Thread Rating:
  • 12 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rants and Raves
I got 100 teachers in my school, Only 3 that I know about have military or law enforcement experience.
No way I would trust a teacher with a weapon. The bean counters that run the school dept can't or won't
even equip us properly to do our job.
Reply
(02-18-2018, 12:20 PM)Yossarian Wrote: The same firearms training that LE receives?
"Not enough?"

>Implying that the cop who's 30 minutes with (ostensibly) the exact same training is somehow gonna be magically and inexplicably better trained... 
Yowie on tater tot burritos: CombatWombat Ian old mate, that's an abomination and I want it 20 Jan 20:39



Reply
(02-18-2018, 09:21 PM)IamIan Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 12:20 PM)Yossarian Wrote: The same firearms training that LE receives?
"Not enough?"

>Implying that cops don't get enough training with the weapons they use... You know, like how we always hear when cops respond to criticism for killing too many people. 
They come with fire,they come with axes...Destroyers&usurpers,curse them. GALL:I hope you get run over by a dumptruck full of babydicks CORVUS:yoss hates&knows everything BAN724:I like how buttmad ppl get about Yoss except if you lie still&listen he is trying to make us all better debaters
Reply
(02-18-2018, 09:21 PM)IamIan Wrote:
(02-18-2018, 12:20 PM)Yossarian Wrote: The same firearms training that LE receives?
"Not enough?"

>Implying that the cop who's 30 minutes with (ostensibly) the exact same training is somehow gonna be magically and inexplicably better trained... 

No they just post him up in the school so he's the first one to die.
Reply
(02-18-2018, 04:28 PM)oldwinger Wrote: I got 100 teachers in my school, Only 3 that I know about have military or law enforcement experience.
No way I would trust a teacher with a weapon. The bean counters that run the school dept can't or won't
even equip us properly to do our job.

I think back to the teachers I had in high school... mostly middle aged women. Even with the younger teachers/male teachers whatever, I can't picture a single one that would've went all CQB with an active shooter. Plus, with the chaos that i assume is going on during a school shooting (i've never been in that situation), and kids running around, do we really want someone who doesn't actively train for the situation to try and neutralize the threat? I think more people would get hurt if my 55 year old spanish teacher to put rounds on an active shooter. it just doesn't seem plausible to me.
Reply
There’s a big factor you’re not considering CW, it would be an excellent deterrent. One of the reasons why schools get shot up is that no one is armed on the grounds, it’s a soft target. Maybe you have one police officer, however that factor is negated if the shooter attends the school (in the case of this one the police officer is in the school main office which is at the opposite end of where the freshman building is) and knows where they’d more than likely be located. People don’t target police stations or gun clubs for a reason. Also not to get to deep into hypotheticals but you could keep the guns in a safe, and have a safe installed in every desk so no one knows who does and doesn’t have a weapon. Of course that means a slower response time in the event of a shooting but it’d keep people safe on a day to day basis.

Also I can think of seven teachers in my former high school that probably would’ve been competent in handling a weapon, three of which were former military members. That’s not a lot compared to the overall staff but again I believe it’s a really good deterrent to keep one from even happening I the first place.
Yesterday's gone on down the river and you can't get it back.
Reply
Most cops/armed security guards don't look like they can fight their way out anything except a box of donuts or a combo meal but that doesn't stop them from carrying a gun after qualifying once or twice at best a year. Most former military/law enforcement/conceal carry license holders haven't shot at people with a pistol except for training scenarios either but they would still serve as somewhat of a deterrent.

If you can't trust those people with a gun, why do you trust them to teach your kids?

At the end of the day none of this would prevent mass killings of kids from happening if someone is determined enough, but it might make someone decide to pick a different location and method of operation. There are much cheaper and more efficient ways of killing large amounts of people than going in with guns blazing.
Reply
^ Oklahoma City bombing
Yesterday's gone on down the river and you can't get it back.
Reply
(02-19-2018, 08:47 AM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: There’s a big factor you’re not considering CW, it would be an excellent deterrent. One of the reasons why schools get shot up is that no one is armed on the grounds, it’s a soft target. Maybe you have one police officer, however that factor is negated if the shooter attends the school (in the case of this one the police officer is in the school main office which is at the opposite end of where the freshman building is) and knows where they’d more than likely be located. People don’t target police stations or gun clubs for a reason. Also not to get to deep into hypotheticals but you could keep the guns in a safe, and have a safe installed in every desk so no one knows who does and doesn’t have a weapon. Of course that means a slower response time in the event of a shooting but it’d keep people safe on a day to day basis.

Also I can think of seven teachers in my former high school that probably would’ve been competent in handling a weapon, three of which were former military members. That’s not a lot compared to the overall staff but again I believe it’s a really good deterrent to keep one from even happening I the first place.

Nah, not really. For it to be a good deterrent, it’d have to be every classroom from tiny wee kinder kids up - if it’s only a few per school, the odds are still in the shooter’s favour that they’ll pick a room without an armed teacher. You get the same problem as you said with the security guard only being one guy. If it’s a police station or gun club, that’s different cos it’s everyone.



