UPDATE: I first posted this article on April 23, 2014. I’m afraid I’ll be busy this week dealing with a pressing personal matter, so I thought it might be a good idea to repost it. It’s a topic that is not going away, and one that wee need to keep in the minds of school board and school administrators.
John Matthews is billed by Fox News thus:
John Matthews is the executive director of the Community Safety Institute. He is a 30-year law enforcement veteran, the author of Mass Shootings: Six Steps for Survival , School Safety 101,and the co-author of The Eyeball Killer, a first-hand account of his capture of Dallas’ only serial killer.
His April 17, 2014 article, “Fifteen years after Columbine: What we still need to do to protect our kids” is a remarkable compendium of suggestions, which on their face seem reasonable, but in reality, do nothing more than spend money to achieve little or no increase in deterrence and safety. He begins by noting that it has been 15 years since the Columbine attack, an attack he calls “the seminal event in American school shootings.”
The senseless violence at Columbine forced the issue of school safety into the American consciousness, leading to modifications in police practices and a complete overhaul of school safety policies and procedures.
Because of the public hue and cry, law enforcement officials realized that when children are dying, tactical containment is not enough, so Active Shooter response became standard protocol.
In the aftermath of what was then the worst school shooting in American history, an enraged public also forced school administrators to bolster their safety readiness and preparedness efforts. State legislatures throughout the nation established school safety centers and mandated both district and campus safety plans.
Matthews is correct that police procedure has changed, though not everywhere, and there is no national response standard, not that a federal mandate would help in this any more than federal mandates help in any other human endeavor. The primary change in police procedure calls for an immediate attack on any school shooter by the first officers on the scene. In other words, whoever gets there first has to run into the school, hunt down a shooter, and shoot him.
This is a 180 degree change from pre-Columbine orthodoxy. In those days—and this was played out at Columbine—it was assumed that time was always on the side of the police. Anyone causing violence in a school likely had political goals such as the release from prison of a friend, or some other revolutionary issue, so officers were taught to contain, control, and call for negotiators and SWAT. The first officers on the scene were not to do anything but keep the bad guys in, keep anyone else out, and sit back and wait until a negotiator could establish contact with the shooter(s) and through clever techniques, eventually end the crisis. That response model taught that the longer the shooter was in contact with his hostages, the greater attachment he would have to them, and the less likely he was to harm them. A bizarre side effect of that thinking was the Stockholm Syndrome hostages bonded with and actually assisted their tormentors.
What this response model failed to take into account was precisely what happened at Columbine and what has occurred virtually uniformly thereafter: the disaffected, even insane, shooter determined to kill as many innocents as quickly as possible before killing themselves.
At Columbine, the old response model was employed, and it cost lives. The attack began at 1119. At 1124, a school resource officer exchanged shots with one of the killers, but did as he had been taught and did not pursue him. At 1133, a local SWAT team was called out. Several officers would fire a few shots at the killers from outside the building as the attack continued, but the killers were not hit, or deterred. It wasn’t until 1206 that five SWAT officers entered one entrance of the enormous school. At 1208, having had no contact with police officers, the shooters killed themselves, a fact the police would not know for quite some time. At 1239 a police “mobile command bus” finally arrived. It would take until 1645 for the police to complete their initial search of the school. Both shooters were dead by their own hands only two minutes after a small element of a SWAT team finally entered the building, an element that had no contact with the shooters. Thirteen died and 24 were injured.
The new response model does recognize one important trend: seconds count. Once an attack begins, any delay in killing the shooter will cost lives, and the number of lives lost will depend upon the marksmanship and mercy of madmen. At Columbine, the killers had 49 minutes to murder as they pleased. They could have had substantially more time if they wished, and the police, despite the involvement of multiple SWAT teams and a “mobile command bus,” had no active hand in stopping the killing.
NOTE: It would be worth your time to review the timeline of the attack. Most striking is the confusion that reigned, and the utter ineffectiveness of the police response. This was due not only to the substantial size of the school, but the old response model smashing into contemporary killers.
Matthews has three ideas he suggests would prevent future school shootings:
1. Schools need customized plans. Though states had good intentions in mandating school crisis response plans, many districts, due to lack of resources, did the “cut and paste” method of planning to meet legal requirements. Some states even published ’fill-in-the-blank’ plans, and schools did exactly that, with little regard to their actual demographics or unique circumstances.
This is a reasonable idea, but is highly limited in effectiveness if effectiveness is to be measured in terms of deterrence and saving lives when an attack occurs. On paper, it’s hell on wheels. Notice as you read Matthews’ suggestions, gentle readers, that they all have to do with measures to be taken before a killer is actually at large in a school. Notice too that none of them have any deterrent effect, nor can any of them stop a killer.
Surely, schools should coordinate with the law enforcement agencies that would be responding to a school shooting. One of the primary problems is that few, if any police officers have been in local schools, and if they have, even fewer have a passing familiarity with them. Modern schools are like mazes. Computerized maps of school floor plans with exits and entrances clearly marked are essential, but even so, will tend to slow down a response as officers have to take the time to view, orient and assimilate the information on the fly before entering a school.
2. Drills need to be realistic. Most schools conduct what is known as ‘Tuesday morning’ drills, or drills under perfect and very unrealistic conditions, where everyone is in his room, close to a phone or radio and able to secure himself at a moment’s notice. Such drills almost always go flawlessly, because they are practiced under ideal conditions and not everyday situations.
These drills almost never take into consideration normal occurrences such as substitute teachers in the building with little or no crisis response training; students in the bathrooms, walking in the hallways or outside on athletic practice fields; and teachers in common areas without access to communications. School safety drills such as lockdowns, evacuations and shelter-in-place should be conducted using realistic, everyday scenarios.
Research shows that at any given hour during the school day about one third of the teachers are not in their classrooms, so drills should be conducted when students are in the cafeteria, gym class or involved in activities where locking the door and closing the blinds is not an option.
This too sounds inherently reasonable until one realizes what such drills actually accomplish and how. The state of the art is summed up in three concepts: run, hide and as an absolutely last resort, rush at an armed killer, throwing things at him and try to overpower him. Most “experts” omit the third concept. If there is no immediate response to an armed attacker, if there is no way to stop him, running and hiding ultimately bunch students and teachers in small, contained areas, making them easier targets.
