Why are our schools left vulnerable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP. By your standards, schools in European countries, China, Japan, or Australia are very vulnerable. Yet this does not happen. Gee, I wonder why?

China is a communist nation. They kill their own people. Guns are pointed inward. That's BAD news.

Japan and Australia are islands. Very easy to control these things on an island.

Please answer my question in detail.

European countries?

[Anonymous]

After 9/11 we understood that fortifying our country was bowing to people who want to take away our freedom. We said "then the terrorists win".

We do not need to lock down all public places. And we can't prevent every troubled young adult from getting a gun, because the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow us to deprive anyone's rights because they are assholes.

But we can eliminate the gun that allows an amateur to kill twenty to fifty people.

[Anonymous]

I think the bigger question, "Why does America have this problem but no other developed country, and what can we learn from them?". Children in those other countries don't fear school shootings, don't have metal detectors or armed guards. Why should our children have to live in a heightened state of fear and alarm?

[Anonymous]

A certain amount of security is reasonable. Turning our schools into Fort Knox is not.

How many armed guards do you need to secure a single school over a large campus? A lot if the attacker has a high capacity killing weapon.

Instead of militarizing our schools let’s get rid of the killing machines that serve

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me start out by saying I would have no problem banning AR-15s. Let me also say that I don't think it's the solution liberals think it is.

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop these individuals from getting a weapon in the first place. Cruz was known to both the school and to the FBI. He stated he wanted to shoot up a school. That clearly wasn't an alarm bell to FBI. See something, say something, failed.

We can argue gun control until we are blue in the face. What I'm after in this thread, is the where the security failures are at the LOCAL level and what can be done to prevent future attacks.

We saw with Lanza, he failed to legally procure a gun. He tried. The system worked. Instead he killed his mother, and took hers. She failed to see the danger. He then had to shoot off a lock (from what I understand) to gain entry to the school. There was no officer at the door to stop him - to even give him pause. By the time officers DID get there, children were massacred. Sitting ducks so to speak.

Cruz waltzed right into the school, despite what the school is calling 'tight security'. Unless the officer on premise was killed at the only point of entry (per the superintendent), we can assume the officer was not at that point of entry. The football coach who was deemed security, was left unarmed and protected kids with his own body, and subsequently his life.

I know of a lot of veterans who would like to volunteer their time to help guard those entries. I know of a lot of teachers who either are already trained - or would like to train - to carry concealed within the schools. Instead, there is shouting about disarming these law-abiding citizens. I maintain we just SAW what happened to a disarmed population (gun-free zone).

Please tell me logical reasons as to why we cannot, on a local level, move to protect our schools.

No money. The schools cannot afford pencils and up to date computers but you want armed guards? Who is going to pay for the training and mental health checks of these volunteer veterans to guard or schools?

But they can educate illegal alien kids by the millions. They find the money for that.

I can already tell you that the NRA would train these folk - and do it well. If you've been to an NRA range, you'll know of what I speak. If a teacher is teaching in a public school, there are already supposed to be checks in place. If there are not, that's another failure.

I'd rather have stricter gun control and the NRA pay for more teachers/supplies. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Putting (more) guns into schools is not actually addressing the issue.

And what about accidental discharges? What about more stolen guns? What about training required?

More research is slowly becoming done and is showing that when more guns are in communities there are more gun deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Military grade weapons, high capacity magazines and the easy availability of accessing firearms is the problem. Schools are often huge and if there were the money to have armed guards, you would basically have to have Secret Service-type protection for every child.

We also have had mass shootings at movie theaters and college campuses. High capacity clips are the one thing all these shootings had in common.

Haven’t the majority of shooters been millennials?
I know there are a few exceptions, but don’t we need to look at this generation of kids?

Yea, let's blame the kids and not the adults in charge of the laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the bigger question, "Why does America have this problem but no other developed country, and what can we learn from them?". Children in those other countries don't fear school shootings, don't have metal detectors or armed guards. Why should our children have to live in a heightened state of fear and alarm?

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Military grade weapons, high capacity magazines and the easy availability of accessing firearms is the problem. Schools are often huge and if there were the money to have armed guards, you would basically have to have Secret Service-type protection for every child.

We also have had mass shootings at movie theaters and college campuses. High capacity clips are the one thing all these shootings had in common.

Haven’t the majority of shooters been millennials?
I know there are a few exceptions, but don’t we need to look at this generation of kids?

Yea, let's blame the kids and not the adults in charge of the laws.

Seriously. First of all, they haven't all been millennials. The Vegas shooter was middle-aged.

Second of all, your logic is incredibly flawed. These types of weapons weren't as available 20-30 years ago as they are now. It's true that young men (18-35 years old) can be more prone to violence; if these weapons were widely available in the 60s and 70s, these shootings would have happened then, too. Certainly there were angry young men around then, too. If you want to look at rage among young people as one part of a solution, that makes sense, but blaming "kids these days" as though they're something different than generations prior is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The idea of creating a secure defensive cordon around a school is tough -- too many buildings, too much movement. You can have some security, but it's going to be highly imperfect.