- What’s an armed teacher supposed to do? What’s the policy they train to follow?

Leave their kids so they can go find the shooter, get proactive about ending the threat? Those kids need the teacher there. They’re terrified. They’re crying. If they’re really little, some of the poor little squits are gonna wet themselves.

Or stay with the class to keep them calm and have a shootout when the bad guy gets around to them? That just means more bullets flying around a pretty confined space, more chances for someone to get hurt.

- The teacher’d also have to be protected. Fuck knows the shooter will have thought of protecting himself. If they’re not, they just become the first target and the shooter gets another gun to play with as soon as they’re down.

- How’s anyone supposed to know what’s going on? If you’re in a different classroom, and you hear shots go off but can’t see them...who did that? The good guy, or the bad guy? Is there more than one bad guy? Where is he, shit? Multiple people shooting is just going to make it harder to get accurate reports to anyone not in the school, which makes the LE response harder to coordinate.


I’d trust most people to use a gun for fun. Trusting them to be front line defence and kill for my kids - that’s what you’re asking if it comes right down to it, the teacher is expected to kill the shooter - is a bit different.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a lot of bitching.<br /><br />- The Tao of Wombat
Reply
Rant: CW (representing the opinion of all Australians IMO) would rather have a teacher sacrifice their life as a human shield rather than a armed deterrent. 

Rave: ITS ABOUT TIME WE HAD A GOOD ARGUMENT ON TL
[Image: 8AOXfI5.jpg]
Reply
(Yesterday, 07:42 AM)Tikilounge Wrote: Rant: CW (representing the opinion of all Australians IMO) would rather have a teacher sacrifice their life as a human shield rather than a armed deterrent. 

Rave: ITS ABOUT TIME WE HAD A GOOD ARGUMENT ON TL

They can’t be an armed deterrent, numbnuts. They’re already busy being a teacher.

First responsibility of a teacher in a crisis, any crisis = keep them calm, and get them out. Doesn’t matter if it’s a fire or a shooter or what. Keep the kids calm, keep them on track and get them the fuck out. Twenty kids is a lot.

Tackling the shooter themselves might be an option, but it’s an option that makes their first set of responsibilities a hell of a lot harder. If you’re heading towards the sound of gunfire, you’re either heading away from your kids who need you, or you’re bringing the kids with you. Any of those sound good to you?

The teacher might have to shoot a kid they know. Heaps of school shooters are fucked up students or ex students. What if they can’t do it? Could you kill someone you’d known? Cos if they can’t, if they hesitate and the shooter gets a few rounds off, the first question they’ll face on the other side is “Why’d you wait? Why weren’t you faster? Why did you let my baby die?”

That’s not fair. You can’t ask them to do that. Not even the ones that already know their way around guns want the responsibility of guns in the classroom, and this shit is why.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a lot of bitching.<br /><br />- The Tao of Wombat
Reply
(02-19-2018, 02:45 PM)CombatWombat Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 08:47 AM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: There’s a big factor you’re not considering CW, it would be an excellent deterrent. One of the reasons why schools get shot up is that no one is armed on the grounds, it’s a soft target. Maybe you have one police officer, however that factor is negated if the shooter attends the school (in the case of this one the police officer is in the school main office which is at the opposite end of where the freshman building is) and knows where they’d more than likely be located. People don’t target police stations or gun clubs for a reason. Also not to get to deep into hypotheticals but you could keep the guns in a safe, and have a safe installed in every desk so no one knows who does and doesn’t have a weapon. Of course that means a slower response time in the event of a shooting but it’d keep people safe on a day to day basis.

Also I can think of seven teachers in my former high school that probably would’ve been competent in handling a weapon, three of which were former military members. That’s not a lot compared to the overall staff but again I believe it’s a really good deterrent to keep one from even happening I the first place.

Nah, not really. For it to be a good deterrent, it’d have to be every classroom from tiny wee kinder kids up - if it’s only a few per school, the odds are still in the shooter’s favour that they’ll pick a room without an armed teacher. You get the same problem as you said with the security guard only being one guy. If it’s a police station or gun club, that’s different cos it’s everyone.



- What’s an armed teacher supposed to do? What’s the policy they train to follow?

Leave their kids so they can go find the shooter, get proactive about ending the threat? Those kids need the teacher there. They’re terrified. They’re crying. If they’re really little, some of the poor little squits are gonna wet themselves.

Or stay with the class to keep them calm and have a shootout when the bad guy gets around to them? That just means more bullets flying around a pretty confined space, more chances for someone to get hurt.

- The teacher’d also have to be protected. Fuck knows the shooter will have thought of protecting himself. If they’re not, they just become the first target and the shooter gets another gun to play with as soon as they’re down.

- How’s anyone supposed to know what’s going on? If you’re in a different classroom, and you hear shots go off but can’t see them...who did that? The good guy, or the bad guy? Is there more than one bad guy? Where is he, shit? Multiple people shooting is just going to make it harder to get accurate reports to anyone not in the school, which makes the LE response harder to coordinate.