Am I suggesting that when attacked, no one run and take cover? Of course not. But it that’s the totality of a school’s response plan…
Most such drills call for teachers to lock their students in classrooms and turn out the lights on the theory that when an attacker sees darkened classrooms, he’ll think no one is there and move on—until he figures out, after about the second or third dark classroom, what’s happening. Most classrooms have large windows adjacent their doors, doors with windows, or both, and few are resistant to any use of force. A prepared, determined attacker can kick, pry or shoot his way through such flimsy obstacles within seconds, and once inside a room with huddled children, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Single bullets can easily wound or kill two or more kids.
“But students and teachers can implement the third concept!” They can try, and if they aren’t too far away from the attacker, if there are enough of them to allow at least a few of them to actually reach the attacker, if they’re old enough—high school age—and if they are willing to keep attacking no matter how much of the blood and flesh of their fellow students covers them, they might have some effect. This method also assumes that an attacker will simply stand still and allow him self to be overwhelmed rather than moving or simply retreating and attacking elsewhere. Imagine the chance for success of such a mass attack carried out by a class of 3rd graders. Again, under some circumstances, it would be preferable to attack, but what kind of adult, what kind of educator knowingly plans to make that necessary?
Matthews seems to realize the futility and danger of this, yet argues for it anyway:
In one portion of a report that detailed the mass murders of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it noted “that more than a dozen bodies, mostly children, were ‘packed like sardines’ in a bathroom.” So many people had tried to cram inside the bathroom that the door couldn’t be closed, and the shooter gunned them all down, a police lieutenant surmised. If this was the case, it reaffirms the need to have both planning and practice under realistic, everyday situations.
Would it have been better for them to be bunched in a classroom rather than a bathroom? Which “run and hide” practice would be preferable when after running and hiding, the only option was to wait as long as it took for a killer to find them? One might argue that being more spread out in a classroom might force a killer to take a few seconds longer to kill an equal number of children and teachers, but surely no one would call this an effective policy or plan?
Let’s be brutally honest. Coordination between the police and schools amounts to little more than familiarizing the police with the layout of schools, and hoping that the police can get there as quickly as possible and can find and stop a shooter as quickly as possible. In the intervening time, Matthews’ model and the models of most such “school safety experts,” do virtually nothing to save lives.
Why not? Time, distance, and no effective response to the attacker. In the second of my recent three-part series on the realities and legacy of Newtown (available here, here, and here) I wrote:
The officers did what they could, but the two most important factors in police response to school attacks thwarted them: time and distance. The first 911 call wasn’t received until five minutes and 39 seconds after Lanza began his attack, and the first radio call to officers wasn’t sent for another 27 seconds, six minutes and six seconds after the attack began. By then, Lanza had killed many. And despite arriving within three minutes and 21 seconds–nine minutes after the attack began–officers didn’t enter the building until eight minutes and 41 seconds after receiving the first radio call, some 14 minutes and forty seven seconds after the attack began. By then, all of the children and adults shot (with two exceptions) were dead or dying and Lanza shot himself four minutes and 44 seconds earlier.
Despite arriving within nine minutes after the attack started, officers couldn’t enter the building for about another five minutes, and even then, had to find the killer to have any effect on the outcome. By the time they entered the building, the killer was already dead, which was unknown to them. This has been the pattern in every significant school shooting since Columbine. School attackers can plan to have no less than five uninterrupted minutes, and likely at least ten minutes before the first officer can so much as enter the school building. In most American schools, there is almost nothing—apart from colorful gun-free school zone signs–to deter or stop them.
3. Increased training for staff and students. Since the first spate of school shootings in the late 1990s, schools have had an opportunity to prepare for these attacks. But beyond practicing lockdown drills, what have they really taught our teachers and students about surviving a mass shooting or active shooter incident?
Unfortunately, the answer is very little in primary and secondary schools, and even less in colleges and universities. Even though there are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States, the training provided to educators at this level is minuscule. Even after the bloodshed at Virginia Tech many professors are at a loss to explain even the most fundamental concepts of school safety.
Although significant progress has been made in primary and secondary school preparedness, the cold hard fact is that the majority of teachers still receive only a minimal amount of safety and security instruction with little attention paid to how to actually survive an incident. Many educators across the country receive only about an hour of annual in-service crisis response training – and most of that revolves around how to lock their doors and wait for the police.
Well—yes, but what more does Matthews suggest be taught? When an armed attacker is walking down a school hallway toward an unarmed teacher’s classroom, randomly shooting, what to do?
A lockdown procedure is a valuable and proven tool to deter offenders – but what if their door is breached, as happened in Newtown, or if they are exposed in an open gym or cafeteria like at Columbine?
“…a valuable and proven tool to deter offenders”? Utter, dangerous nonsense. What school attacker doesn’t expect teachers to try to lock doors and hide students? This is what passes for deterrence? It certainly hasn’t deterred any school attack since Columbine. What happens when doors are breached is easily understood by studying the experiences of those at Newtown, Virginia Tech, even Columbine: students and teachers die. Matthews continues:
If tragedies like Columbine, Virginia Tech and Newtown are to have any value to us as a society, we must learn from them and adapt our law enforcement and school safety practices to meet these contemporary threats.
Proper planning by police and school administrators, practice by first responders and school occupants and training for all school safety stakeholders can and will save lives.
Unfortunately, what Matthews suggests will do nothing to deter attacks or save lives, but it will contribute to filling the coffers of companies like his, serving up “safety” that will look grand in a school’s “School Safety and Emergency Incident Response” portfolio. If we are truly to learn from the tragedies Matthews serves up, we must learn a very different, and far more aggressive and effective lesson.
To be fair, I’m sure Matthews is selling what his potential customers are willing to buy. For far too many of those customers–educators and risk-averse school boards and politicians–appearance and feel-good gestures take precedence over substance. It is not they that will taking the risks but children and teachers.