I am a gun owner but I've come to believe that the AR15 (and similar guns) are a big part of the problem -- they feed in to this commando fantasy of these disturbed young men.

I am willing to compromise on that as a gun owner. I am comfortable defending my home and family with a shotgun (I am in a city -- a rifle would do fine in the country), and a pistol.

btw, the NRA does offer GREAT gun training. But you cannot rely on having a qualified gun owner with the bravery (which you cannot really test) to be in the right place to stop tragedy. It may actually help, and I don't have a problem putting more guns in schools in qualified hands, and that may help.

Our country is in a state of paralysis based on hard ideological divides and special interest cash.

There is a reason Sanders and Trump did so well in the last election cycle. Voters are wanting away out of this paralysis. But it seems that the power of the vote is not enough.

Increasingly, we are living in a country that is controlled by special interest cash.

I agree with much of what you said. The AR-15 thing in particular. I've noticed that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings involve "scary looking" guns like AR-15s as opposed to plain-jane semi-auto hunting rifles even though a semi-auto hunting rifle can fire as fast as a stock civilian AR-15 and be every bit as lethal - and in fact, more lethal given some of the hunting ammunition and barrel sizes that are available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Increasingly, we are living in a country that is controlled by special interest cash.

You can thank the Rs for fighting against campaign finance laws. Dems tried to restrict big money in politics, but the Rs fought it all the way to SCOTUS, and the conservative leaning SCOTUS sided with the Rs.


You want strict gun control laws and big money out of politics? Don't vote R.

Worth a read:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/?utm_term=.9cba40cfa251

the Supreme Court issued the Citizens United ruling, a case that has drastically re-shaped the political landscape in its relatively short life span. President Obama condemned it in his 2010 state of the union address, Democrats tried, unsuccessfully, to make the 2010 midterms about it,...
Citizens United -- which, in short, allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited funds on direct advocacy for or against candidates ...

In pictures:
[img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/01/Screen-Shot-2014-01-21-at-2.15.28-PM.png&w=1484
[/img]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-jolly-flip-the-house_us_5a85274ae4b0774f31d1f615

“Republicans will never do anything on gun control,” says former GOP Rep. David Jolly. “The idea of gun policy in the Republican party is to try to get a speaking slot at the NRA and prove to that constituency that you are further right....Then, he called on voters to take to the ballot box in November:

“If this is the issue that defines your ideology as a voter, there are two things I would suggest tonight. First, flip the House. Flip the House. Republicans are not going to do a single thing after this shooting we saw today.”

[Anonymous]

^sorry . image didn't come out right.

[Anonymous]

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop

The government did what voters in sufficient numbers want: allow AR-15 sales to anyone with a pulse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me start out by saying I would have no problem banning AR-15s. Let me also say that I don't think it's the solution liberals think it is.

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop these individuals from getting a weapon in the first place. Cruz was known to both the school and to the FBI. He stated he wanted to shoot up a school. That clearly wasn't an alarm bell to FBI. See something, say something, failed.

We can argue gun control until we are blue in the face. What I'm after in this thread, is the where the security failures are at the LOCAL level and what can be done to prevent future attacks.

We saw with Lanza, he failed to legally procure a gun. He tried. The system worked. Instead he killed his mother, and took hers. She failed to see the danger. He then had to shoot off a lock (from what I understand) to gain entry to the school. There was no officer at the door to stop him - to even give him pause. By the time officers DID get there, children were massacred. Sitting ducks so to speak.

Cruz waltzed right into the school, despite what the school is calling 'tight security'. Unless the officer on premise was killed at the only point of entry (per the superintendent), we can assume the officer was not at that point of entry. The football coach who was deemed security, was left unarmed and protected kids with his own body, and subsequently his life.

I know of a lot of veterans who would like to volunteer their time to help guard those entries. I know of a lot of teachers who either are already trained - or would like to train - to carry concealed within the schools. Instead, there is shouting about disarming these law-abiding citizens. I maintain we just SAW what happened to a disarmed population (gun-free zone).

Please tell me logical reasons as to why we cannot, on a local level, move to protect our schools.

I’ll give in on illegals if you give in on guns.

No money. The schools cannot afford pencils and up to date computers but you want armed guards? Who is going to pay for the training and mental health checks of these volunteer veterans to guard or schools?

But they can educate illegal alien kids by the millions. They find the money for that.

I can already tell you that the NRA would train these folk - and do it well. If you've been to an NRA range, you'll know of what I speak. If a teacher is teaching in a public school, there are already supposed to be checks in place. If there are not, that's another failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop

The government did what voters in sufficient numbers want: allow AR-15 sales to anyone with a pulse.

+1 Even to someone on the terror watchlist, and no I don't care if your those watch lists are full of errors. Maybe the government should fix that to keep us safer.

And to people who keep saying that someone knew something and didn't say anything (I'm talking to the Rs and Trump), someone did say something, but even if LEA were made aware, what could they do? If they took away his guns you deplorables would be screaming about the 2nd amendment rights being taken away. So stuff it with the "see something, say something".