School Shootings: a new analysis

Interesting to see something like this in the news. Check the bold area. “Gunfree Zones” actually attract murders and do more harm than good. Follow the link and you can watch the video of the news report where there is additional information.

My wife, being a teacher, tells me that she will not follow her school’s rules of locking the door and waiting. She said if there is a problem at her school (in a rural Indiana town) she intends to direct her class to run out the back door rather that to sit and wait to die.

WCPO is the ABC Affiliate in Cincinnati.

[indent]
When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers

Reported by: Brendan Keefe
Email: Brendan.Keefe@wcpo.com
Last Update: 1:22 am

There have been so many school shootings over the last 40 years that researchers have been able to develop a profile of the typical mass murderer.

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises. Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.

As soon as they’re confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.[/indent]

I’d be interested in seeing your guy’s numbers. They seem to be directly contradicted by the evidence compiled by law enforcement people.

And the idea of running is psychologically unsound. Flight sets you out as a target. Few people have the foresight to bring equipment to force locked doors, and fewer still will force them, ignoring potential victims trying to escape.

Also, a teacher who abandons his students and runs is abandoning his responsibility for them; it is not what a professional would do.

The lockdown process was designed by LE professionals who have studied the behavior of mass murderers. Cut and run is not a reasonable response.

I just posted a news story. I don’t know who you think ‘my guy’ is. Further, they seem to indicate they got the evidence from law enforcement.

I’m sorry but that makes no sense. If there is a shooting in one part of the school and people flee out the back door before a shooter gets there then they are not targets, they are safe and alive!

WHERE DID IT SAY SHE WOULD FLEE? She said she would direct her students to flee.

Actually the LE did not design that process, the school administration did. LE now believe it is the WRONG thing to do! The local police sergeant, who is also a town council member, has spoken about it publicly saying the kids need to GET OUT if they can do so safely!!!

Then I am sure you would be more than happy to post that information here for us.

I think everyone should listen to Susanna Hupp on stupid gun control laws she can tell you what happened to her parents and other people at the Luby’s massacre in my town here in Killeen, TX. These dumb laws just helps the mad dog killers!

http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/dr-susanna-hupp-on-gun-free-zones/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

The police in the video above certainly indicate that every second counts. They also state that for every minute that passes several people could be killed.

I understand why people feel good about having “gun free zones” but they are really counter intuitive. You think hanging a paper sign on the wall will make the world safer, but the reality is they make the place less safe. The news report certainly reports that, and uses the police it interviews as their sources to reinforce that fact.

http://www.jpfo.org/images03/handbill-gunfreezone2.jpg

The more I think about it, it seems to me that people who support “GUN FREE ZONES” should be given a sign to put in front of their homes that say they live in a “GUN FREE HOME” and then see how they respond to putting such a sign up at the end of their driveway or on their front door.

If they post a “GUN FREE HOME” sign on their home, **will they feel safer or will they simply be inviting criminals to pay them a visit? **

If they believe that criminals may target their home due to the sign then is it not reasonable to presume that criminals will also target ‘gun free zones’ as the news report claims?

These little pictures in my post are sort of ‘cute’ but the reality is they convey a message that appears to be true. “Gun Free Zones” are clearly voluntary. Those people who legally carry guns under license from their state will abide by the laws. But those are also law abiding people who follow laws and respect authority. Criminals, by definition, will not care if there is a sign posted on the wall or not. And, as the news report indicates, it appears that criminals have realized the vulnerability inherent in “Gun Free Zones” and are now taking advantage of of that vulnerability.

Then I am sure you would be more than happy to post that information here for us.

Sure:

The United States Internet Crime Task Force, made up of concerned law enforcement officers, has done the necessary research.

Their organization:
usict.org/docs/usictsr137.pdf

Their findings:
usict.org/docs/safeschool.pdf

In about 3/4 of school attacks, the attacker held some type of grudge, and in 2/3 of these cases, they can be attributed to some form of bullying. Meaning that the juvenile attacker (which ranges from 11-17) was a victim of some form of bullying.