What Works:
Don’t misunderstand: hardening schools with more effective doors, locks and security procedures, though very expensive, isn’t entirely wasted. Seconds matter, and such measures can buy seconds. Armed intruder drills are likewise not a waste, if—IF—they are combined with armed response.
By this, I don’t mean armed security guards or even armed school resource officers (commissioned police officers or deputies assigned to individual schools). There is simply not enough money available to fund these positions for every school, and I speak not of enough personnel to cover every hour a school is open and every school activity, but a single guard or officer at each school. For schools that have them, they are certainly better than nothing, except they become the first target for canny killers, and their effectiveness is limited at best, particularly if they don’t happen to be in the school when an attack happens, which is far more common than most understand.
The first step is simple: allow teachers and other staff to carry concealed weapons, and don’t over-regulate it. When government gets involved, everyone ends up with the same gun, the same holsters, and overly restrictive rules that defeat the purpose and advantages of concealed weapons in schools. Simply allow anyone that qualifies for a concealed carry license to carry, and let them decide what to carry–what actually works for them–and how to carry it as long as it is actually concealed and reliable.
Certainly, it might be wise to have upper and lower ammunition size limits–.380 to .45, for example–and to require true concealment of any handgun carried, but these are details that matter little until the reality that only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns, and we want plenty of good guys in place when and wherever kids are, is accepted and implemented. Buy the car first and argue over tire inflation and which radio channel is best later.
Those that demand such people be trained to the same standard as police officers misunderstand the issues. Police officers are exhaustively trained because their duties are varied and complex. Shooting well is only a small portion of their skill set. Teachers carrying concealed weapons would not function as law enforcers and would draw their weapons just as any citizen carrying a concealed weapon would: in response to an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. Their skills need encompass only basic tactics and shooting straight.
Is it really preferable that they be unable to stop such threats when and where they occur, or that their options be limited to running, hiding or begging for their lives? How does one defend knowingly denying teachers the ability to defend their lives and the lives of their students when there is no doubt that seconds matter and the first police officer won’t enter the building for around 15 minutes from the first gunshot?
Schools should arrange for competent live fire training that concentrates on the kinds of tactics, environment and shooting that staff might encounter in their school, but this should not be mandatory lest it bar otherwise capable people from being armed, which is the point.
The second step is closely related and should occur simultaneously with the first step: notify the public, repeatedly, that the Smithville School District is no longer a gun free school district and that school staff are not only allowed, but encouraged to carry concealed weapons. Publicize their training and the results. Keep it in the public eye. However, be firm in refusing to tell anyone how many people on each campus are armed, except to say that “many” or “a substantial number” of teachers are armed. Go so far as to say that the program is “very successful and effective.” Even if no one on a given campus is armed, this will provide a very real—as opposed to theoretical/paper—deterrent effect for every campus.
This is the value of concealed carry outside of school. No criminal can know who is carrying a handgun and must act as though every potential victim is. There is no doubt that mass killers carefully choose their targets, preferring gun free zones. Why would they do otherwise? What murderer planning a school attack would choose an armed Smithville school when the nearby Jonestown District remains “gun-free?”
But this means that gun-free districts near armed districts would actually be funneling killers toward their schools! Why, to protect their students, they’d all have to allow the arming of staff. Imagine that. This, gentle readers, is one reason why many educators want to remain “gun-free” forever. Once a sufficient number of districts in any state are armed, and once it is clear that all of the horrors hoplophobes invariably predict have not come to pass, how can they demand their students unnecessarily remain in danger? Why would anyone resist the only truly effective means of protecting students and staff if an attack occurs?
Even in armed districts, deterrence can never be absolute. And when it fails, what better response than having several armed teachers in each and every hallway of a school, ready and able to stop an attacker then and there? As students and unarmed faculty run and hide, there are armed, capable people ready to keep a killer from hunting their colleagues and students down and killing them. This is the element of school safety missing in every so-called school safety plan, and what an absence it is: the only sure means of saving lives.
This is the “proper planning” that will save lives. Anything less unquestionably accepts an unknowable number of wounded and dead, numbers to be determined by homicidal madmen.
rd said:
It will never work.
It will be like the Wild West!
Blood will flow in the streets!
They will be shooting each other over parking spaces!
Oh Wait, that is what they said when we passed concealed carry in our state ten years ago! None of it happened. And none of it happened in any other state.
Utah has allowed armed teachers for years. And there haven’t been crazy teachers gunning down students. Texas and Arkansas have also started the same programs. We need every school including the other 47 states to do the same.
Noah said:
Well done, Michael. You nailed the head on the hit when you tied Matthews’ analysis to his business interests, which is,of course, indicative of the rot at the core of American education: too many economic interests after a cut of the large, lucrative pie.
Now, where are the trolls?
Vanya Williams said:
Idiot. Business interests? You’re so clueless.
DNS Guns said:
Nothing more could be said to improve your plan. The liberal slant that all guns are evil and nobody other than a trained police officer could possibly stop a school shooter will prevent it from ever happening in most schools. Maybe if some of the places that allow people to carry could run some drills with active shooters, film it, and show how fast the shooter could be taken down were made? Using non lethal weapons like low powered paint ball guns of course. Then run the same drill without gun carrying defenders using the hide and hope for the best that’s being pushed, show the difference. Maybe then some minds could be changed.
SlingTrebuchet said:
You certainly have a point regarding the problems with the way cops act when they turn up in response to something.
This just passed my eyes…
http://nypost.com/2014/04/22/call-of-duty-loser-calls-in-swat-team-hoax-on-kid-who-beat-him/
In brief:
One gamer beats another in Call of Duty game.
Loser calls cops, claiming to be his opponent and saying that he has just shot his mom and brother, and that he’s going to shoot others maybe.
Cops rush to the address – naturally.
But then it gets really crazy.
The mother and brother in the house are alive and well. “What seems to be the problem officers?” There has been no shooting.
Cops simply confirm that the call was a hoax and go back to base – no?
No.
They get mom and bro out of the house.
There’s a two-hour standoff ??
70 cops – including SWAT teams and helicopters overhead.
Part of the two hours is apparently cops roaring via bullhorns for the boy to come out, hands up, and all that good stuff.
