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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.