The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

KI4MVP said:

Especially when they won't enter the building. Has anyone talked about this.

The Broward County Sheriff's Office confirmed to CNN that it is investigating the claims that, in addition to Peterson, three other deputies did not try to enter the high school after the shooting began.​

So 4 armed deputies on the scene, non entered the building.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

Click to expand...

Didn’t the shooter leave the school and go to McDonalds?

King Stannis said:

Yeah, I don't think dropping the NRA as a partner is going to effect the NRA. And I am not sure if bringing pressure to bear is the point anymore.

I don't think people are looking to compromise with the NRA or its members.

Click to expand...

When I first saw those headlines, my immediate thought is a lot of people now think the NRA goes too far fighting any gun control.

For years the NRA has fought against any and all gun control, even steps the majority of people believe in, under the strange notion that if you give a little, people will take a lot.

It seems that kind of thinking might just result in people jumping straight to the "take a lot" step. So many gun deaths in this country that simply don't happen in other high income countries.

From the American Journal of Medicine:


http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

Also, this:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/25/politics/cnn-poll-gun-control-support-climbs/index.html

AZ_ said:

Didn’t the shooter leave the school and go to McDonalds?

Click to expand...

Hmmm...are you saying strategically located fast food venues may be more effective than armed guards in mitigating the damage from mass shootings? Interesting idea. Better for business, too.

-Akronite- said:

A lot of schools already have guards. I'm not against having security measures in place (although we could have a long convo about the actual affect of having police is schools in hint: race is involved!), but it's a matter of efficacy.

Gun control does more to lower the rates of gun deaths than adding security to schools. The expiration of our national assault weapons ban in 2004 has had a larger effect on the rates of mass shootings than the hiring of additional security in our schools.

We know what works but it's not easy to actually do. Again, the problem is simple, it's guns. But solving that, given gun culture, the 2nd amendment, and the ridiculous amount of guns we have, makes it difficult.

Click to expand...

The problem is not guns.... it's mental..

Cavatt said:

Just want to say I think a lot of people are unfairly blaming this guy. In a perfect scenario I would hope the armed police officer would do something, but yeah he was outgunned.

Still it says something about how effective an armed guard can be. A lot of people have brought up how Hinckley was able to shoot Reagan even though there were tons of highly skilled SS agents around him and they were armed to the teeth.

Click to expand...

He was outgunned.. too damn bad use your training and intelligence and go take this 19-year-old punk out... that's what you train for that's what your paid for... he had a weapon use it... he undoubtedly had an issue 12 gauge shotgun in his patrol car ..a rifled 12 ga slug would be totally effective against an A.R. 15 ...go get it , go use it ..quit hiding behind a concrete pillar

King Stannis said:

You'll find that oaths have little purchase when the searing feeling of fear is pulsing through one's veins, one can't think and one's stomach is falling out one's ass.

Moreover, cops are actually trained to wait for back-up in situations where they are out-classed.

It is obvious that the solution to this is battle droids.

Click to expand...

Your wrong .. since Columbine the protocol is for all police officers to immediately engage an active shooter (at a school ) you immediately enter and confront the shooter you do not wait whether you are alone or with five officers .. I've had the training... would be very surprised if this officer had NOT had the same training

Cavatt said:

If anything doesn't this imply that permitting and background checks are things that responsible owners do? Most of us are not for an outright ban, we want gun owners to positively affirm that they are responsible(good guys) through training and permitting. It's too much trouble for lazy criminals to do, and people with bad intentions would shy away.

Click to expand...

Would strongly depend on how you're defining permitting. No where in my CCW process do they log what firearms I own, serial numbers, nothing like that.

Wrathe said:

Would strongly depend on how you're defining permitting. No where in my CCW process do they log what firearms I own, serial numbers, nothing like that.

Click to expand...

It obviously varies state to state.