Boy has earphones on and is too busy playing Call of Duty to notice anything.
Lucky he was wearing earphones. If his speakers had produced any sounds of gunfire, no doubt the assembled SWAT teams would have riddled the house with thousands of bullets.
.
Yup. Cops turning up at schools after shooting has commenced is sub-optimal.
But…
There is this elephant in the room.
Lanza, for example. Who really needs the sort of firepower that he was carrying? Why was that firepower in a place where he could just pick it up?
What other country in the world has this issue to such an extent that there is such pressure for teachers to be armed?
Should the primary focus not be on why and how this can happen? – rather than on arming teachers, many of whom might not be cut out for gun-play.
What happens when Lanza/Harris/Klebold wearing full body armor go into a school and start with any teachers and staff they can see?
Their aim is not survival. They intend to kill themselves.
If they believe teachers might be carrying concealed (small – low-calibre – innacurate ) handguns, is this really a problem for them? They have body armor and longer-range-accurate weapons with high rates of fire.
If they think that their killing spree might be shortened by the presence of some teachers who might or might not be effective in using small pistols, then the best option is to hit one classromm – kill the teacher immediately and then everyone else.
That would get a high body count without any interruptions from armed teachers not in the classroom.
We change from dead kids spread around a school to as many or more dead kids in a single room.
The chances of that single teacher preventing the massacre of a classroom has to be very slight given a surprise attack by committed armored well-armed attackers.
They could just kill themselves or move on to another classroom to do the same again. If they move, they move while shooting like crazy – in the expectation of meeting a teacher who might possibly get in a lucky shot. Would your average teacher be any better than your average NYPD cop for instance? They apparently can’t hit a barn door – even if they are inside the barn. They hit innocent livestock, but rarely the target/barn.
.
The point about such shooters having the intent to die is the game-changer.
Look around the world. It is unusual for suicide bombers to fail in killing people.
The best defence against suicide bombings is to try prevent the bomb getting near target.
Why focus on (wishful) prevention of school shootings?
Should it not be on school killings?
Would the crazies not adapt?
I’m not carrying a semi-auto long gun, but I do have this backpack with a pressure cooker stuffed with July 4th stuff. Hello.
If backpacks are being searched on entry, then set The thing off in a crowd of students at the door.
Hey! Can’t get a gun into schools? Determine that a teacher has a gun. Take the gun and shoot them with it. Then shoot others.
I think that concentrating on ‘guns for teachers’ is just moving the killing method. The killers will simply adapt. That’s what people do all the time. It’s built-in. Adapting might only involve better armor and initial targeting of teachers.
Chip Bennett said:
What caliber of bullet is sufficient for law-abiding citizens?
What number of rounds in a magazine is sufficient for law-abiding citizens?
What could ever possibly compel criminals to abide by those limits?
SlingTrebuchet said:
I think that you’ll find that up the time that they started shooting, people like Lanza and other mass shooters were law-abiding citizens.
The Navy Yard shooter had apparently shot (accidentally, while cleaning ffs) through his ceiling into a noisy neighbor’s apartment – and shot out tyres in the course of a parking dispute – but still law-abiding and licensed.
I think the was problem that
1) They were disaffected members of what seems to have become a dysfunctional society
2) Significant firepower was very easily available to them
What threat was Lanza’s mother in fear of that she needed to have such firepower so immediately and easily to hand?
Assuming that she had such a pressing need, did she have no inkling that her son was a tad moody?
.
In this thread I propose a number of reasons that arming teachers would not be an effective response to school shootings. It would be more theatre/band-aid.
So …..
Are mass killings the very regrettable price to be paid for easy availability of firepower?
Chip Bennett said:
Wrong. The moment Lanza took possession of his mother’s firearms, he was a thief and a felon (under CT gun laws, that so effectively kept those guns out of his hands).
The “firepower” that Lanza’s mother had on hand was in no way unusual or controversial. But you do allude to the real problem:
Lanza was psychotic, and his mother knew it. Had she not died at Lanza’s hands, she would have been criminally responsible for Lanza’s acts, because she failed to secure her lawful firearms from her psychotic son.
Had she not been murdered, her failure to prevent her psychotic son from accessing her firearms would have constituted a (are you ready for this?) culpably negligent act that would have constituted grounds for convicting her of manslaughter.
Chip Bennett said:
Actually, you do no such thing. You present a straw man that represents an utterly unfounded scenario should a mass shooter find himself inside of a school building with concealed-carrying teachers, and that further fails to account for the statistically near-certain preventative impact of a school building that has concealed-carrying teachers.
As far as I can tell, your shootout-at-OK-Corral scenario bears no resemblance to any school shooting I’m aware of.
As for identifying friendlies: police have access to the CCW database, which includes photo ID in most states, and would thus be able to know ahead of time who the likely friendlies are.
SlingTrebuchet said:
That isn’t “statistics”. That’s a theory.
If you want to be statistically near-certain, you need a very large number of school shootings.
In these shootings, the shooters
1) would have no connection with the school ( so no motive for a particular school either by way of familiarity with the layout or by grievance ) and
2) would have had an equally accessible option of another school that was known to have armed teachers.
.
What percentage of schools are known to have armed teachers?
.
You miss my point.
My scenario is one in which the shooter(s) expect that at least some of the teachers in *all* potential target schools are carrying. They would naturally take this into account.
They would have body armor, would be on alert for any adult and make them an immediate priority target.
They are not afraid of death. They fully expect to end up dead.
They have the advantaqe of shock, surprise, preparation and a murderous mindset that we can’t fathom.
.
What if teachers were allowed to carry?
A quick seach gave me a survey in which was headlined as ‘72% of teachers would not carry even if allowed’.
I suppose that might cover schools where 100% of teachers would be prepared to carry and schools where 0% would be prepared to carry.
Click to access guns-security-measures-in-schools.pdf
I have not had a chance to see how representative that survey was.
Some interesting numbers in that survey:
(Rounded)
36% of respondents owned a gun.
