Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wish they could, but where do we get that budget? Magnetometers, hand wands, extra security, sniffer dogs, more police around campus, etc. costs money and states like Arizona already have enough trouble paying its teachers fairly, let alone a security budget.
Also I must say that this shooting started outside the school during a fire drill. The shooter THEN went in and continued as the school shifted into a lockdown from the fire drill. I work at a school, the shooter was able to get on grounds and start the rampage before being in the school.
I work at a school that has three to four main points of entry (a bus loop, the office and two side enterances) two thousand + students and about a hundred or maybe two (contractors) staff on top of that would all need to be screened every day. I know this because I work as a security guard outside of working in a school.
I will agree that we need better early detection. But this is knowing the warning triggers and to take threats credibly. BOTH the police and FBI didn't act enough for this situation and like many other shootings, there were many saying "We knew he'd do this" but how many said something when they saw something. Too many of us don't want to say something because we either want to keep to ourselves or don't want to rock the boat.
ok lets start finding the money for school security. lets start with government programs that just waste money and do nothing for people. for instance why are the governments spending money on things like fish atlas's or railroad stations that are never used, or airports that are rarely used? i ma sure that if you went through the budgets of teh various local, state, and federal governments, you can find many programs like this.
then lets look at agencies that are essentially duplicates of other agencies. for instance at the federal level there are something like 15 different agancies that deal with food safety and inspection. why so many? and the responsibilities of these agencies overlap with others, so why not condense these agencies into no more than five. it will save a ton of money in administration salaries, and have no effect on the food safety effort because you would reduce the need of the top people running these agencies.
and how about we condense down federal law enforcement agencies as well. no reduction in the number of field agents, but a large reduction in the administrative end. and why do we need what 17 intelligence agencies? cant we get that down to five or six?
and how about retired LEOs, and former military that already receive a pension. why cant we offer to up their pensions say 15% and have them be the security for the schools? and then we can always train the teachers, janitors, office staff, etc. of the schools to help out with security. and i dont mean they punch a few holes in a paper target, and then are ready to defend the school. i mean REAL training at say the local police academy. and it wouldnt be a one time training deal either, it would be an ongoing training. remember the teachers get three months off between semesters, so they could take the ongoing training every summer. and it wouldnt be the full police training course, but it would include perhaps a good part of it. at the end these people would become sworn in as community service officers. their enforcement powers would only extend to the school campus, not beyond, but they would get a concealed carry permit as well.
and ask how many parents wold pay extra school taxes to increase security for their childrens schools? wouldnt you?
none of this will stop all school shootings, but instead of having 15 or more dead. we might still lose two or three, but its a good start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
None of the recent (or any as far as I remember) events involved an assault rifle. They require finger printing, local CLEO approval, $200 to BATFE, a three+ month wait for backlog and right now around $25,000 for the happy switch.
Assault rifle = Select fire.
Actually I think the thing responsible isn't guns (and while people may focus on guns over kids, it equally applies that others prioritize lack of guns over workable solutions). But as JoeThePhotog states anger issues (and entitlement and disenfranchisement).
Klebold and Harris may have been nuttier than squirrel poop, that didn't make them shoot up Columbine. Adam Lanza may have been autistic, that didn't make him shoot up Sandy Hook. James Holmes was only a passing acquaintance with reality, that didn't make him shoot up Aurora. We already know this because all of them are only a microscopic sample of people with non-normal mental and neurological functions. The stats show that chances are your neighborhood loon isn't the person you need to worry about shooting up your concert, movie theater, school or anywhere else. The one you need to worry about is your 100% mundane neighbor (or even yourself).
