Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is the kids who are doing the shooting. You think that these kids, hellbent on creating death and destruction, are going to be deterred by laws?
There are laws against killing, but they don’t seem to abide by those.
We need to start asking ourselves why so many teens and young adults feel the need to react in these ways.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DH is a LEO and he thinks that this is the dumbest idea ever. Knowing how to use a gun is one thing - knowing how to use a gun in a crisis is a completely different notion. Consider this, a teacher's priority is to keep kids safe so they can be evacuated safely. So...a teacher (who may be near her students) fires at the gunman. Gunman fires back. So all this teacher has done is draw fire towards her and her students. Seems less than ideal. Ok. Consider a team of first responders shows up and multiple people in the school are brandishing guns and possibly firing. LEO has no idea who is who and you have a bunch of kids in the middle.

You want to have limited points of entry? Fine. Metal detectors at those points of entry (a lot of schools have them)? Cool. A closed campus? Ok. You want to have armed police officers in every school (a lot of schools have that)? Might work. But it is an awful idea to bring civilians with guns or concealed weapons into the school environment.

We've heard a lot from your DH LEO. We've seen how some civilians have used guns in crisis already to great positive end. In addition, veterans have been trained for crisis situations.

If the teacher is hiding in the closet with the kids (talk about dumb - closet is opened and you have a bunch of literal sitting ducks), you have a point. The teacher will NOT be in the closet with the kids - the teacher will be in defensive position.

So you really think there will be a bunch of teachers randomly firing in the hallways? How does your husband communicate with his fellow officers?

Sigh...you really should stop thinking that video game tactics will work in the real world.

Right...and many veterans have PTSD too. If we cannot afford to pay for more LEO's to be in the schools, then it is a bad idea.

And you are expecting teachers with limited or no training in crisis tactics, in a panic situation with terrified kids, to have the composure and poise to coordinate a response?

Sure, but there is reason that most LEOs think this is a dumb idea. Clearly you know more than they do.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DH is a LEO and he thinks that this is the dumbest idea ever. Knowing how to use a gun is one thing - knowing how to use a gun in a crisis is a completely different notion. Consider this, a teacher's priority is to keep kids safe so they can be evacuated safely. So...a teacher (who may be near her students) fires at the gunman. Gunman fires back. So all this teacher has done is draw fire towards her and her students. Seems less than ideal. Ok. Consider a team of first responders shows up and multiple people in the school are brandishing guns and possibly firing. LEO has no idea who is who and you have a bunch of kids in the middle.

You want to have limited points of entry? Fine. Metal detectors at those points of entry (a lot of schools have them)? Cool. A closed campus? Ok. You want to have armed police officers in every school (a lot of schools have that)? Might work. But it is an awful idea to bring civilians with guns or concealed weapons into the school environment.

We've heard a lot from your DH LEO. We've seen how some civilians have used guns in crisis already to great positive end. In addition, veterans have been trained for crisis situations.

If the teacher is hiding in the closet with the kids (talk about dumb - closet is opened and you have a bunch of literal sitting ducks), you have a point. The teacher will NOT be in the closet with the kids - the teacher will be in defensive position.

So you really think there will be a bunch of teachers randomly firing in the hallways? How does your husband communicate with his fellow officers?

Sigh...you really should stop thinking that video game tactics will work in the real world.

Right...and many veterans have PTSD too. If we cannot afford to pay for more LEO's to be in the schools, then it is a bad idea.

And you are expecting teachers with limited or no training in crisis tactics, in a panic situation with terrified kids, to have the composure and poise to coordinate a response?

Sure, but there is reason that most LEOs think this is a dumb idea. Clearly you know more than they do.

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.

DH is a LEO and he thinks that this is the dumbest idea ever. Knowing how to use a gun is one thing - knowing how to use a gun in a crisis is a completely different notion. Consider this, a teacher's priority is to keep kids safe so they can be evacuated safely. So...a teacher (who may be near her students) fires at the gunman. Gunman fires back. So all this teacher has done is draw fire towards her and her students. Seems less than ideal. Ok. Consider a team of first responders shows up and multiple people in the school are brandishing guns and possibly firing. LEO has no idea who is who and you have a bunch of kids in the middle.

You want to have limited points of entry? Fine. Metal detectors at those points of entry (a lot of schools have them)? Cool. A closed campus? Ok. You want to have armed police officers in every school (a lot of schools have that)? Might work. But it is an awful idea to bring civilians with guns or concealed weapons into the school environment.

We've heard a lot from your DH LEO. We've seen how some civilians have used guns in crisis already to great positive end. In addition, veterans have been trained for crisis situations.

If the teacher is hiding in the closet with the kids (talk about dumb - closet is opened and you have a bunch of literal sitting ducks), you have a point. The teacher will NOT be in the closet with the kids - the teacher will be in defensive position.

So you really think there will be a bunch of teachers randomly firing in the hallways? How does your husband communicate with his fellow officers?

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.

DH is a LEO and he thinks that this is the dumbest idea ever. Knowing how to use a gun is one thing - knowing how to use a gun in a crisis is a completely different notion. Consider this, a teacher's priority is to keep kids safe so they can be evacuated safely. So...a teacher (who may be near her students) fires at the gunman. Gunman fires back. So all this teacher has done is draw fire towards her and her students. Seems less than ideal. Ok. Consider a team of first responders shows up and multiple people in the school are brandishing guns and possibly firing. LEO has no idea who is who and you have a bunch of kids in the middle.

You want to have limited points of entry? Fine. Metal detectors at those points of entry (a lot of schools have them)? Cool. A closed campus? Ok. You want to have armed police officers in every school (a lot of schools have that)? Might work. But it is an awful idea to bring civilians with guns or concealed weapons into the school environment.

We've heard a lot from your DH LEO. We've seen how some civilians have used guns in crisis already to great positive end. In addition, veterans have been trained for crisis situations.

If the teacher is hiding in the closet with the kids (talk about dumb - closet is opened and you have a bunch of literal sitting ducks), you have a point. The teacher will NOT be in the closet with the kids - the teacher will be in defensive position.

So you really think there will be a bunch of teachers randomly firing in the hallways? How does your husband communicate with his fellow officers?

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

OP here. Tough but doable. The NRA has offered in the past to train and pay for that training. The left turned that option down. Much like with immigration, they are showing that they are not willing to compromise.

And yes, I'm willing to sacrifice the AR-15 or put special limits on it like we did fully automatic weaponry in the 30s.

The point of arming some within the schools means that those schools are no longer soft targets.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

It is the kids who are doing the shooting. You think that these kids, hellbent on creating death and destruction, are going to be deterred by laws?
There are laws against killing, but they don’t seem to abide by those.
We need to start asking ourselves why so many teens and young adults feel the need to react in these ways.

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.

DH is a LEO and he thinks that this is the dumbest idea ever. Knowing how to use a gun is one thing - knowing how to use a gun in a crisis is a completely different notion. Consider this, a teacher's priority is to keep kids safe so they can be evacuated safely. So...a teacher (who may be near her students) fires at the gunman. Gunman fires back. So all this teacher has done is draw fire towards her and her students. Seems less than ideal. Ok. Consider a team of first responders shows up and multiple people in the school are brandishing guns and possibly firing. LEO has no idea who is who and you have a bunch of kids in the middle.

You want to have limited points of entry? Fine. Metal detectors at those points of entry (a lot of schools have them)? Cool. A closed campus? Ok. You want to have armed police officers in every school (a lot of schools have that)? Might work. But it is an awful idea to bring civilians with guns or concealed weapons into the school environment.

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.

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.

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.