So much for the notion of the attacker picking his school. The report goes on to describe lockdown procedures that are more effective than screaming “run for your lives, kids!”

Running was what they tried at Columbine. Didn’t work so well.

Oh, BTW, it notes that since 1974, there were 37 such incidents.

There are roughly 100,000 schools in the United States. So that comes out to about one attack per year, or a 0.00001 probability of your particular school being attacked. Figure one attack every hundred thousand years.

And whether or not any of those schools was a gun-free zone (and I suppose mellonsdad would be glad to show us that his cartoon “evidence” is correct and they all were), it would be a moot point, since the shooters don’t pick the school they attack. They go after the one they happen to go to.

Even if you told teachers to cut and run in the case of an attack, they wouldn’t do it; they care far too much for their students to run and let the devil take the hindmost.

A rational plan for protection is much better, and when lightning does strike, the school will save lives by following the findings of people who actually know what the hazards are.

Someone here once admitted that he had a gun so that he wouldn’t have to be frightened. If one needs a gun to not be frightened, the bad guys have already won. Terror is their goal. It’s possible to live without fear, trusting God, and remembering that there are worse things than dying.

Fearing dying so much that one must have a gun to not be frightened is one of them.

It’s obvious you have not listened to Dr. Hupp. I think if you sat in a restaurant and had this happen; you might think differently.

http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/dr-susanna-hupp-on-gun-free-zones/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

It’s not just about schools!

As posted above would you put one of those signs in your front yard?

Why are you limiting your arguments only to SCHOOLS when that is not what was reported in the article/video?

The report was not LIMITED to schools, it was about ‘gun free zones’ and those include malls, schools and other places. This was mentioned in the video report. It was also clearly stated in the report that many of these places are picked because they are ‘gun free’ so by using the data ONLY about schools seems to ignore not only reality but also ignores the facts in the report.

So far in the couple of posts you’ve made, you’ve implied my wife would abandon the kids in her classroom, you’ve made false statements about who developed the plans in schools, and you’ve tried to direct the discussion to suit your arguments by ignoring much of what was reported by the ABC news station.

Why are you limiting your arguments only to SCHOOLS when that is not what was reported in the article/video?

If you didn’t want to talk about schools, why did you bring up the subject? We have pretty good data for schools, less on other things. If you have some, now would be a good time to post it. With a checkable source, this time.

So far in the couple of posts you’ve made, you’ve implied my wife would abandon the kids in her classroom,

You said she would run, and expose the kids as well. If she locked them in the classroom, they’d be much safer. If each teacher decided what he wanted to do in an emergency, regardless of the emergency plan, it would truly be a disaster. I hope she reconsiders it if ever comes to that.

you’ve made false statements about who developed the plans in schools,

There’s no point in denying the facts. The truth matters. It should matter to you. You have the links, why bother denying it?

At some point, you have to make an accommodation to reality. Now’s a good time. If you need a gun to not be afraid, there’s something very wrong. I rarely have a gun with me, and I’m afraid only in heavy Dallas traffic.

But that’s a rational fear.

BTW, when do you think we’ll have your evidence that those cartoons accurately portray those places as gun-free zones?

I posted an article about ‘gun free zones’ not limited to schools and specifically including malls and workplaces. You are the one who is limiting your evidence to schools. As for sources, the source is the article and the video. Please refer to them. The news story/video is accessible if you bother to follow the links.

I said no such thing. Please read what I wrote. Perhaps take a deep calming breath before doing so.

Please refer to the article and to the video. They were produced by an ABC news source. That is the source for the information being discussed.

OK, I have no clue what the heck you are rambling about. But as the kids say: “whatever”

Again, what are you trying to say?

The cute little cartoons speak for themselves. They carry an obvious message. The message is in total agreement with the news story that started this thread. Again, please refer to the news article and the video that are the source of this thread.