The anger and entitlement and disenfranchisement aren't more caused by conservatives than liberals. Indeed it's possible the no losers policies are to a degree responsible because when the world slaps the teen in the face with the reality there are losers and the vast majority are losers, that creates anger and disenfranchisement, specifically anger at institutions promoting there are no losers. Then folks wonder why there are mass homicides at schools. I'll even concede it may not be they're gun free zones, but they are an institution promoting no losers, as is hollywood (we can all live in luxury in Malibu beach houses right? As a detective sergeant). I might be wrong, it's a half baked hypothesis considered over a cup of coffee with half my brain focused on my music playing, but it's something to consider. If you lie to people don't be surprised when they get angry and righteously indignant when the truth comes out.
a lot of truth in this post. we have to stop with the giving out participation trophies, and when little johnny says 2+2=5, we stop with the nice try routine, and tell johnny he is wrong. we need to stop with the "we cant hurt the childrens feelings" bull crap. and we also have to stand up too the parents when they are told their child didnt pass the third grade and is being held back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries
No. What I mean by "early detection" is detecting firearms at the entrances of the schools before reaching the children.
Little will prevent access to firearms. Time to keep those with guns away from our kids by detecting them at the door.
early detection starts much earlier than at the school entrance. we need to be proactive in preventing those that want to be school shooters from getting firearms. most of them have had contact with the law, and should have been put under watch by law enforcement.
Imagine a scenario where police officers storm a school building only to find 20 people there armed with guns! Which one is the bad guy? None of them are in a uniform. They're all in civilian clothes.
A valid rebuttal. A good counter-argument is a rare commodity these days. Hats off to you, sir.
The scenario you describe is real, but I believe procedures could be put into place to mitigate the confusion.
My mistake. I realized this far too late. Gotta love early details and confusion that happens in these situations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
My daughter attends Broward County Schools and I can assure you that if the fire alarm is activated during a code red, the procedure is to stay put. She has practiced it at her elementary school. If this is what happened, procedure was not followed.
As far as getting caught in the hallways, the principal left it up to the teachers to decide if they should open the doors to the students. Our principal prefer they do. The police department prefer the teachers do not open the door.
I work in a school, I must say that we have not done the whole fire drill is called during an LD. That should be something we do. We do do the whole teacher lock doors, cover up windows and doors can't open if it is in class. If it isn't, students are encouraged to enter the nearest classroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries
When I worked in elementary ed in NC, the doors remained locked.
A kid could stand at the door screaming and crying to be let in and the doors would remain locked.
This was during a lockdown drill, of course. If there were an actual "active shooter on campus" situation, complete with gunshots heard, etc, I doubt any teacher with a heart would not open a door to a screaming, crying child.
if the second amendment can be bypassed, what then stops the rest of our rights being bypassed?
In the not too distant future technology is going to come up with a nuclear fission gun and you guys will be claiming it is protected by the second amendment.
ok lets start finding the money for school security. lets start with government programs that just waste money and do nothing for people. for instance why are the governments spending money on things like fish atlas's or railroad stations that are never used, or airports that are rarely used? i ma sure that if you went through the budgets of teh various local, state, and federal governments, you can find many programs like this.
I think you can find some but what should happen is focus groups are put together to look (state and federal level) at what is needed and not. It is hard to know what government programs are truly needed or not. This happens a lot with the "entitlement" fight. "Entitlements" IMHO are needed because there is no proof that without them the poor would be better off and charitable giving will increase to the point needed to replace them.
Quote:
then lets look at agencies that are essentially duplicates of other agencies. for instance at the federal level there are something like 15 different agancies that deal with food safety and inspection. why so many? and the responsibilities of these agencies overlap with others, so why not condense these agencies into no more than five. it will save a ton of money in administration salaries, and have no effect on the food safety effort because you would reduce the need of the top people running these agencies.
Perhaps they do. I think some is based on agriculture or farms and then food production plants or even stores and restaurants. All parts of food production is different at these points. I think what we could do perhaps is reduce head pay by moving them as much as possible into one agency.
Quote:
and how about we condense down federal law enforcement agencies as well. no reduction in the number of field agents, but a large reduction in the administrative end. and why do we need what 17 intelligence agencies? cant we get that down to five or six?
I think the problem is there are federal crimes that aren't state or local crimes or when crimes go beyond statelines too.
I think part of the issue with crimes is that there are specialist in specific crimes. Also some are under different branches of the federal government. The ATF for instance has been under the Bureau of Treasury, the IRS, the Justice Department and the FBI in its 100+ year history. Also you have an issue of each president having their own quirks or events that shape what they shuffle around. Until 2002, we never had the Department of Homeland Security. DHS created new agencies and took agencies from various departments including the Departments of Energy, Defense, Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, Transportation and Health & Human Services. This is part of the issue too. What say Trump does isn't be what Obama and W. Bush did or potentially Pence would do.