11% Very Likely to carry if allowed
7% Likely
10% Somewhat Likely
That probably means an 8% that owned a gun but would be Somewhat Unlikely, Unlikely or Very Unlikely to carry if allwed to carry in school.
This seems to be a bit of an uphill task to get a sufficient coverage of teachers who had a suitable frame of mind to be effective with a gun if an attack took place.
Handy Andy said:
Yeah!!! Like if, what if a troubled kid got a tank through the front door of the school? What would a .45 be able to do then? Or even 10? Better yet, what if he strafed the school with a stolen Spitfire from a private collection that still carried working machine guns and was loaded and was gassed and wa. . . .
So, locate every weapon in the USA and confiscate them and then we won’t have kids having to drive tanks into school buildings, or something like that?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Handy Andy:
What you said.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Okies. This is a long comment.
As Mike noted about some of his postings a while back – “attention to detail” leads to long postings.
That’s the wrong question.
Alternatively, it’s the right question if you are not interested in real answers.
The realistic question that offers an opportunity for insight is “Why did the shootings taken place where they did?”
Take the list of “25 Worst mass shootings” that I linked above.
One of those shooting gave rise to the phrase “go postal” – meaning to become violent at the place of work.
In this analysis I use the term “postal” for a shooting in which the shooter has a known issue with the site of the shooting. This can be related to family, work, school or a business dealing.
Of the 25 Worst Mass Shootings”…………. 19 are clearly “postal”.
They have not sought out a gun-free zone in which to kill whoever might be there.
They have killed wherever their issue was – potential armed people isn’t the issue. They have targeted certain people or just anyone at the location with which they have an issue.
There will be a mass shooting “at gun stores, police stations, or gun shows” just as soon as someone has a “postal” with particular people or organisations.
“Cowards” is just silly name-calling.
Some are simply finished and choose kill themselves before the cops get to confronting. They want to be in control. Some die in a shootout. Some get arrested at the scene or distant from it. Some have worn body armor in the expectation of meeting effective armed resistance while they kill.
Search for their stories. I sincerely doubt that a global environment in which some people in their target area could well be armed would have given these people any pause other than to be aware and prioritise targets. They are all crazed.
Some number of the locations might have been designated gun-free zones, but for 19 of the 25 this would not have been a factor – as the motive was “postal”.
.
Student with mental health problems with grievances about other students.
Shoots two in dorm. Takes a break to post manifesto to NBC. Kills 30 more and wounds many, kills himself. Postal
Student with mental problems. Kills himself. Had been at the school. Postal
Mental problems. Including hatred of women. Shot by sniper during stand-off.
Mental. Had been to a different McDonalds with his family shortly before shooting.
Mental problems. Student at the university. Postal
The original postal.
Major. Army base.
Hasan is an American citizen of Palestinian descent and after the 9/11 attacks, his cousin says he was the target of constant harassment from others in the military. His tormentors called him a “camel jockey,” said his cousin, Nader Hasan. He wanted out of the Army, so he paid back his military student loans and hired an attorney. Major. Army base.. Postal
Mental. Paranoia. Employment difficulties due to poor English. Main killings in a classroom teaching ESL (English as a Second Language). Killed himself after police arrived. Postal
Detailed plan. Death toll could have been 500+ if their propane bombs had worked,
Students at school. Shot at police and then killed themselves. Postal
Mental. “He began his killing spree by killing his girlfriend, former girlfriends, their families and children he had fathered with them” Talked out of stand-off. Family Postal
Mental. Workplace shooting. Postal
Arrested up while just standing outside afterwards. Cops first thought he was one of them due to body armor.
Daytrader, was motivated by $105,000 USD in losses over the previous two months. Four hours after the shootings, Barton committed suicide at a gas station. He had been spotted by police and was ordered to stop, but shot himself before the police could reach him.
Family and postal
Family postal
Grievance against white people after prolonged racial abuse in army. Shooting spree over many days and many locations. Died (200 wounds counted) in prolonged gun battle.
Ex-wife was employee at salon. Arrested 1/2 mile away at traffic stop. Family and postal
Postal
Family postal
Estranged wife a nurse in the home. Family and Postal
Lifelong mental. Shot himself before cops arrived.
Mental. Killed family and then at his school. Family and Postal
Mental. Claimed he had been been “raped” by Pettit & Martin and other law firms.
Postal
Mental. Postal
Killed over a wide area. Over a month to find some bodies. Tough opponent for cops that killed him.
Mental. Postal (customer service)
SlingTrebuchet said:
Sorry Mike, I’m on a rant :)
And you know me…..long!
In a previous thread, a point was made that your average licensed concealed carrier would be more capable of handling a shooting situation that would your average cop.
The argument was:
The cop just happens to have a gun as part of the wider job of being a cop.
The civilian carrier has a gun because they have an interest in guns and probably train themselves better accordingly.
The theory is that if someone starts shooting in a cinema or other crowded place, then prior to some random cops arriving with guns, the random licensed carriers in the crowd will be better at not shooting innocents than random cops would be – even if some of the those innocents had produced weapons and had adopted a prepared cover/firing stance.
This might be true.
In any event, what happens when the random cops turn up to an active shooter scene and find random people pointing guns could be a bit of a lottery.
The random carriers would immediately put their guns on the gound and raise their arms on seeing the first cop perhaps? What if the (initial) shooter is still unidentified? What if the person they were pointing their gun at was the actual shooter, and is only prevented from shooting further by the threat of the gun being pointed at them?
Surely the situation would be resolved by a calm rational discussion between the arriving cops and the (surviving?) random strangers who had produced guns? Ya think?
My bet would be on a burst of high-pitched panicky shouting – followed by high-rate panicky shooting.
We’ve all seen videos of real SWAT teams and real cops doing what they do worst.
.
Can your average teacher be expected to be as capable as your average cop? (And your average cop seems to be not-very-capable.)
Both would be carrying as a very minor part of a much different and larger job.
The cop might be better prepared than the teacher as their daily work often involves confrontation and perhaps a measure of physical – although not rising to gun-play.