I’d trust most people to use a gun for fun. Trusting them to be front line defence and kill for my kids - that’s what you’re asking if it comes right down to it, the teacher is expected to kill the shooter - is a bit different.
I don't believe it would simply because the psych effect of knowing that a teacher could be armed is a huge deterrent, it doesn't need to be all of them, not even remotely close. People don't like taking chances, especially when there are other soft targets that they could be going after (I hate using the term soft targets). I don't have an answer to that because I'm not someone whose ever had to deal with crisis response, however there is plenty of time to train teachers (we have a three month summer break in the United States that teachers get paid during) to deal with this stuff more effectively. 

Now moving to the worst case scenario and someone decides they still want to target the school even though there's a good chance at least a few teachers are armed, the question of what the teachers are supposed to do has already been debated discussed and made policy. Stay in your rooms and lock your doors and keep people away from windows. One of the big problems about this recent attack is that teachers either didn't properly follow those protocols or there were already numerous kids outside of their classrooms for some reason on multiple floors. Many of the kids killed were running in the hallways when they should've been hunkered down in the classroom out of view. A few kids did die inside the classrooms however from what it's looking like those kids were behind CONCEALMENT (although not really because the specific instance I'm talking about is where ten kids grouped up behind a computer cart which doesn't hide anything) in front of the classroom window. The shooter had opened fired shooting at the cart where 2 students were killed and a few more injured. 

Now if the protocol already properly being followed then a teacher wouldn't need to worry about students running in the hallways and being in the way when engaging a shooter. They could determine for themselves (if given proper training) when the appropriate time would be to engage or how to otherwise behave depending on their situation. Nothing is impossible to prepare if you're willing to prepare for it. 

Lastly schools need to implement for defensive architecture when designing classroom buildings. I've already said in the chat that the freshman building where the shooting took place is a death trap, even though it was the newest building on the school. Schools need to implement doors that lock automatically a few minutes after classes have started, something my college already has. Schools in the future also need to have better security around the perimeter surrounding their schools. The plaza where I work has a staff of five security guards that patrol the grounds as well as checking in at electronics checkpoints that they scan with their cards. Their on site 24/7 except during severe weather, they also have cameras set up on just about every corner. 

I'm hoping that this is all logical enough as I'm a little buzzed. 

(02-19-2018, 02:45 PM)CombatWombat Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 08:47 AM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: There’s a big factor you’re not considering CW, it would be an excellent deterrent. One of the reasons why schools get shot up is that no one is armed on the grounds, it’s a soft target. Maybe you have one police officer, however that factor is negated if the shooter attends the school (in the case of this one the police officer is in the school main office which is at the opposite end of where the freshman building is) and knows where they’d more than likely be located. People don’t target police stations or gun clubs for a reason. Also not to get to deep into hypotheticals but you could keep the guns in a safe, and have a safe installed in every desk so no one knows who does and doesn’t have a weapon. Of course that means a slower response time in the event of a shooting but it’d keep people safe on a day to day basis.

Also I can think of seven teachers in my former high school that probably would’ve been competent in handling a weapon, three of which were former military members. That’s not a lot compared to the overall staff but again I believe it’s a really good deterrent to keep one from even happening I the first place.

Nah, not really. For it to be a good deterrent, it’d have to be every classroom from tiny wee kinder kids up - if it’s only a few per school, the odds are still in the shooter’s favour that they’ll pick a room without an armed teacher. You get the same problem as you said with the security guard only being one guy. If it’s a police station or gun club, that’s different cos it’s everyone.



- What’s an armed teacher supposed to do? What’s the policy they train to follow?

Leave their kids so they can go find the shooter, get proactive about ending the threat? Those kids need the teacher there. They’re terrified. They’re crying. If they’re really little, some of the poor little squits are gonna wet themselves.

Or stay with the class to keep them calm and have a shootout when the bad guy gets around to them? That just means more bullets flying around a pretty confined space, more chances for someone to get hurt.

- The teacher’d also have to be protected. Fuck knows the shooter will have thought of protecting himself. If they’re not, they just become the first target and the shooter gets another gun to play with as soon as they’re down.

- How’s anyone supposed to know what’s going on? If you’re in a different classroom, and you hear shots go off but can’t see them...who did that? The good guy, or the bad guy? Is there more than one bad guy? Where is he, shit? Multiple people shooting is just going to make it harder to get accurate reports to anyone not in the school, which makes the LE response harder to coordinate.


I’d trust most people to use a gun for fun. Trusting them to be front line defence and kill for my kids - that’s what you’re asking if it comes right down to it, the teacher is expected to kill the shooter - is a bit different.