Quote:
and how about retired LEOs, and former military that already receive a pension. why cant we offer to up their pensions say 15% and have them be the security for the schools? and then we can always train the teachers, janitors, office staff, etc. of the schools to help out with security. and i dont mean they punch a few holes in a paper target, and then are ready to defend the school. i mean REAL training at say the local police academy. and it wouldnt be a one time training deal either, it would be an ongoing training.
The issue is should they all carry and if so, do they carry every where whether they are going to the bathroom, their class, the office for a meeting or lunch room? I mean maintenance staff (janitors included) walk around the entire school and campus all day through all buildings. The high school I went to when I was in high school was a single building that also housed a middle school (the one I went to.) HUGE campus. The high school I work at now is as many as seven separate buildings. We have about five security guards (one of whom I know was a former cop) and one armed campus police officer. I still think we are under protected should a scenario like this happen, BUT given the lack of Arizona state education budget (as Arizona is mostly funneled top down and not by cities), I don't see it increasing even if people want it because too many in AZ take the "Taxed Enough Already" B.S., even when it is for a social good like education and protection.
That said, I generally agree. The issue I see is funding. This funding isn't coming from thin air. It has to get re-directed or face a tax increase to happen. Can people take this to have it happen. I say this as Arizona is pretty barebones when it comes to social programs, which are mainly directed to senior citizens or kids.
Quote:
remember the teachers get three months off between semesters, so they could take the ongoing training every summer and it wouldnt be the full police training course, but it would include perhaps a good part of it. at the end these people would become sworn in as community service officers. their enforcement powers would only extend to the school campus, not beyond, but they would get a concealed carry permit as well.
To the red, you LIE. In reality, they only get paid for ten months and have four more weeks off which some have holiday pay (during two of which a teacher can actually keep up with grading during that time, since they are still in the semesters.) Before online summer school, a number would take summer school positions with that district. Others train or take college courses to improve. Most plan for next year in some way (change bad, try to improve good, etc.) Only the laziest of actually teachers actually take off those breaks entirely until training starts about three weeks before school starts to introduce the new best practices for the schools. I'm sorry but this lie that you put forth quite frankly pisses me off as an educator myself. It is an anti-educator talking point that needs to die a horrible death. https://americansocietytoday.blogspo...ours-than.html
To the rest of it, I don't see why that couldn't be. That said as a security guard (in my job to make up for a lack of educator employment at breaks), my card only works when I'm on the clock. It isn't like say a CPR/First-Aid card that works all the time.
Quote:
and ask how many parents wold pay extra school taxes to increase security for their childrens schools? wouldnt you?
The problem isn't families with kids in AZ, it is the retirees actually who are more likely to votte.
Quote:
none of this will stop all school shootings, but instead of having 15 or more dead. we might still lose two or three, but its a good start.
I agree the issue is execution and how people handle a crisis. As a senior I made jokes about using MMA moves to take down a would-be-intruder during my high school's lone lockdown and dismissal drill. Would I be able to summon that gusto in a crisis at work or wherever, who knows but I think no.
Quote:
a lot of truth in this post. we have to stop with the giving out participation trophies, and when little johnny says 2+2=5, we stop with the nice try routine, and tell johnny he is wrong. we need to stop with the "we cant hurt the childrens feelings" bull crap. and we also have to stand up too the parents when they are told their child didnt pass the third grade and is being held back.
The problem isn't the coddled culture as much as it is an easy punching bag. I mean I am pretty sure there were shootings before this logic was fully implemented like it was when I entered school (and calling everyone a "friend" IMHO is something from today that I want to die a horrible death like the work 9 months myth.) We have to know how far we can push hurting someone's feelings, not to do it at all.
Quote:
early detection starts much earlier than at the school entrance. we need to be proactive in preventing those that want to be school shooters from getting firearms. most of them have had contact with the law, and should have been put under watch by law enforcement.