Would arming teachers-in-general turn out to be theatre rather than effective counter-measure?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
Not arming them has proved without question to be theater of the dead. In a school shooting, no one is better prepared to know precisely what is going on and dealing with it immediately and effectively than teachers. Blue on blue incidents can be prevented with a variety of simple measures, and none of these issues are an argument for not saving lives when we have the power to do so.
The dynamics of school shootings are such that by the time the police arrive, the shooter would be down and bleeding out or dead, or cornered and under fire (far, far less likely) and the police can be escorted to him by school personnel to avoid any unfortunate problems.
The fundamental issue is and will always be, when an armed attacker begins their assault, what are the people in that school ready to do at that time and place to protect themselves and their students? We know the inevitable result of running and hiding. We’ve proved it. We also know that armed good guys stop armed bad guys.
Joel Bunning said:
“Can your average teacher be expected to be as capable as your average cop? (And your average cop seems to be not-very-capable.)”
I would argue only this. The teacher who takes the opportunity to arm his or herself most won’t likely be one of the more average average of the lot. Of course having armed teachers in a school won’t guarantee anything. But given the behavior of the great majority of concealed carriers (and no, I’ll not pay any attention if you list off a bunch of the outliers), it’s not likely to make things terribly worse. I’d sooner see the odds get mixed up a bit than continue with the status quo.
You’re right about one thing for sure. There are a good number of stories about cops these days displaying abysmal pistolero skills. I used to be a military policeman in the army (getting to be quite awhile ago) and I didn’t develop true skill with a handgun until I became a civilian again. At least, when I was a soldier, I had the excuse that I hadn’t the opportunity to practice on my own recognizance. Civilian cops can’t say that, so shame on them.
My personal experiences may bias me somewhat. They won’t allow me to accept many of your premises, even if my rejection may possibly be (and I’m not saying for sure that they are) irrational. And I don’t aim to change that. I’ll need some better convincing than I’ve seen from you yet, (though admittedly I’ve been out of the Stately Manor loop for awhile).
Mike, the reason I haven’t commented around here for awhile, nor read you either, is that I’m back in school (though, given that I’ve seen more college classes in the last several months than I ever did before in may life, “back” is kind of a misnomer) and I’m generally awful busy. Up here in Colorado, which is still a pretty gun lovin’ state in spite of the way political winds have blown lately, I’d have to guess that most of the instructors on my community college campus would shun the gun sooner than they’d accept a thousand dollar Christmas bonus. How does it look to you, in that particular respect, down there in your Texas high school?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Joel:
It’s good to have you back. I keep in touch with folks in Colorado, so I’m aware of the gun issues up there. In Texas, school administrators are not necessarily anti-gun, but they’re very risk averse, and doing anything different than the status quo represents risk to them. There are surely many left-leaning teachers what would reject arming their colleagues on philosophical grounds alone, but this is truly a conservative state, and if allowed, there would be many thousands of teachers that would embrace it. In my own school? About half the faculty, at a guess.
Good luck with your classes. It’s much easier when you’re older.
Chip Bennett said:
I think this would be counter-productive, because such training would have records, and those records would be publicly available. Thus, one of the primary advantages of lawful concealed-carry – nobody knows who is or isn’t carrying – is potentially lost.
It would be better for the school districts to partner with NRA and local CCW and othe firearms instructors, to provide such training for teachers who choose to avail themselves of it. (IIRC, one such event in Colorado was so successful that the instructors had to turn away participants.) I would imagine that private instructors would be easily convinced to offer the training for a reduced rate or even for free, as a public service, if not as a charitable-contribution tax write-off.
You address that, here:
If the aggregate training information can be kept anonymized, and aggregated at the district level, then publicizing it would be beneficial.
See also: Jared Loughner, who chose the only gun-free theater within a 20-minute radius to carry out his attack:
So Laughner bypassed the theater nearest to him, and opted not to go two minutes farther away to the largest Theater auditorium in all of Colorado, instead choosing to attack the only theater that prohibited concealed carry.
Common sense and a lack of refuting evidence would indicate that someone bent on carrying out a school mass murder would choose similarly.
SlingTrebuchet said:
There another potential factor in that cinema shooting other than it being gun-free.
Laughner brought his guns in via the emergency exit.
To reduce the chances of his plan being interrupted, he needed a theatre with an emergency exit that
1) might not be very noticable to others when he opened it (from the inside)
2) close to where he could park – so that he could retrieve his weapons and carry them back with minimum risk of being observed.
I don’t have the layout of all the nearby cinemas with exits and parking. It is certainly something that I would think about if I had been Laughner.
.
Let’s assume that he chose that particular cinema purely because it was gun-free.
Certainly a softer target is always going to be attractive – unless the shooter has a particular beef with a particular building/organisation, as with the Navy Yard.
What would happen if no cinema was gun-free?
All cinemas would then be equal – as far as the possibility of someone in the building happening to be carrying and in a position to effectively fire on him in the midst of dark and panic.
What if all schools had some teachers carrying?
All schools would then be equal – as far as the possibility ……etc.
Would this stop people from planning mass shootings?
Would it be effective in stopping shootings – in a new environment where encountering random armed resistance of whatever expertise would form a natural part of the shooters’ planning? – and where survival is not on the shooters’ agendas?
Chip Bennett said:
In the past 50 years, name one mass shooting that took place outside of a “Gun Free Zone”.
The one anomaly that I know of is the Gabby Giffords shooting – which was an assassination attempt, and not a mass shooting in any sense other than the number of people shot in the attempt to get to the intended target.
SlingTrebuchet said:
A quick search for mass shootings got me this sample:
25 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S.
History Fast Facts
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html
I don’t know how many of the locations were specially designated “Gun Free Zones”.
In many cases it appears that the shooters had a connection with, and were familiar with, the places in which the shootings took place. It seems that their ‘beef’ with some situation and their crazy rage was the main selector for the location.
It does not seem that they went in search of a gun-free zone.
Just go through that list and estimate the number of cases where the shooter would not have chosen that location if they believed that someone in the location could have been CCW.
It feels to me that primarily they are insane and with a grudge. They wanted to create some mayhem related to their grudge – and had no wish to live any longer once that had achieved that last thing. That was to be their end.
