safety. However, if a mass murderer plans to be successful, he will likely pick the most vulnerable target where he won't be stopped before his goal is accomplished.
Switzerland, which has more people per capita owning guns then the USA has virtually no gun related crimes. There are firearms virtually in every single household and carrying guns in public is commonplace.
Tell that to the Norwegian families whose kids were involved with that mass murder at that camp on the island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
Did you research why so many people own guns in Switzerland?
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.
Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.
Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.
Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.
I suppose we could in fact force the "militia" part of the 2nd to be enforced, and require every citizen to go through the same training and requirements as Swiss citizens. We could then completely dismantle our US military forces, and rely solely on our citizenry to protect our borders. Unfortunately, that would mean that you would be required to be deployed to any foreign military conflict, whether you choose to or not.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508978
The main intent of the 2nd was to "form a militia" in the event of government tyranny or a foreign entity trying to invade this country. The NRA and gun advocates take the two words "bear arms" to an extreme meaning you have the right to carry a weapon wherever you choose. OK, so let anyone and everyone walk around with an AR-15 strapped over their shoulder. Make it the norm that anyone who wants to can walk around with any weapon they choose, and go anywhere they want to with it. Our society would then become complacent, and not be fearful that any one of those individuals could potentially go from being a "responsible gun owner", to some maniacle killer that simply pulls his weapon out and starts shooting indiscremantly at anyone in his/her field of vision. Yes, there would be someone there with a gun to defend themselves against the nut, but if even ONE person were to get hurt or killed, is that worth the price of allowing guns anywhere and everywhere you go? We don't live in the 1800's where the average population of any town was a few hundred. You have hundreds of thousands of individuals concentrated in small regions of this country. Put that many people in a small space, and confrontations and disagreements become quite common. Now stick a gun in everyone's hand, and just imagine what the consequences would be.
You think the difference between a musket and a AR is more radical than a printing press and a TV set? Of course not Yet I don't see you flapping your gums about electronic media not being covered by the first amendment because the founders couldn't have foreseen that advancement.
I am not seeing anything about foreign governments in these quotes. But what would Jefferson and Henry know about the constitution....
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" Patrick Henry
“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.

 

[beth]

bionic, my comments about Switzerland was just to compare a society where guns are the norm and not viewed as Public Enemy No. 1 (as is the case with some segments of government and society in the USA). I am familiar with the Swiss system, but I was not suggesting that the USA re-invent our own military to emulate Switzerland. Come on, I think you know what my point was.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3508995
You think the difference between a musket and a AR is more radical than a printing press and a TV set? Of course not Yet I don't see you flapping your gums about electronic media not being covered by the first amendment because the founders couldn't have foreseen that advancement.
I am not seeing anything about foreign governments in these quotes. But what would Jefferson and Henry know about the constitution....
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" Patrick Henry
“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.
Sure thing reef. And I can quote these same people, or other Founding Fathers that felt just the opposite.
A TV can't murder someone, an AR can. What's your point?

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/394239/finally-a-solution-to-prevent-mass-shootings-in-school-not-from-a-politician-not-from-a-lobbyist#post_3509010
Sure thing reef. And I can quote these same people, or other Founding Fathers that felt just the opposite.
Please do.