Latest School Shooting

[luvsJack]

There is a big difference between those things and being trained on how to react in a high pressure hostage/active shooter situation. Not many teachers or administrators would have that type of training, let along training that would include the use of a firearm in that type of situation.

Blows my mind that you think police officers are not trained how to react in these situations. Lol. Whom exactly would you call for an active shooter?

 

[declansdad]

Their suppose to train with the sheriffs deputies, not swat team members. Are you suggesting all police aren’t trained to deal with hostage/high stress situations, because we’re clearly ok with officers rushing to the scene.

No I'm saying the police are the people trained and should be the ones dealing with this. Law enforcement officers receive this type of training, teachers are not and have so many other things they need support with before training them this. It would also be very difficult for teachers to keep this type of training up to date.

 

[declansdad]

Blows my mind that you think police officers are not trained how to react in these situations. Lol. Whom exactly would you call for an active shooter?

I didn't say police officers I said teachers and administrators.

 

[luvsJack]

I didn't say police officers I said teachers and administrators.

So we are back to “let’s do nothing” since it works so well?

Let’s face it for some of you there isn’t one suggestion or idea that is going to work in your mind. It’s really that simple. Guess we will perhaps see how it does in Alabama.

Administrators can most certainly receive that kind of training. I can guarantee you they already receiving some kind of active shooter training, why not just make it training that will actually do something?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

We have gun amnesty day in our city today. Maybe that should be tried.

Um..it does happen in the U.S. already though it is usually referred to as a gun buyback program.....it is however not a national thing and it's been going on for a while. As been stated each state, city, etc has the ability to do certain things.

 

[declansdad]

So we are back to “let’s do nothing” since it works so well?

Let’s face it for some of you there isn’t one suggestion or idea that is going to work in your mind. It’s really that simple. Guess we will perhaps see how it does in Alabama.

Administrators can most certainly receive that kind of training. I can guarantee you they already receiving some kind of active shooter training, why not just make it training that will actually do something?

So you misread my other post and now you said I'm saying "let's do nothing". WOW.

 

[luvsJack]

So you misread my other post and now you said I'm saying "let's do nothing". WOW.

No I did not say you said that. I said between you and other posters, every thing that has been discussed, except banning guns, has been shot down. So what is the alternative? Do nothing.

Metal detectors won’t work, don’t want more police presence at the schools, can’t train administrators to carry, the list goes on. Luckily many of our leaders are deciding to try some of this stuff. Hopefully some of it will work.

 

[declansdad]

No I did not say you said that. I said between you and other posters, every thing that has been discussed, except banning guns, has been shot down. So what is the alternative? Do nothing.

Metal detectors won’t work, don’t want more police presence at the schools, can’t train administrators to carry, the list goes on. Luckily many of our leaders are deciding to try some of this stuff. Hopefully some of it will work.

Apparently you are confusing me with someone else.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

There is a big difference between those things and being trained on how to react in a high pressure hostage/active shooter situation. Not many teachers or administrators would have that type of training, let along training that would include the use of a firearm in that type of situation.

I don't know the exact training they will receive from the police, but I would imagine it would include some sort of hostage/active shooter training, and how to appropriately use a firearm in those situations. It seems they are being trained as a response to these school shootings, so I would expect their training to include how to respond to a school shooter. You're right that most teachers and administrators would not have this kind of training already, but they would presumably be getting it from the police before being permitted to carry in schools.

I fully understand the argument that teachers have plenty of other things to be doing with their time without worrying about weapons training, etc. That's why I would never support forcing teachers to be armed. To my knowledge, it's only those who volunteer that will receive this training and be allowed to carry a weapon, so they're not being forced or coerced into this

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I don't know the exact training they will receive from the police, but I would imagine it would include some sort of hostage/active shooter training, and how to appropriately use a firearm in those situations. It seems they are being trained as a response to these school shootings, so I would expect their training to include how to respond to a school shooter. You're right that most teachers and administrators would not have this kind of training already, but they would presumably be getting it from the police before being permitted to carry in schools.

I fully understand the argument that teachers have plenty of other things to be doing with their time without worrying about weapons training, etc. That's why I would never support forcing teachers to be armed. To my knowledge, it's only those who volunteer that will receive this training and be allowed to carry a weapon, so they're not being forced or coerced into this

The way it was explained by the governor it’s not teachers, it’s only administrators. Like you, I would assume the main aspect of their training would be on active shooters. No sense in them learning how to perform a traffic stop. It is voluntary, and only for administrators in schools that do not have a resource officer.
To me it’s at least a step toward doing something that could save lives.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

The way it was explained by the governor it’s not teachers, it’s only administrators. Like you, I would assume the main aspect of their training would be on active shooters. No sense in them learning how to perform a traffic stop. It is voluntary, and only for administrators in schools that do not have a resource officer.
To me it’s at least a step toward doing something that could save lives.