The cartoons are materially supported by this (which is from the original post):

[quote=WCPO TV][INDENT]The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.** Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.**
[/quote]

[/INDENT]

I posted an article about ‘gun free zones’ not limited to schools and specifically including malls and workplaces. You are the one who is limiting your evidence to schools.

No one “limited” the discussion to anything. I merely pointed out that for cases where evidence exists, it doesn’t support your claims. And the OP is about school shootings.

As for sources, the source is the article and the video. Please refer to them.

I was hoping there might be some checkable evidence. But I guess not. Darn.

Barbarian observes:
You said she would run…

I said no such thing.

Hmm…

My wife, being a teacher, tells me that she will not follow her school’s rules of locking the door and waiting.

I guess you didn’t. You just said that she wouldn’t comply with the rules about staying in a locked-down room. Big mistake.

Barbarian observes:
There’s no point in denying the facts. The truth matters. It should matter to you. You have the links, why bother denying it?

Please refer to the article and to the video. They were produced by an ABC news source.

Sorry. I’d like some evidence I can check, or at least from a source which has some credibility regarding these crimes.

Doesn’t it bother you a little that you can’t find anything to substantiate that news story?

Barbarian observes:
At some point, you have to make an accommodation to reality. Now’s a good time. If you need a gun to not be afraid, there’s something very wrong. I rarely have a gun with me, and I’m afraid only in heavy Dallas traffic.

But that’s a rational fear.

OK, I have no clue what the heck you are rambling about. But as the kids say: “whatever”

Think back about when your kids said that. What kind of a position were they in at the time?

Barbarian asks:
BTW, when do you think we’ll have your evidence that those cartoons accurately portray those places as gun-free zones?

The cute little cartoons speak for themselves. They carry an obvious message.

I’m just asking you to substantiate it. You’re claiming those places were all “gun-free zones” and advertised it. When do you think we’ll see the evidence for your claim?

The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.

That would be a good thing to substantiate. If you could show that the four cartoons were honest depictions, it would at least be a start. It appears that someone retroactively classified them so, to make the story more credible.

Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises. Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

Since the one case for which we have reliable data (schools) shows exactly the opposite result, it seems to be a faulty conclusion on the part of your reporter.

Can you show me data that malls having a sign prohibiting firearms are more likely to have a mass murderer attack people there?

Apparently you did not read the actual post but just stopped at the title? Or perhaps you ignore it. The meat of everything is in the news story from the ABC news affiliate. I linked to that and requested people actually read the story and watch the video. There was clear discussion in the article about workplace, malls, etc. I highlighted a couple of quotes in the initial post, those came from the article, feel free to read it. You will see it is about more than schools, and offers testimony by experts. That would be your ‘checkable evidence.’

Melensdad observes you have made a very careful edit to intentionally deceive others. Read the entire passage. Further read the entire initial reply where I also disputed you and corrected you about who you claimed developed the so-called tactic. You conveniently do misleading edits in your posts and frankly I’m sick of correcting your points when you do this.

Gee now you are insinuating that because I didn’t personally interview the police experts who where shown in the news report video that the report cannot be substantiated? HA HA That is a good one. **I gave you links. You want to do the research and call these officers up, please, knock yourself out. **

Melensdad notes:
I did not make any claim beyond that they were cute and materially support the story. ** Again, you intentionally misstate. You intentionally mislead. You intentionally deceive with your wording, parsing and claims. Please stop that. **

Melensdad observes:
You have again made faulty conclusions. While in schools it is obvious that many of them are based on bullying or grudges, that is clearly not proof of that for all the cases, so you are taking ‘many’ and making a false assumption, claiming it as your fact. The news report is what it is and clearly uses what the reporter believes to be experts in determining these things and these experts, who are law enforcement officers, tactical trainers, etc clearly disagree with you. The initial quotes show they are stating to be what is their expert opinion based on the evidence they have from around the nation. If you want their data please go ask them. But if you have FACT that is not disputable, please show it to these officers. Perhaps you can change their minds :rolleyes:

Melensdad observes:
That what is actually baffling is how you turn a simple news story, posted here, into some sort of debate where you must parse words and phrases to suit only your agenda and where you clearly do so to mislead others and misstate facts by deceptive editing. :eek:

First link has absolutely zero to do with our discussion; second link gives *suggestions *(in addition to data like you posted). Still doesn’t prove your point.