I think this is a poor argument because if their responsibility is protecting the students, which it is, then ending whatever threat should and could be a priority if they had the equipment and training to do so. And it's silly to believe that they'd even know who the shooter was in most circumstances. These people aren't going to spending a lot of time analyzing what the shooter looks like if the shooter is firing into a classroom or at a group of students. This isn't like some Hollywood movie, 99% of people aren't going to think twice of putting down a former student if it means saving the lives of current students that are being shot by said former student.
Yesterday's gone on down the river and you can't get it back.
Reply
(Yesterday, 04:31 PM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 02:45 PM)CombatWombat Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 08:47 AM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: There’s a big factor you’re not considering CW, it would be an excellent deterrent. One of the reasons why schools get shot up is that no one is armed on the grounds, it’s a soft target. Maybe you have one police officer, however that factor is negated if the shooter attends the school (in the case of this one the police officer is in the school main office which is at the opposite end of where the freshman building is) and knows where they’d more than likely be located. People don’t target police stations or gun clubs for a reason. Also not to get to deep into hypotheticals but you could keep the guns in a safe, and have a safe installed in every desk so no one knows who does and doesn’t have a weapon. Of course that means a slower response time in the event of a shooting but it’d keep people safe on a day to day basis.

Also I can think of seven teachers in my former high school that probably would’ve been competent in handling a weapon, three of which were former military members. That’s not a lot compared to the overall staff but again I believe it’s a really good deterrent to keep one from even happening I the first place.

Nah, not really. For it to be a good deterrent, it’d have to be every classroom from tiny wee kinder kids up - if it’s only a few per school, the odds are still in the shooter’s favour that they’ll pick a room without an armed teacher. You get the same problem as you said with the security guard only being one guy. If it’s a police station or gun club, that’s different cos it’s everyone.



- What’s an armed teacher supposed to do? What’s the policy they train to follow?

Leave their kids so they can go find the shooter, get proactive about ending the threat? Those kids need the teacher there. They’re terrified. They’re crying. If they’re really little, some of the poor little squits are gonna wet themselves.

Or stay with the class to keep them calm and have a shootout when the bad guy gets around to them? That just means more bullets flying around a pretty confined space, more chances for someone to get hurt.

- The teacher’d also have to be protected. Fuck knows the shooter will have thought of protecting himself. If they’re not, they just become the first target and the shooter gets another gun to play with as soon as they’re down.

- How’s anyone supposed to know what’s going on? If you’re in a different classroom, and you hear shots go off but can’t see them...who did that? The good guy, or the bad guy? Is there more than one bad guy? Where is he, shit? Multiple people shooting is just going to make it harder to get accurate reports to anyone not in the school, which makes the LE response harder to coordinate.


I’d trust most people to use a gun for fun. Trusting them to be front line defence and kill for my kids - that’s what you’re asking if it comes right down to it, the teacher is expected to kill the shooter - is a bit different.
I don't believe it would simply because the psych effect of knowing that a teacher could be armed is a huge deterrent, it doesn't need to be all of them, not even remotely close. People don't like taking chances, especially when there are other soft targets that they could be going after (I hate using the term soft targets). I don't have an answer to that because I'm not someone whose ever had to deal with crisis response, however there is plenty of time to train teachers (we have a three month summer break in the United States that teachers get paid during) to deal with this stuff more effectively. 

Now moving to the worst case scenario and someone decides they still want to target the school even though there's a good chance at least a few teachers are armed, the question of what the teachers are supposed to do has already been debated discussed and made policy. Stay in your rooms and lock your doors and keep people away from windows. One of the big problems about this recent attack is that teachers either didn't properly follow those protocols or there were already numerous kids outside of their classrooms for some reason on multiple floors. Many of the kids killed were running in the hallways when they should've been hunkered down in the classroom out of view. A few kids did die inside the classrooms however from what it's looking like those kids were behind CONCEALMENT (although not really because the specific instance I'm talking about is where ten kids grouped up behind a computer cart which doesn't hide anything) in front of the classroom window. The shooter had opened fired shooting at the cart where 2 students were killed and a few more injured. 

Now if the protocol already properly being followed then a teacher wouldn't need to worry about students running in the hallways and being in the way when engaging a shooter. They could determine for themselves (if given proper training) when the appropriate time would be to engage or how to otherwise behave depending on their situation. Nothing is impossible to prepare if you're willing to prepare for it. 

Lastly schools need to implement for defensive architecture when designing classroom buildings. I've already said in the chat that the freshman building where the shooting took place is a death trap, even though it was the newest building on the school. Schools need to implement doors that lock automatically a few minutes after classes have started, something my college already has. Schools in the future also need to have better security around the perimeter surrounding their schools. The plaza where I work has a staff of five security guards that patrol the grounds as well as checking in at electronics checkpoints that they scan with their cards. Their on site 24/7 except during severe weather, they also have cameras set up on just about every corner. 

I'm hoping that this is all logical enough as I'm a little buzzed. 

The kids were in the corridors because he’d pulled the fire alarm. Shithead knew the drills the school used - he’d been a student there - and deliberately triggered a different one to get people out in the open.

The students and teachers did exactly what they’d been taught to do for the threat they thought they had. Fire drill means you leave the classroom. If you think a building’s burning, you don’t fucken stay in it.

Fire drill means you leave. Lockdown drill means you stay. You can’t do both at the same time, can you?