Holmes in the Aurora cinema seems an exception to the suicide feature. The other strange feature in his case is that although he was said to have chosen that particular location as a gun-free zone, he still wore head to toe body armor. What was that for in a gun-free zone?
So… again…
If there are no “Gun Free Zones” anywhere, who believes that people like this will no longer go shooting?
I don’t.
SlingTrebuchet said:
One thing I think is certain…
If I find myself in the middle of a mass-shooting, with high potential of CCW around me , I will NOT pull out my cell-phone.
Imagine this happening in Florida …
…and I get shot because “she had something in her hand”
…….. by Zimmerman !!!
………………..COSMIC :)
SlingTrebuchet said:
Technically, he would not have killed me…because if I looked up and saw him aiming, my head would already have exploded before the shot hit me.
rd said:
Based on his past behavior, GZ would only shoot you if you were on top of him, and beating him to death with your cell phone for over 45 seconds.
Despite the BS from the news media, the facts in the trial showed he was very restrained and only shot as a last resort.
SlingTrebuchet said:
O-kaayyyyy :)
Firstly,
My point about NOT pulling out my cell-phone was deadly serious.
People have been shot for having something in their hand during tense situations.
Secondly,
The Z/TM thing is over – done and dusted.
People will just have to agree to disagree. Some will say that he was found completely innocent. Some will say that the jury felt that they had to return not guilty due to their understanding of the jury instructions – regardless of them thinking/saying that Z bore some measure of fault.
The trial is over. The verdict is in. Thank you and good night. It’s over.
Thirdly,
C’mon – lighten up there.
Me getting shot by Z (after pulling out my cell-phone during a mass shooting) …
That would be funny in a wierd sort of way.
C’mon… you know there would be a few giggles when you consider what I have blogged and commented about the case. Lighten up!
Fourthly,
I did hesitate before mentioning the Z-word in my comment, but my humor “made me do it” simply as a build on the non-funny dangers of having “something in my hand” in such circumstances.
Fifthly,
*sigh*
a) It is not impossible that Z would shoot in circumstances other that those in the statistically insignificant sample of one incident.
b) Z insists that despite all of the circumstnces that he described about the lead-up to the shot, he absolutely did not remember that he had a gun until the very last seconds when he says he sensed TM’s hand headed in the direction of his hip.
That is not restraint. That is mind-blowing forgetfulness.
Sixthly,
I only refer to your mention of the circumstances in which Z might be expected to shoot, and to your nomination of “facts”, as they serve as a good lead-in to my next comment in this thread – which will arrive in time and deal with bad statistics and the nature of facts on which assertions/theories can be reasonably based.
Brittius said:
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
RuleofOrder said:
So shoot the teacher first, fresh weapon, no need to reload.
Phil said:
Nearly all mass shooters have selected gun-free zones and have killed themselves at the first sign of resistance. They do not want to be taken alive so they commit suicide as soon as they are confronted, such as the 2nd Ft Hood shooter. One of Mr McDaniel’s points is that the mere chance of an armed staff is likely to deter a mass shooter. Nearly every one of them are cowards who are purposefully targeting helpless victims. How many mass shootings have occurred at gun stores, police stations, or gun shows, where many are known to be legally armed?
RuleofOrder said:
So the new target becomes day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, churches…
The answer to your question is open carry, everywhere, no permit required. If you are displaying a firearm, just deal with the fact that your legality for carrying it will be questioned, and the more ‘sensitive’ the location, the more scrutiny it receives. The only exclusion I think should be applied would be government facilities, which I believe have their own security anyways.
Phil said:
I didn’t say anything about open carry or eliminating permits. Don’t put words in my mouth. But you did manage to make an excellent argument for essentially unlimited permitted concealed carry. We should be able to carry in church, at work, and in a hospital. Thanks.
The whole point is to create some level of risk for these mass shooters. Perhaps no teachers at a specific school will choose to be armed but as long as that is not published then the deterrent effect still holds.
RuleofOrder said:
“I didn’t say anything about open carry or eliminating permits.” — yeah, I know. I said it. If “points is that the mere chance of an armed staff is likely to deter a mass shooter” then the guarantee of an armed staff (because its plainly visible) would have to be that much better.
” But you did manage to make an excellent argument for essentially unlimited permitted concealed carry” — why concealed?
If the whole point its to create a level of risk, why is a concealed carry better than an open?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear RuleofOrder:
In the school setting it is better because of the deterrent effect. If a given school has few–or even no–teacher carrying handguns, the deterrent effect is not lessened because any attacker must assume that every school has many armed staff members. Concealed carry is also less of a potential distraction for students.
RuleofOrder said:
Between cellphones and armed staff, I think the bigger distraction would be the phone, but that is just my humble.
” the deterrent effect is not lessened because any attacker must assume that” — I think you are giving WAY to much credit to a random school shooter than warrants. I highly doubt a shooter is going to burst into a class room guns blazing based on a brief reconnaissance period, and in either case, “shoot the teacher first” becomes the primary objective, even in concealed carry cases.
Phil said:
Open carry is almost always tactically unsound for civilians because it surrenders the element of surprise. It works for police and military personnel because they have extensive training, backup weapons, and lots of colleagues with guns.
SlingTrebuchet said:
For a mass shooter, anyone openly carrying a gun is wearing a big “Kill me first” sign.
Next in line would be anyone who produces a gun.
The cops with “extensive training, backup weapons, and lots of colleagues with guns” logic would be a bit problematic for random armed civilians in a crowd. They might perhaps have some training, but none of the rest.
Speaking of cops, this quite disturbing collection of LE recruitment adverts caught my eye:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/16/the-disturbing-messages-in-police-recruiting-videos/
They seem to concentrate on guns, SWAT with loud music. Ideas like serving the community don’t get much time. Are these not going to attract the worst possible dregs of society – just one step up from indicted criminality?
.
There is a larger problem with Open Carry.
There is a danger that openly carrying would be a competitive macho thing. People who might not otherwise even carry concealed openly might feel obliged to carry openly. Whatever about the people already openly carrying, these people might be more of a hindrance than a help in a tight situation.