You’re correct, though you left out thay they are more motivated to attack if they know no one will shoot back at them b/c of gun free rules.

No one suggested running for their lives or a free-for-all; it was suggested to run in an orginizrd fashion in the opposite direction.

Oh, BTW, it notes that since 1974, there were 37 such incidents.

Or they chose violence as opposed to non-action b/c the school was gun free, meaning no opposition.

Again, you are being deliberately dishonest about what was said. It was not suggested to leave the kids and run, but to lead them out of the building in the opposite direction of gunfire.

No one has said they needed a gun to be free form fear, but to have the confidence to defend themselves. Bad guys win when they know their intended victims cannot shoot back.

Barbarian, suggests some actual data, and recommendations from actual law enforcement people, who have studied the issue:
The United States Internet Crime Task Force, made up of concerned law enforcement officers, has done the necessary research.

Their organization:
usict.org/docs/usictsr137.pdf

Their findings:
usict.org/docs/safeschool.pdf

In about 3/4 of school attacks, the attacker held some type of grudge, and in 2/3 of these cases, they can be attributed to some form of bullying. Meaning that the juvenile attacker (which ranges from 11-17) was a victim of some form of bullying.

First link has absolutely zero to do with our discussion;

Read more carefully. Maybe the credibility of the people who prepare these reports isn’t an issue for you, but it is for me. Otherwise, you just accept whatever a local ABC affiliate tells you to think.

second link gives suggestions

They are recommendations from law enforcement professionals who have studied the issue. That’s more credible than your local tv anchor.

(in addition to data like you posted). Still doesn’t prove your point.

It’s just more evidence that the “run for your lives, kids!” idea is a bad one.

Barbarian observes:
So much for the notion of the attacker picking his school.

You’re correct, though you left out thay they are more motivated to attack if they know no one will shoot back at them b/c of gun free rules.

Or they might not. No evidence. But if mellonsdad decides to back up his assertion that those four cases he cited actually involved gun-free zones with signage, we would have some reason to believe it.

Barbarian observes:
The report goes on to describe lockdown procedures that are more effective than screaming “run for your lives, kids!”

Running was what they tried at Columbine. Didn’t work so well.

No one suggested running for their lives or a free-for-all; it was suggested to run in an orginizrd fashion in the opposite direction.

As opposed to “unorganized”? How do you organize a cut-and-run? Besides, as you learned, people who have actually studied the problem have found that a lockdown is more effective than trying to outrun someone shooting at you.

Barbarian observes:
Oh, BTW, it notes that since 1974, there were 37 such incidents. About 1 attack per school, every hundred thousand years.

Barbarian observes:
it would be a moot point, since the shooters don’t pick the school they attack. They go after the one they happen to go to.

Or they chose violence as opposed to non-action b/c the school was gun free, meaning no opposition.

Problem is, you have no data to support that assumption. The data we have suggests just the opposite. Apparently none of the cases that involved mass killings was in a posted gun-free zone. I’d be open to some contrary evidence, of course.

Barbarian observes:
Even if you told teachers to cut and run in the case of an attack, they wouldn’t do it; they care far too much for their students to run and let the devil take the hindmost.

Again, you are being deliberately dishonest about what was said.

You can do better than misrepresenting what I said. The question was whether or not a particular teacher would do the right thing and lock down to protect the kids. She said she would not stay in the room, and would encourage the kids to leave the room and run for an exit. Just what the attackers would want.

It was not suggested to leave the kids and run, but to lead them out of the building in the opposite direction of gunfire.

They tried that at Columbine. Didn’t work so well, um? Other teachers did lock down various areas, and no one got shot there. Why do you think the law enforcement professionals recommended lock-downs? They work.