He started a fire drill, they did exactly what they’d learned to do for a fire drill...and it fucked them when he started shooting.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a lot of bitching.<br /><br />- The Tao of Wombat
Reply
(Yesterday, 04:55 PM)CombatWombat Wrote:
(Yesterday, 04:31 PM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 02:45 PM)CombatWombat Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 08:47 AM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: There’s a big factor you’re not considering CW, it would be an excellent deterrent. One of the reasons why schools get shot up is that no one is armed on the grounds, it’s a soft target. Maybe you have one police officer, however that factor is negated if the shooter attends the school (in the case of this one the police officer is in the school main office which is at the opposite end of where the freshman building is) and knows where they’d more than likely be located. People don’t target police stations or gun clubs for a reason. Also not to get to deep into hypotheticals but you could keep the guns in a safe, and have a safe installed in every desk so no one knows who does and doesn’t have a weapon. Of course that means a slower response time in the event of a shooting but it’d keep people safe on a day to day basis.

Also I can think of seven teachers in my former high school that probably would’ve been competent in handling a weapon, three of which were former military members. That’s not a lot compared to the overall staff but again I believe it’s a really good deterrent to keep one from even happening I the first place.

Nah, not really. For it to be a good deterrent, it’d have to be every classroom from tiny wee kinder kids up - if it’s only a few per school, the odds are still in the shooter’s favour that they’ll pick a room without an armed teacher. You get the same problem as you said with the security guard only being one guy. If it’s a police station or gun club, that’s different cos it’s everyone.



- What’s an armed teacher supposed to do? What’s the policy they train to follow?

Leave their kids so they can go find the shooter, get proactive about ending the threat? Those kids need the teacher there. They’re terrified. They’re crying. If they’re really little, some of the poor little squits are gonna wet themselves.

Or stay with the class to keep them calm and have a shootout when the bad guy gets around to them? That just means more bullets flying around a pretty confined space, more chances for someone to get hurt.

- The teacher’d also have to be protected. Fuck knows the shooter will have thought of protecting himself. If they’re not, they just become the first target and the shooter gets another gun to play with as soon as they’re down.

- How’s anyone supposed to know what’s going on? If you’re in a different classroom, and you hear shots go off but can’t see them...who did that? The good guy, or the bad guy? Is there more than one bad guy? Where is he, shit? Multiple people shooting is just going to make it harder to get accurate reports to anyone not in the school, which makes the LE response harder to coordinate.


I’d trust most people to use a gun for fun. Trusting them to be front line defence and kill for my kids - that’s what you’re asking if it comes right down to it, the teacher is expected to kill the shooter - is a bit different.
I don't believe it would simply because the psych effect of knowing that a teacher could be armed is a huge deterrent, it doesn't need to be all of them, not even remotely close. People don't like taking chances, especially when there are other soft targets that they could be going after (I hate using the term soft targets). I don't have an answer to that because I'm not someone whose ever had to deal with crisis response, however there is plenty of time to train teachers (we have a three month summer break in the United States that teachers get paid during) to deal with this stuff more effectively. 

Now moving to the worst case scenario and someone decides they still want to target the school even though there's a good chance at least a few teachers are armed, the question of what the teachers are supposed to do has already been debated discussed and made policy. Stay in your rooms and lock your doors and keep people away from windows. One of the big problems about this recent attack is that teachers either didn't properly follow those protocols or there were already numerous kids outside of their classrooms for some reason on multiple floors. Many of the kids killed were running in the hallways when they should've been hunkered down in the classroom out of view. A few kids did die inside the classrooms however from what it's looking like those kids were behind CONCEALMENT (although not really because the specific instance I'm talking about is where ten kids grouped up behind a computer cart which doesn't hide anything) in front of the classroom window. The shooter had opened fired shooting at the cart where 2 students were killed and a few more injured. 

Now if the protocol already properly being followed then a teacher wouldn't need to worry about students running in the hallways and being in the way when engaging a shooter. They could determine for themselves (if given proper training) when the appropriate time would be to engage or how to otherwise behave depending on their situation. Nothing is impossible to prepare if you're willing to prepare for it. 

Lastly schools need to implement for defensive architecture when designing classroom buildings. I've already said in the chat that the freshman building where the shooting took place is a death trap, even though it was the newest building on the school. Schools need to implement doors that lock automatically a few minutes after classes have started, something my college already has. Schools in the future also need to have better security around the perimeter surrounding their schools. The plaza where I work has a staff of five security guards that patrol the grounds as well as checking in at electronics checkpoints that they scan with their cards. Their on site 24/7 except during severe weather, they also have cameras set up on just about every corner. 

I'm hoping that this is all logical enough as I'm a little buzzed. 

The kids were in the corridors because he’d pulled the fire alarm. Shithead knew the drills the school used - he’d been a student there - and deliberately triggered a different one to get people out in the open.

The students and teachers did exactly what they’d been taught to do for the threat they thought they had. Fire drill means you leave the classroom. If you think a building’s burning, you don’t fucken stay in it.

Fire drill means you leave. Lockdown drill means you stay. You can’t do both at the same time, can you?

He started a fire drill, they did exactly what they’d learned to do for a fire drill...and it fucked them when he started shooting.
He pulled the alarm after he started shooting. The students had already heard shots fired before he did that, there were a few people who left their classrooms afterwards but immediately ran back in once he started shooting again. Also the ones that did leave initially thought the shooting was a firecracker going off or part of a drill. 