Ahh okay. I think I got the teachers part mixed up with some other areas that have allowed trained teachers to carry for years. I wish my DD's school did this. The regular classrooms don't even have doors, just a curtain. Since the openings are about triple the size of a standard door, its not something that can be changed without serious work and funding. With no resource officer, there's nothing really to deter someone with ill intent should they enter the school... And frankly the often unlocked back entrances leave a lot to be desired in that regard as well.

 

[kamik86]

The way it was explained by the governor it’s not teachers, it’s only administrators. Like you, I would assume the main aspect of their training would be on active shooters. No sense in them learning how to perform a traffic stop. It is voluntary, and only for administrators in schools that do not have a resource officer.
To me it’s at least a step toward doing something that could save lives.

Depending on the school there are teachers and administrators I would be fine with carrying a weapon but thinking back to my school very few.

The teachers that could barely manage to keep their honors classes under control... no definitely not.

However my superintendent was army reserves well except for one year when he was deployed and the principal was acting, my shop teacher was an ex marine. Those two probably would have been fine.

 

[kamik86]

ONe thing my husband and I were discussing on the way in...

Video games were mentioned before and I disagree they are a cause but we were discussing how they show a major cultural difference between the US and other countries.

Check out video game ratings and the reasons. You want to know the fastest way to an M rating on a game? Show an undressed woman from the waist up.

Blow someones head off with a shot gun and watch the bits splatter the wall and you are still eligible for a teen rating, but showing breasts and its a no go.

My husband sells video games and sees this with parents alot too. Like the parent that was ok with their 12 year old getting grand theft auto when they thought it was just about stealing cars and shooting people. It was when they learned about the sexual parts that they weren't allowed.

This culture I don't understand I mean... parents want their children to grow up to be healthy adults that have sex (I mean they want grandkids in most cases) but since the vast majority of healthy adults don't shoot people (exception for military and police) you would think our priorities are a bit backwards.

 

[kamik86]

Ahh okay. I think I got the teachers part mixed up with some other areas that have allowed trained teachers to carry for years. I wish my DD's school did this. The regular classrooms don't even have doors, just a curtain. Since the openings are about triple the size of a standard door, its not something that can be changed without serious work and funding. With no resource officer, there's nothing really to deter someone with ill intent should they enter the school... And frankly the often unlocked back entrances leave a lot to be desired in that regard as well.

Yeah I was remembering our school and we had alot of back entrances. They were locked but I mean show up to one with a large case like you are supposed to be working on something in the school and every time someone walking by would open the door for you.

Oh the halls are also large glass windows for the majority of the wall so physically getting in the school probably isn't necessary anyway.

 

[tex1989]

On one thing both sides seem to agree that something needs to be done. So let's do something. Right now among the people who have it in their power to do something all they want to do is speculate about what will and will not work. Gun owners don't want to give up their guns and offer other solutions and anti gun folks cry that other freedoms are being sacrificed. Anti gun say we need to limit guns or at least ban certain guns and force registration of all guns but gun owners see that as the first step to eliminating all gun ownership. Common sense is not being shown by either side at the moment. It's the summer and most schools are out. Administrators and law enforcement should spend every hour of the day between now and the beginning of school evaluating and implementing policies and procedures to make schools as safe as possible. And yes unfortunately that will mean doing things parents and students don't like, metal detectors, single points of entry, more resource officers, more paying attention to marginal students, looking into the home situations, etc. This can be done today, before the next school year starts. Banning certain weapons, registration, etc will take more time. I do not advocate one over another, more of a sense of urgency and what can we accomplish today as opposed to later.

Let's work together to implement a few common sense ideas and see how they work, but for goodness sakes let's not just let the politicians and talking heads continue to debate the issue. Let's do something and do it now.

 

[CdnCarrie]

ONe thing my husband and I were discussing on the way in...

Video games were mentioned before and I disagree they are a cause but we were discussing how they show a major cultural difference between the US and other countries.

Check out video game ratings and the reasons. You want to know the fastest way to an M rating on a game? Show an undressed woman from the waist up.

Blow someones head off with a shot gun and watch the bits splatter the wall and you are still eligible for a teen rating, but showing breasts and its a no go.

My husband sells video games and sees this with parents alot too. Like the parent that was ok with their 12 year old getting grand theft auto when they thought it was just about stealing cars and shooting people. It was when they learned about the sexual parts that they weren't allowed.

This culture I don't understand I mean... parents want their children to grow up to be healthy adults that have sex (I mean they want grandkids in most cases) but since the vast majority of healthy adults don't shoot people (exception for military and police) you would think our priorities are a bit backwards.

How's this different than Canada?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

ONe thing my husband and I were discussing on the way in...

Video games were mentioned before and I disagree they are a cause but we were discussing how they show a major cultural difference between the US and other countries.

Check out video game ratings and the reasons. You want to know the fastest way to an M rating on a game? Show an undressed woman from the waist up.

Blow someones head off with a shot gun and watch the bits splatter the wall and you are still eligible for a teen rating, but showing breasts and its a no go.

My husband sells video games and sees this with parents alot too. Like the parent that was ok with their 12 year old getting grand theft auto when they thought it was just about stealing cars and shooting people. It was when they learned about the sexual parts that they weren't allowed.