The issue I find in this (which isn't why I am against it, just a limitation) is the civil liberties. As stated in I think another thread entirely is how hard it is to flag someone who has these tendencies until it is too late. Many don't say something even if they see something. Then if something is said, it don't do anything because it isn't a credible threat. For the Tuscon shopping center shooting that killed a federal judge and maimed Rep. Gabby Giffords, the shooter was thrown out of community college and had anti-government rants, yet wasn't forced to give up his guns prior to the shooting. What about the Aurora shooter and telling his psychiatrist he had "violent dreams" before pulling off the Aurora theater massacre. If these can't flag potential threats, nothing would.
I suspect and hope that as we delve more into the topic of mass shootings, we'll learn that mental illness isn't the cause of most mass shootings. To say so is a bit misleading in a number of ways. First, there are a lot of mental health issues ranging from anxiety to schizophrenia. So we're lumping a lot of people in there together just by using those two words -- mental and illness.
Secondly, the vast majority of those of us with mental illness are non-violent. Most of us never hurt anyone, Oddly, one fact that a lot of gun rights people bring up is that most gun deaths are a result of suicide. That's because more mentally ill (as in depression) people kill themselves than ever harm anyone else. There's a disconnect there though, to blame the mentally ill for homicide when most actually kill themselves.
Laura Hayes wrote an excellent piece for Slate saying that most killers have anger and rage issues, not mental health problems.
Anger is barely mentioned in the DSM5 and since every single person who has ever lived or will ever live has anger issues, that can't be a mental illness. It's how folks deal with their anger. Also most killers have police records well before they ever kill. Most mentally ill people do not have police records with the exception of welfare checks.
This is a really good point. I remember reading something from a mom right after Sandy Hook. She chronicled her inability to get anyone to help her with her angry and violent son. While she does call it mental illness, the biggest issue is with his anger.
The issue I find in this (which isn't why I am against it, just a limitation) is the civil liberties. As stated in I think another thread entirely is how hard it is to flag someone who has these tendencies until it is too late. Many don't say something even if they see something. Then if something is said, it don't do anything because it isn't a credible threat. For the Tuscon shopping center shooting that killed a federal judge and maimed Rep. Gabby Giffords, the shooter was thrown out of community college and had anti-government rants, yet wasn't forced to give up his guns prior to the shooting. What about the Aurora shooter and telling his psychiatrist he had "violent dreams" before pulling off the Aurora theater massacre. If these can't flag potential threats, nothing would.
for the most part i agree with you, as for the teachers, not all of them work through the summer, though some do. even still they can schedule continuing education for their field regularly, they can add another class if they choose to volunteer for school security as well.
in the part i quoted, yes there is always an issue of civil liberties, and the need to avoid violating them. and if these shooters only said things to one or two people that made those people uncomfortable, i would agree there is no credible threat. however, chances are these people talked to dozens of people, and had behavior issues regularly that create a pattern of behavior. the problem then becomes, what was done about these red flags? why were the LEOs not notified to watch out for these guys? and if they were why didnt they follow through?
all that said, in the end we cannot stop all these shootings, even if we ban all legal guns. the bad guys will still get their hands on illegal weapons through the black market. and if they cant, then they will find other ways to kill large numbers of people.
so the question is, do we give up security for freedom? or do we give up freedom for security?
and remember also the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. far too many people these days take their freedom for granted, and have become lazy.
The inability to cope with adverse situations and control anger is a huge part of the problem of some young people who lash out in fits of rage. No one ever taught them how to deal with adversity or problem solve.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you LIE. In reality, they only get paid for ten months and have four more weeks off which some have holiday pay (during two of which a teacher can actually keep up with grading during that time, since they are still in the semesters.) Before online summer school, a number would take summer school positions with that district. Others train or take college courses to improve. Most plan for next year in some way (change bad, try to improve good, etc.) Only the laziest of actually teachers actually take off those breaks entirely until training starts about three weeks before school starts to introduce the new best practices for the schools. I'm sorry but this lie that you put forth quite frankly pisses me off as an educator myself. It is an anti-educator talking point that needs to die a horrible death. 