Barbarian observes:
Someone here once admitted that he had a gun so that he wouldn’t have to be frightened. If one needs a gun to not be frightened, the bad guys have already won. Terror is their goal. It’s possible to live without fear, trusting God, and remembering that there are worse things than dying.

Fearing dying so much that one must have a gun to not be frightened is one of them.

No one has said they needed a gun to be free form fear,

That’s precisely what he wrote here.

but to have the confidence to defend themselves.

That’s pathetic. It must be awful to feel that way. I hardly ever have a gun with me, and I’m not afraid (or “unconfident”). Fear is the worst reason to have a gun.

Barbarian observes:
No one “limited” the discussion to anything. I merely pointed out that for cases where evidence exists, it doesn’t support your claims. And the OP is about school shootings.

I was hoping there might be some checkable evidence. But I guess not. Darn.

Apparently you did not read the actual post but just stopped at the title? Or perhaps you ignore it. The meat of everything is in the news story from the ABC news affiliate. I linked to that and requested people actually read the story and watch the video.

How about some actual evidence. I don’t doubt that your local tv station newsman is sincere, but I think the findings of the law enforcement people are more compelling.

If you have some data from experts, it would be good to show it, now.

(Melensdad makes a very careful edit)

Barbarian observes:
I guess you didn’t. You just said that she wouldn’t comply with the rules about staying in a locked-down room. Big mistake.

Melensdad observes you have made a very careful edit to intentionally deceive others.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
There’s no point in denying the facts. The truth matters. It should matter to you. You have the links, why bother denying it?

Sorry. I’d like some evidence I can check, or at least from a source which has some credibility regarding these crimes.

Doesn’t it bother you a little that you can’t find anything to substantiate that news story?

Gee now you are insinuating that because I didn’t personally interview the police experts who where shown in the news report video that the report cannot be substantiated?

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn’t. Try to be more careful. I asked you for some evidence that the reporter’s story was correct.

After all, I gave you some rather good links, showing you that the evidence doesn’t support the reporter’s claims.

Barbarian asks:
BTW, when do you think we’ll have your evidence that those cartoons accurately portray those places as gun-free zones?

I’m just asking you to substantiate it. You’re claiming those places were all “gun-free zones” and advertised it. When do you think we’ll see the evidence for your claim?

I did not make any claim beyond that they were cute and materially support the story.

How is “materially supporting the story” the same thing as dishonest representation. Either the cartoons are an accurate depiction of the circumstances, or they are not. If in fact, none of those were posted gun-free zones, then it’s a blatant dishonesty to represent otherwise. So one more time; can you show that they were true, or can you not?

Barbarian observes:
Since the one case for which we have reliable data (schools) shows exactly the opposite result, it seems to be a faulty conclusion on the part of your reporter.

Can you show me data that malls having a sign prohibiting firearms are more likely to have a mass murderer attack people there?

You have again made faulty conclusions. While in schools it is obvious that many of them are based on bullying or grudges, that is clearly not proof of that for all the cases, so you are taking ‘many’ and making a false assumption, claiming it as your fact.

Show me a school where it wasn’t a factor. There are about 34 such incidents in the last 35 years, so it shouldn’t be hard to show one.

The news report is what it is and clearly uses what the reporter believes…

Right. But I’m asking for some checkable evidence. I gave you some. You could start by showing that your cartoons were an accurate representation. When do you think we will see that?

That what is actually baffling is how you turn a simple news story, posted here, into some sort of debate where you must parse words and phrases to suit only your agenda and where you clearly do so to mislead others and misstate facts by deceptive editing.

See above. What matters is facts. I gave you some, which you seem to consider politically incorrect. But they are facts. I’m asking you for some, just enough to substantiate what you presented here, and that seems to greatly offend you.

Isn’t that important evidence in itself?

Barbarian tactic #1: re-post the same thing over and over and just maybe it will eventually be relevant to the discussion

First off, it doesn’t speak for or against their credibility but it just states facts about crimes against children. Second, I don’t believe “whatever a local ABC affiliate tells you to think” because I don’t trust the MSM.