I am all in favor of permitting for all firearms. This is a post 9/11 world. I think all the secret gun ownership is scary as hell.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Just to clarify, the guard doesn't have to be a Rambo and charge directly into fire. But an attempt to return fire -- distracting/engaging the shooter while remaining under cover as much as practical -- buys time for more cops etc. to arrive, and for more kids to get away completely or at least to some place more secure.

Click to expand...

Exactly... one round down range at this whacko shooter and he would have drastically changed what he was doing... either turned and ran, shot himself, or at the very least been distracted dealing with the guard instead of dispatching kids

Kyrie4MVP0202 said:

There are armed officers in schools everywhere across the nation and has been for decades.

There needs to be more security in our schools and the training needs to entail scenarios just like what happened in Sandy Hook and in Florida.

There are armed guards in every public facet of our lives. From airports, train stations to NBA games, concerts, and beyond.

Does a Cavs game feel like prison to you?

Very dumb statement meant to sidestep common sense and point the finger elsewhere.

Do better.

Click to expand...

police have been trained in these active school shooter scenarios since Columbine.. it's standard now..

And1 said:

Your wrong .. since Columbine the protocol is for all police officers to immediately engage an active shooter (at a school ) you immediately enter and confront the shooter you do not wait whether you are alone or with five officers .. I've had the training... would be very surprised if this officer had NOT had the same training

Click to expand...

That might be a state by state issue. Our officers have said if they respond to an active shooting call they won't have someone go in alone.

And1 said:

police have been trained in these active school shooter scenarios since Columbine.. it's standard now..

Click to expand...

Is this the case in every state? I think I read that in some states they are to radio in, manage shit outside as the kids come pouring out and await sufficient back-up.

CleveRocks said:

As you know, I don't engage in the kind of wall of text point by point endless posit arguments..

Click to expand...

First you say my post was too short, was "mindless" and rep-bait; and then when I reply in some detail using roughly the same number of characters as you did just now, my post is too long and it's a "wall of text."

C'mon man...

CleveRocks said:

But I think you are being disingenuous..

Click to expand...

I am in no way being disingenuous.

CleveRocks said:

I did not take your post as personal attack..

Click to expand...

Good, none of this is meant to be personal.

CleveRocks said:

Your point was and remains that schools would look like prisons, if we implemented controlled access, which is not true. Not even close to true and because I know you are a smart guy, I know you can do better.

Click to expand...

And yet, I disagree with your assertion, given the comparison about hardened facilities including government facilities with armed guards checking all those who try to enter.

So, this isn't really a question of how smart I am, but instead, why you think such a facility where obviously people cannot enter and exit with some modicum of freedom due to some sort of barrier and armed guards posted at the perimeter, is in no way comparable to a "prison?"

CleveRocks said:

I am talking about preventing violence in schools really. Not politically..no comment on gun control other than it will not stop violence.

Click to expand...

A position (your position), that I'm saying makes no sense. Why avoid discussing gun control, and instead talk about hardening schools? Why is gun control off-limits and why is your assertion that strict gun control supposed not stopping violence the beginning and end of such a discussion?

CleveRocks said:

Then you put on your tin hat

Click to expand...

FWIW, this is probably your 6th ad hominem attack against me, without any attacks by me against you.

Let's just argue the facts...

CleveRocks said:

and argue that security providers are simply looking to cash in on the event and "vampirically" draw off public funds..

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I was referring to; I was referring to politicians looking to cut school funding for education who are now eager to spend millions and potentially billions nationwide to post armed guards at schools and harden facilities.

But we can't get smaller classrooms?

CleveRocks said:

So in essence you are arguing any other solution than yours is to expensive.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not. Not remotely.

I'm arguing that if there is very finite amount of money, then I would rather spend that money on advancing education rather than a security program like the one you're describing.

CleveRocks said:

And that only evil capitalists are for such a solution...

Click to expand...

Needless straw-man...? FWIW, I'm a 'capitalist' business-owner myself.....