There were teachers who did evacuate their classrooms while the shooting was taking place, one of the people I worked with has a daughter that attends the school and her teacher did that (although she was in another building, but still could've been a potential disaster). There absolutely people who were not following proper procedure when this shit kicked off. 
Yesterday's gone on down the river and you can't get it back.
Reply
Considering building codes in the past 40-50 years, buildings don't really burn. Since most fires are going to remain isolated (schools have had fire doors as a feature for decades) evacuation is just a preemptive measure.

Alternate exits and active monitoring to allow sectional evacuation instead of one alarm clearing everyone can improve the versatility of the response- just shelter in place and prepare to evacuate.

Honestly, armed (even a random distribution) teachers in rooms can lock down and defend/deter way better than some roving responders- it's a bad idear to have the lay responders attempt to clear the building.
They come with fire,they come with axes...Destroyers&usurpers,curse them. GALL:I hope you get run over by a dumptruck full of babydicks CORVUS:yoss hates&knows everything BAN724:I like how buttmad ppl get about Yoss except if you lie still&listen he is trying to make us all better debaters
Reply
(Yesterday, 04:31 PM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: I think this is a poor argument because if their responsibility is protecting the students, which it is, then ending whatever threat should and could be a priority if they had the equipment and training to do so. And it's silly to believe that they'd even know who the shooter was in most circumstances. These people aren't going to spending a lot of time analyzing what the shooter looks like if the shooter is firing into a classroom or at a group of students. This isn't like some Hollywood movie, 99% of people aren't going to think twice of putting down a former student if it means saving the lives of current students that are being shot by said former student.

You said something interesting here, mate.

“It’s not a Hollywood movie”

You know what, you’re right to say that. It’s not. But expecting some random civilian to take down an active shooter by himself sounds a lot like expecting it to be one. Mild Mannered Geography Teacher hulking out to save the day against The Bad Guy is the plot of like, fifty movies.

In the real world, random civilian guy is a lot more likely to hesitate, or freeze, when faced with someone he knows trying to kill them all. People do that. They think they’ll be okay in a crisis, but then it happens and they’re not.

He’s likely to miss his shots when he’s under pressure - even trained guys miss their shots a fair bit, the accuracy rates for police under pressure are about one in every three, and if the guy they’re trying to stop is shooting back it’s one in five or six. The teacher who packed a quick three day threat response course into summer vacation - he gets three months, but he’s got shit to do for almost all of that, he’s got lessons to plan and prep for, he’s got professional dev, he’s got his own family and life obligations - and then doesn’t touch that material again for a year isn’t going to do better.

What happens if one of the shots he misses kills a student in the crossfire? Who’s liable?
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a lot of bitching.<br /><br />- The Tao of Wombat
Reply
Why don't you want people to have a fighting chance against evil when it is there to kill children?
Reply
Information 
(Yesterday, 06:45 PM)CombatWombat Wrote:
(Yesterday, 04:31 PM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: I think this is a poor argument because if their responsibility is protecting the students, which it is, then ending whatever threat should and could be a priority if they had the equipment and training to do so. And it's silly to believe that they'd even know who the shooter was in most circumstances. These people aren't going to spending a lot of time analyzing what the shooter looks like if the shooter is firing into a classroom or at a group of students. This isn't like some Hollywood movie, 99% of people aren't going to think twice of putting down a former student if it means saving the lives of current students that are being shot by said former student.

You said something interesting here, mate.

“It’s not a Hollywood movie”

You know what, you’re right to say that. It’s not. But expecting some random civilian to take down an active shooter by himself sounds a lot like expecting it to be one. Mild Mannered Geography Teacher hulking out to save the day against The Bad Guy is the plot of like, fifty movies.

In the real world, random civilian guy is a lot more likely to hesitate, or freeze, when faced with someone he knows trying to kill them all. People do that. They think they’ll be okay in a crisis, but then it happens and they’re not.

He’s likely to miss his shots when he’s under pressure - even trained guys miss their shots a fair bit, the accuracy rates for police under pressure are about one in every three, and if the guy they’re trying to stop is shooting back it’s one in five or six. The teacher who packed a quick three day threat response course into summer vacation - he gets three months, but he’s got shit to do for almost all of that, he’s got lessons to plan and prep for, he’s got professional dev, he’s got his own family and life obligations - and then doesn’t touch that material again for a year isn’t going to do better.

What happens if one of the shots he misses kills a student in the crossfire? Who’s liable?

There shouldn’t be kids in the halls in the first place. And civilians stop or at least (keyword) shorten shootings all the time, the Texas church shooting being a great example. And again not sure how it works in Aussie land but most teachers in America, or at least Florida, have most of their lessons already prepared for them. I don’t know how many teachers used premade lessons that had another teachers name on them but I can tell you it’s more than half. They have time to train for this shit and it’s a falsehood to think otherwise. Furthermore the fact that a teacher is able to get off any shots is way better than getting off no shots and getting killed unarmed and unable to do anything. You can train someone to shoot decently in about two weeks with a half decent teacher. Also I think you forget that I believe that the whole idea should be optional for teachers. Most of the teachers that would want to carry a weapon with them at school would very likely be someone whose handled firearms in the past and may very well be someone who regularly practices at a range.