Barabrian tactic #2: keep repeating a lie about a statement that was made earlier over and over.

And in the mean time you provide proof to the contrary.

More of tactic #2.

The report you gave didn’t say a lockdown was the most effective, they recommeded that it may be effective.

More of tactic #1. :yawn:

You are about the only poster on any thread I can think of that habitually misrepresents and twists other peoples posts into what some could construe as lies.

Again, more of your misrepresenting the facts and twisting other peoples words around to make an invalid arguement.

Did more people die or did more people survive? If a shooter is shooting in one classroom, the logical thing is for the other classrooms to run out of there while he is occupied instead of waiting around for him to come to them next.

First off, schools are gun-free zones across the entire country. So mellonsdad is correct. Secondly, the point that he was making is if schools weren’t gun-free zones, then it would be less likely that shooters were target them because there would be a possibility that someone might be armed that might shoot back at them. As it stands now, they know that they will be the only one with a gun and everyone a sitting duck – which is why gun-free zones should be done away with.

Maybe you should help point this out to the lawmakers showing that gun-free zones are not needed.

Who said anything about leaving the children behind?

I disagree. If an attacker knows what the plan of action is, he can modify his attack to take those factors into consideration. The best plan has to take into consideration what is happening at that moment.

Your conclusion is in disagreement with scripture (*Jesus, Himself, commanded His followers in Luke 22:36 to purchase a sword *[The “sword” [FONT=Arial](Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a gun is today.][/FONT]) and the OFFICIAL teachings of the Catholic Church (see Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church).

While we should always trust in God, the Church teaches us that we have a duty to protect ourselves and our loved ones from death and serious harm. Failure to perform a duty is a sin of omission. The Church goes so far as to say that it is a GRAVE duty. A “grave” duty has to be performed by the BEST means possible otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty and the best means of self defense in MOST cases is with a firearm.

Additionally, since this involves “grave” matter, failing in this regard could be a MORTAL sin of omission.

Heck, I was bullied in high school and so were a lot of other kids. We also all carried knives but none of us stabbed anybody because we knew that was a line one does not cross. What’s happening today that kids no longer see that line or are willing to cross it with gunfire?

Barbarian observes:
So much for the notion of the attacker picking his school. The report goes on to describe lockdown procedures that are more effective than screaming “run for your lives, kids!”

Running was what they tried at Columbine. Didn’t work so well.

Did more people die or did more people survive?

All those locked down survived. A lot of those who tried running didn’t.

If a shooter is shooting in one classroom, the logical thing is for the other classrooms to run out of there while he is occupied instead of waiting around for him to come to them next.

That’s not what the evidence shows.

Barbarian observes:
it would be a moot point, since the shooters don’t pick the school they attack. They go after the one they happen to go to.

First off, schools are gun-free zones across the entire country.

No, that’s not the case. And the argument was that signage was the problem. I gather by now, you realize that non of those actually happened at schools that were posted gun-free zones. Using your reasoning, not putting up the signs invites attackers.

So mellonsdad is correct.

Um, no. Why do you suppose he repeatedly declined to support his allegations?

Secondly, the point that he was making is if schools weren’t gun-free zones, then it would be less likely that shooters were target them because there would be a possibility that someone might be armed that might shoot back at them.

That’s the point; the actual shootings happened at schools that weren’t posted gun-free zones. Exactly the opposite.

As it stands now, they know that they will be the only one with a gun and everyone a sitting duck – which is why gun-free zones should be done away with.

So far, the evidence points the other way. Political correctness should not overrule reality.

Barbarian observes:
Oh, BTW, it notes that since 1974, there were 37 such incidents.

There are roughly So that comes out to about one attack per year, or a 0.00001 probability of your particular school being attacked. Figure one attack every hundred thousand years.

Maybe you should help point this out to the lawmakers showing that gun-free zones are not needed.

I don’t think it makes any difference one way or another. If anything, the evidence shows unposted schools are more dangerous.

Barbarian observes:
Even if you told teachers to cut and run in the case of an attack, they wouldn’t do it; they care far too much for their students to run and let the devil take the hindmost.