This culture I don't understand I mean... parents want their children to grow up to be healthy adults that have sex (I mean they want grandkids in most cases) but since the vast majority of healthy adults don't shoot people (exception for military and police) you would think our priorities are a bit backwards.

This goes way back to my schooling days when I had french class but I think the cultural differences you are thinking of (sexuality and violence) are more about European and the U.S.

The U.S. also has a different viewpoint on alcohol as well.

Neither way is truly wrong though IMO as it's just different cultures. It would be not behoove us to think our culture is right about things it's just different. It's why I get irked when people compare us to other countries. I wouldn't presume to tell another culture for example "you really should be concerned about sexuality rather than violence". Different cultures are just..different.

*Not an exhaustive, "it's the way it is" cultural statement.

 

[tex1989]

Totally off the gun topic but in reference to the whole sex vs violence thing. As a male in my late teen/early 20's I remember staying up till midnight/ 1 AM on certain nights to watch the Bennie Hill show. Mind you this was the early 80's long before the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident and the FTC was all over nudity on TV. Bennie Hill would on occasion show topless women and at the very least scantily clad women and it was on US TV. When I questioned this (before the internet when sources of information was limited) I was told/heard/thought that the reason was because in Britain and Europe sex was not nearly as taboo as it was in the US but violence over there was taboo. I never thought much about it beyond that. However since the US was founded on religious freedom and as of that time we still had a very strong Christian core that that was the explaination. Violence had certainly occured over the years in Europe but as a society they were somehow more evolved past the violence. The founding of America in historical terms was still and for the most part still is very new and was rooted in violence. Therefore a historian could attribute the different social norms to the evolution of the societies and the amount of time they had existed. Certainly the World Wars were the exception to the more recent violence but since they were not fought on US soil for the most part then that would even further the reason for more tighter controls of violence on TV in Europe.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Totally off the gun topic but in reference to the whole sex vs violence thing. As a male in my late teen/early 20's I remember staying up till midnight/ 1 AM on certain nights to watch the Bennie Hill show. Mind you this was the early 80's long before the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident and the FTC was all over nudity on TV. Bennie Hill would on occasion show topless women and at the very least scantily clad women and it was on US TV. When I questioned this (before the internet when sources of information was limited) I was told/heard/thought that the reason was because in Britain and Europe sex was not nearly as taboo as it was in the US but violence over there was taboo. I never thought much about it beyond that. However since the US was founded on religious freedom and as of that time we still had a very strong Christian core that that was the explaination. Violence had certainly occured over the years in Europe but as a society they were somehow more evolved past the violence. The founding of America in historical terms was still and for the most part still is very new and was rooted in violence. Therefore a historian could attribute the different social norms to the evolution of the societies and the amount of time they had existed. Certainly the World Wars were the exception to the more recent violence but since they were not fought on US soil for the most part then that would even further the reason for more tighter controls of violence on TV in Europe.

Very interesting. Food for thought.

 

[tex1989]

Again not totally on the gun topic but relating to American's thoughts on certain issue. I am 59 years old (almost) and have a family that is known for late in life children (my 4 grandparents were born in 1856,1888,1888, and 1898). My Gr Gr Grandfather fought in the Civil War for four years and lived till 1923. My grandparents remembered him well and his many stories. So my point is I am only seperated from one of the major conflicts that established many beliefs and norms in American history that was framed by bloody conflict by a generation and actually knew relatives in my youth that knew him personally. My entire family lived on farms, in Texas and guns were nothing more than a tool. My mother and her parents ate better than many through the Great Depression because they lived on a farm and grew food, and hunted food. I struggle everyday because this is what I grew up with, guns as tools, not good, or bad, or wrong, or right, just tools. I can understand our current societies fear of them because to so many they are unknown, but to me they have been a part of my entire life as I grew up. I have a cousin who lost three fingers to a power saw, an uncle that died by getting hit with a baseball bat. In neither instance did anyone say regulate and control saws and bats. In the case of the bat they blamed it on the guy swinging it, in the case of the saw my cousins neglegence. But if someone gets shot the first reaction is it's the gun's fault.

I won't quote statistics because everyone has the ones they point to when proving their point. but in a general sense I will ask this question. There has been a large number of guns in our society for a long time. For many years there was not a perceived issue with mass shootings. Now since Colimbine we have a growing crisis. What regulations, lack of regulations, or gun buying patterns, changed seemingly overnight to make this a huge issue? I am not trying to be defensive and say don't take my guns, but rather am asking a legitimate question as to why the epidemic became so much worse almost overnight. Realistically gun regulations have gotten tougher over time not more lax. So that would suggest that in the face of more regulation the issue has gotten worse. Now I am speaking of the seventies on and not harking back to the days when you could buy a Thompson Sub Machine gun at the local hardware store but later regulations. ( Yes once upon a time you could buy a machine gun at the Feedstore. After the US Army failed to take delivery of the weapon after WWI Thompson marketed them to ranchers as a way to control Coyotes and Wolves)