They don’t even need to be accurate honestly. A lot of the time when a shooter starts getting bullets coming their direction they either kill them selves or give up. There are so many scenarios that play out during these things that happen time and time again that people either willfully ignore or outright forget.

As for liability I’m not a lawyer, I assume that it would be the school itself. But at the same time that same question is already being asked about this most recent one. There were and usually are a lot of balls dropped leading up to this and other mass shootings which makes multiple parties liable.
Yesterday's gone on down the river and you can't get it back.
Reply
(Yesterday, 08:50 PM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: There shouldn’t be kids in the halls in the first place. And civilians stop or at least (keyword) shorten shootings all the time, the Texas church shooting being a great example. And again not sure how it works in Aussie land but most teachers in America, or at least Florida, have most of their lessons already prepared for them. I don’t know how many teachers used premade lessons that had another teachers name on them but I can tell you it’s more than half. They have time to train for this shit and it’s a falsehood to think otherwise. Furthermore the fact that a teacher is able to get off any shots is way better than getting off no shots and getting killed unarmed and unable to do anything. You can train someone to shoot decently in about two weeks with a half decent teacher. Also I think you forget that I believe that the whole idea should be optional for teachers. Most of the teachers that would want to carry a weapon with them at school would very likely be someone whose handled firearms in the past and may very well be someone who regularly practices at a range.

They don’t even need to be accurate honestly. A lot of the time when a shooter starts getting bullets coming their direction they either kill them selves or give up. There are so many scenarios that play out during these things that happen time and time again that people either willfully ignore or outright forget.

As for liability I’m not a lawyer, I assume that it would be the school itself. But at the same time that same question is already being asked about this most recent one. There were and usually are a lot of balls dropped leading up to this and other mass shootings which makes multiple parties liable.

Who the fuck said anything about there being kids in the hallways for this?

You got a room. Nothing to do with any hallways, just a room. There are kids in it. There's a teacher in it, with a gun. Shooter turns up.

The room gets full of bullets. Some of them are from the shooter, some of them are from the teacher, but there's a nice crossfire effect and they're zinging around richocheting off things, knocking off bits of debris and ending up in weird places. How sure are you that the crossfire in this confined space full of humans won't hurt any of the kids the teacher's trying to protect? CQB isn't exactly something most middle aged teachers are gonna be good for.

And yeah, he DOES have to be careful and accurate. The shooter can spray and pray, cos it doesn't matter who he hits. The teacher can't, cos for him it matters a hell of a lot.

Every example you could give of a civilian stopping a shooting has a counter where overeager civvies made it worse.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a lot of bitching.<br /><br />- The Tao of Wombat
Reply
Oh your argument is bar because who the fuck is standing between the one doorway in any classroom in any school in any part of America during a school shooting. I just assumed you were talking about a shooter in the hallways because that’s when a crossfire scenario would actually make sense. But no if a shooter is unloading into a door then the teacher just unloads out the door, and it really doesn’t matter if he hits shit or not because the shooter probably isn’t going to be shooting there anymore. They’ll either flee, get killed, kill themselves, or at the very very least they try to move to another classroom hoping that the teacher who just fired back at him doesn’t come out the classroom and continue to engage him. And I know which is why I’m not saying we should have armed average joe militias at school, I’m saying they should be trained. Which they can be.
Yesterday's gone on down the river and you can't get it back.
Reply
(Yesterday, 09:32 PM)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: Oh your argument is bar because who the fuck is standing between the one doorway in any classroom in any school in any part of America during a school shooting. I just assumed you were talking about a shooter in the hallways because that’s when a crossfire scenario would actually make sense. But no if a shooter is unloading into a door then the teacher just unloads out the door, and it really doesn’t matter if he hits shit or not because the shooter probably isn’t going to be shooting there anymore. They’ll either flee, get killed, kill themselves, or at the very very least they try to move to another classroom hoping that the teacher who just fired back at him doesn’t come out the classroom and continue to engage him. And I know which is why I’m not saying we should have armed average joe militias at school, I’m saying they should be trained. Which they can be.

You never know WHAT someone might decide to do in a crisis after their brain unplugs. You're right, there shouldn't be anyone in that position, but you never fucking know, because people get just that bit dumber when the little caveman in their head drives. Even the trained ones get dumber and can fuck up.


Fact is, most teachers don't want this, cos it puts a huge burden on them that they didn't ask for and generally don't think they can handle - bad enough they're asked to die for the kids, asking them to kill for them as well is a lot to put on a middle aged maths teacher who just wants to talk equations. They've got enough to do.

Most first responders don't want this, and a lot are on record as saying it makes their job harder cos the situation suddenly gained a lot more variables that they can't control for. Keyed up, armed civilians who are scared of what happens if they're not quick enough on the trigger can go pretty bad pretty quick.

Ask the kids who were in this shooting, they're on record that they don't think this would have helped.