CleveRocks said:

And to keep this in context, my previous statements have been OK with assault weapons bans, just not expecting that to make a difference.

Click to expand...

I've never supported an assault weapons ban and still don't; at least not as of yet. You're misreading my point here assuming I'm making some standard liberal argument.

I have been a gun enthusiast and have owned several assault rifles. I've historically defended the Second Amendment on this forum for 9+ years.

My point is that we should, at a minimum, at least consider a general weapons ban and the merit of such a proposal. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, as I admittedly don't know any more. That's why I reject the notion that we should just shut down conversation on the topic as though it's a settled matter -- it isn't.

CleveRocks said:

I am not looking to make a buck on this, but like many people who aware of security tech and the current state of campus or school security, view the reluctance to fix this as cheating out on the students and conveniently ignoring a problem that has been around too long..

Click to expand...

I never accused you of trying to capitalize on anything; I didn't even know you would be in a position to do such a thing.

But my point is that the larger question of mass shootings and gun violence remains wholly unaddressed by the solution you're point to.

CleveRocks said:

There are a lot of elephants in the room. I am willing to listen to all genuine discussion. But too many posters have already chosen sides and are simply arguing..

Click to expand...

Right, but you're talking to one of the few posters who isn't on any "side" here and I think my posting history shows I'm both a liberal on most issues, but very conservative when it comes to gun rights.

gourimoko said:

Sure that's possible; it's also possible that he'd have just been another victim.

But regardless of how we choose to play that scenario out; the inescapable truth is that Nikolas Cruz, a former student of that school, was absolutely in no way deterred by the presence of armed security on campus. And that speaks to the larger point about this notion that security would deter a would-be suicide attacker.

We've seen for decades that suicide attacks are never deterred by security, no matter how intense or coordinated that security is, even if it's the military guarding a facility.

Thus, the most reasonable notion we can take away from this is that if someone wants to kill themselves in a blaze of glory, and they pick a school as the target, the prospect of being shot at by a security guard is not an effective deterrent.

Click to expand...

Don't think this particular officer should be the standard for what

Kyrie4MVP0202 said:

So in essence, this individual failed the kids and goes to show how important it is to have armed guards who enter at a moments notice.

It also shows that having multiple guards can help in a situation where another guard flakes out or is confused.[/QUOTE

Yes, he absolutely failed these kids.. he had a CAKE assignment but in his mind he was retired in place ... and when s*** hit the fan he ran for cover... he knew what he SHOULD do.. but chose instead to safely take cover and wait it out... hell, he should have given his handgun to one of the teachers who ran towards Kruz ... (obviously they were not trained for his weapon ) but at least they would have had something

Click to expand...

AZ_ said:

But he didn’t.

And good luck trying to find the funding and man power qualified to protect our schools to divert from the real issue.

Which is guns.[/QUOTE

I live and work in Alaska... there are weapons in EVERY HOUSE, EVERY VEHICLE... kids drive to school and have weapons in their vehicles... EVERYONE has weapons ... teenagers have them in their bedrooms... they go to the range after school, on weekends, hunt frequently.. many have AR-15's.... Mini 14's... they all grew up with them.. guns aren't the problem ... it's the way parents are raising their children ...and the video games, movies, sci fi garbage the kids are

Click to expand...

col63onel said:

That might be a state by state issue. Our officers have said if they respond to an active shooting call they won't have someone go in alone.

Click to expand...

A call to an ACTIVE SHOOTER at a SCHOOL??? Or just an active shooter D/V domestic style?

And1 said:

The problem is not guns.... it's mental..

Click to expand...

Not according to the information available.

And the question for the right is, IF we really want to scapegoat mental illness as the sole reason for this, why do they keep cutting health funding? It's not as if the Democrats wouldn't like to improve mental healthcare too, let's work on that.

But let's also work on guns because they are demonstrably a large portion of the problem (that problem being gun deaths, whether that's suicide, homicide, or mass shootings).