Who said anything about leaving the children behind?

Someone will be last. They’ll be the targets. As Columbine showed, those who simply locked down, all of them survived. The ones who tried to run, many of them died.

Barbarian observes:
A rational plan for protection is much better, and when lightning does strike, the school will save lives by following the findings of people who actually know what the hazards are.

I disagree.

I know. But experience and evidence trump anyone’s beliefs.

If an attacker knows what the plan of action is,

Precisely why the plans are not publicly discussed.

Barbarian observes:
Someone here once admitted that he had a gun so that he wouldn’t have to be frightened. If one needs a gun to not be frightened, the bad guys have already won. Terror is their goal. It’s possible to live without fear, trusting God, and remembering that there are worse things than dying.

Fearing dying so much that one must have a gun to not be frightened is one of them.

Your conclusion is in disagreement with scripture (Jesus, Himself, commanded His followers in Luke 22:36 to purchase a sword [The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals.

Proof texting isn’t going to help you. “Who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” That’s what He said.

While we should always trust in God, the Church teaches us that we have a duty to protect ourselves and our loved ones from death and serious harm. Failure to perform a duty is a sin of omission. The Church goes so far as to say that it is a GRAVE duty. A “grave” duty has to be performed by the BEST means possible otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty and the best means of self defense in MOST cases is with a firearm.

Turns out you’re wrong. The best protection, as experience has shown, is to lock down the school and protect all the students. Your plan would get many of them killed. You would be failing to protect yourself and others if you suggested they not do the safest thing.

Additionally, since this involves “grave” matter, failing in this regard could be a MORTAL sin of omission.

That’s between you and God. But if I were you, I’d think about it.

Barbarian observes:
In about 3/4 of school attacks, the attacker held some type of grudge, and in 2/3 of these cases, they can be attributed to some form of bullying. Meaning that the juvenile attacker (which ranges from 11-17) was a victim of some form of bullying.

Heck, I was bullied in high school and so were a lot of other kids.

Often the bullied ones don’t strike out, but they carry the scars for a long time. It’s one reason many of them are afraid to be without a weapon.

We also all carried knives but none of us stabbed anybody because we knew that was a line one does not cross. What’s happening today that kids no longer see that line or are willing to cross it with gunfire?

Most of them do. Violence in schools has dropped markedly, in part because bullying has become a more serious offense in recent years.

We are a less violent society than we were 30 years ago.
[/quote]

Barbarian tactic #1: re-post the same thing over and over and just maybe it will eventually be relevant to the discussion

You’d probably do better if you dealt with the evidence, instead of whining about how mean the Barbarian is.

Barbarian observes:
Or they might not. No evidence. But if mellonsdad decides to back up his assertion that those four cases he cited actually involved gun-free zones with signage, we would have some reason to believe it.

And in the mean time you provide proof to the contrary.

Don’t have to. He made the assertion; it’s up to him to support it, or let us draw the inevitable conclusion.

Barbarian observes:
The report goes on to describe lockdown procedures that are more effective than screaming “run for your lives, kids!”

Running was what they tried at Columbine. Didn’t work so well.

More of tactic #2.

Citing facts? If you doubt it, read the report. It’s true.

Barbarian observes:
Besides, as you learned, people who have actually studied the problem have found that a lockdown is more effective than trying to outrun someone shooting at you.

The report you gave didn’t say a lockdown was the most effective, they recommeded that it may be effective.

It recommended a lockdown. It did not recommend running.

Barbarian observes:
The question was whether or not a particular teacher would do the right thing and lock down to protect the kids. She said she would not stay in the room, and would encourage the kids to leave the room and run for an exit. Just what the attackers would want.

You are about the only poster on any thread I can think of that habitually misrepresents and twists other peoples posts into what some could construe as lies.

As I said, you’d do much better if you tried to put a logical argument together, instead of resorting to personal attacks. It might feel good for a while, but other people read it, and it probably doesn’t leave a good impression.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.