I haven't got a clue how to solve this. I'm not going to suggest anything, it's too complicated for me and I've got more sense than to start shit on this topic. It's still worth mentioning that that's three groups with a pretty big stake in finding a solution, and none of em seem to think this is it. It might be worth listening to them.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a lot of bitching.<br /><br />- The Tao of Wombat
Reply
1. If that kid jumps in front of the doorway they’re already dead and the teacher has every opportunity to shoot back.

2. They don’t have to do it if it’s an optional program

3. Law enforcement doesn’t want a lot of things that could be good, also I need proof for this claim. And not just an interview but an actual study.

4. They’re kids and there opinions don’t matter if they haven’t spent a second thinking about the issue beyond “guns are bad mmmkkay.” Don’t pull this “ask the kids” bull shit CW, this happened in my community and I know many people that went to that school or am working with people that have children that went there. Not everyone in town became an instant #nogunz supporter, many still support the 2a and I’m sure many (not most more than likely because of what happrned) would support it.

5. Citation needed
Yesterday's gone on down the river and you can't get it back.
Reply
(Yesterday, 01:55 PM)CombatWombat Wrote:
(Yesterday, 07:42 AM)Tikilounge Wrote: Rant: CW (representing the opinion of all Australians IMO) would rather have a teacher sacrifice their life as a human shield rather than a armed deterrent. 

Rave: ITS ABOUT TIME WE HAD A GOOD ARGUMENT ON TL

They can’t be an armed deterrent, numbnuts. They’re already busy being a teacher.

First responsibility of a teacher in a crisis, any crisis = keep them calm, and get them out. Doesn’t matter if it’s a fire or a shooter or what. Keep the kids calm, keep them on track and get them the fuck out. Twenty kids is a lot.

Tackling the shooter themselves might be an option, but it’s an option that makes their first set of responsibilities a hell of a lot harder. If you’re heading towards the sound of gunfire, you’re either heading away from your kids who need you, or you’re bringing the kids with you. Any of those sound good to you?

The teacher might have to shoot a kid they know. Heaps of school shooters are fucked up students or ex students. What if they can’t do it? Could you kill someone you’d known? Cos if they can’t, if they hesitate and the shooter gets a few rounds off, the first question they’ll face on the other side is “Why’d you wait? Why weren’t you faster? Why did you let my baby die?”

That’s not fair. You can’t ask them to do that. Not even the ones that already know their way around guns want the responsibility of guns in the classroom, and this shit is why.

Thank you for answering bugger, please allow me to retort.

Busy - lessons stop when gunfire starts, teachers responsibilities include safety and they should have the necessary tools available to help their kids survive.

Crisis -  chances are the sound of gunfire will head towards the softest targets, again teachers should have the necessary tools available to help their kids survive. 

Tackling - you already described the idiocy/futility of such a selfless act and it would obviously not be necessary if teachers are offered use of correct tools to repel impending violence for the self preservation of all.

Hesitation - all sympathies should be wiped away in dire circumstances of survival, hopefully there will be more than one armed colleague but this is a completely voluntary responsibility so blame can also fall on unarmed educators.

Responsibility - caring for children is a huge obligation, having a tool with the ability to change outcomes of life and death requires even greater accountability. Those that volunteer to do both are most likely the most understanding of these aspects and still make a choice to do something rather than nothing.
[Image: 8AOXfI5.jpg]
Reply
I think its funny that no one in the media is even mentioning what's probably the easiest, most politically-acceptable solution to this problem: put a police officer or two in every school.


Reply
(11 hours ago)HardCoreTurtle Wrote: 1. If that kid jumps in front of the doorway they’re already dead and the teacher has every opportunity to shoot back.

2. They don’t have to do it if it’s an optional program

3. Law enforcement doesn’t want a lot of things that could be good, also I need proof for this claim. And not just an interview but an actual study.

4. They’re kids and there opinions don’t matter if they haven’t spent a second thinking about the issue beyond “guns are bad mmmkkay.” Don’t pull this “ask the kids” bull shit CW, this happened in my community and I know many people that went to that school or am working with people that have children that went there. Not everyone in town became an instant #nogunz supporter, many still support the 2a and I’m sure many (not most more than likely because of what happrned) would support it.

5. Citation needed

Study from USC says they don't want it

Asked law enforcement, asked teachers, neither thinks it would work. They like the idea of having armed guards or police on site (cheers Soup) but not of arming teachers.


Quote:...in general, both groups of respondents do not believe armed administrators or armed teachers to be an effective school safety strategy.

If you ask just teachers, they REALLY don't want it.


Quote:72.4% of educators say they would be unlikely to bring a firearm to school if they were allowed to do so


And why shouldn't we ask the kids? They've lived it, you haven't, they've earned the right to have an opinion. It might be your community, but it's theirs too, and they're the ones who have to live with what's decided. They get a say in what they think would make them safe.

You can like the Second Amendment just fucking fine and still think this is a badly thought out idea. Treating the symptom rather than the disease and all.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a lot of bitching.<br /><br />- The Tao of Wombat
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)