Another problem for widespread open carry would be theft. Your open carry gun is the new smartphone in the eyes of opportunists in a crowd. Do, and will, all open carriers use a security holster? Even if they do, a pair of thieves could still easily grab and run.
.
Would an awareness of the possibility of CCW in a crowd be an effective deterrent to mass shooters?
It should make a shooter more aware of things to plan for, but I doubt that it would stop them.
My analysis above of “The Worst 25 Mass Shooting” indicated that 19 of them had a “postal” motivation. The shooter had a grievance with the place/institution and/or particular people there. They were not looking for an easy place to kill some people. They particular place was important to them.
In which shootings could there have been a possibility of CCW in the place?
I have not taken time to do a case by case analysis on this but…
Take the Scott Evans Dekraai shooter in Seal Beach, Florida. He chose the place because his wife worked there. He killed her and 7 others. Presumably there could have been legit CCW in the area. He wore body armor – so he seems to have been prepared to come up against CCW.
Given that a very significant majority of mass shootings are of the “postal” variety this raises a problem beyond that of the shooter being very familiar with the ground.
In many such cases, the shooter will be familiar to some extent with the people and may have worked out who would be the likeliest CCWs.
Take just school shootings in this regard……..
With few exceptions, these are done by current students or recent students.
They would be in an excellent situation to size up teachers. School gossip might even take a lot of the guesswork out of it.
Take the Columbine shooters. They spent a lot of time planning the detail of that. For example, they had worked out the time that the cafeteria would have the most people in it. They planted two propane bombs there and set the timers for maximum kill (about 460 in the cafeteria). Luckily, they did not detonate.
I have no doubt but that if CCW teachers were an option, the shooters would have spent time reviewing teachers as possible CCW and would have planned to hit them immediately in the confused situation after the bombs went off. They would know exactly where to find each teacher. Bombs/diversions or not, the first shots to be heard would be the shots killing the first teachers.
.
This is not to say that CCW teachers might not help to reduce death tolls in school shootings.
However, that is all you are ever realistically going to get – a possible reduction in deaths. Plus it’s only possible if the shooters – who will be familiar with the teachers, the schedules and the layout – have not taken care to priority-target teachers.
With that familiarity – we lose the surprise effect of CCW.
.
So what else?
The shooters in the “25 Worst” nearly all had mental health issues and/or firearms that were evident before the shooting.
Two examples:
Huberty had a history of domestic violence. His wife had once threatened another woman with a 9mm during an argument. The police did not confiscate the weapon. He had called a mental health centre on the day before the shooting, but as he did not state it was an emergency, they did not return his call.
The Navy Yard shooter had shot out the tyres of a car over a parking disagreement. He had put a shot through his ceiling into the apartment of a noisy neighbor – “by accident – cleaning the gun”. C’mon! What sort of incompetent does not check a weapon immediately on picking it up? Anyone stupid enough to get a shot off while “cleaning” should not have a license or be allowed near guns – at least not without formal evaluation of intelligence and mandatory training.
In his case, just the tyres incident alone should have barred him from gun ownership for life.
Staying with school shootings….
Would it not be far more effective to try identify potential student/teacher shooters in advance?
I know this would be less than trivial in a system where ‘safety’ involves suspending 7-year-olds because they point their fingers at someone.
Nevertheless, there may be more to be gained in looking at that aspect rather than arming teachers who might not be cut out for the task.
Chip Bennett said:
Actually, I agree with this, as a personal, tactical preference for carrying concealed rather than openly.
But this?
You have a lot of wild, fantastical theories/fears that are utterly unsubstantiated in actual fact. There are several places throughout the country where open carry is both legal and common. In such places, your wild theories simply don’t come to pass.
Open Carry doesn’t lead to a return to the Old West, and openly carried firearms – as far as I’m aware; I’m open to references citing otherwise – aren’t subject to any significantly higher rate of theft. Actually, it’s quite possible that law enforcement officers have their service weapons stolen more often than openly carrying, private citizens have their firearms stolen from their person.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Chip,
I’d would say that you are correct on the probability of theft.
I mentioned it only as I always try to think of possible outcomes.
Realistically, a thief would opt for a phone rather than a gun. A phone is more resaleable plus you probably wouln’t get a SWAT team knocking on your door looking for a stolen phone.
If there were to be some incidences of open carry guns being taken, it would maybe happen only in areas where open carry is suddenly permitted. There would be a culture change that would need time to settle down.
At the some time, the possibility of someone taking an open carry gun is always there. This is why I mentioned security holsters. They exist largely to make such taking more difficult. As you say, there may (have been) a problem with LE guns being taken – particularly in a hand-to-hand struggle – that led to security holsters.
It’s a compromise, because they also make it more difficult for a cop to draw their firearm quickly in a situation.
.
Besides….
Why on earth would a shooter go to the bother of stealing a sidearm, when they can get their hands on much more serious firepower legally?
Look at the firearms that the shooters in that “25 Worst Mass Shootings” had.
All of them with serious mental problems, but still could put their hands on that.
Lunatics (well-planned lunatics often) with massive firepower…..
Arming teachers is not a solution to that. Arming teachers is just a desperate last resort hope that might or might not reduce the body count.
RuleofOrder said:
… you don’t have the element of surprise if you are using a gun for defense.
Handy Andy said:
Specious.
SlingTrebuchet said:
In the context of what we are talking about…
You have the element of ‘being surprised’.
Whereas that ‘moody’ pupil who has worked out your CCW is not in the least surprised.
He/she(it’s going to happen) will kill you before you stop being surprised and begin to think about your gun.
RuleofOrder said:
“Specious” — not within context of the argument. The gun is for your defense, if you are having to use it, its because some one has done something to -cause you to use it-. You are reacting to a stimuli, that by its nature is not a surprise. Contrary, a displayed firearm is active deterrent. A would be aggressor knows that the person whom they have chose indeed has immediate access to a force multiplier, and there are still plenty of people whom don’t.
C’mon guys! Why are there no shootings at a police station? The assailant knows the cops are armed.
I know this citizen is armed. Should I attempt to mug them, vs find another target. Its your frickin’ reasoning that’s being used, embrace it.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Rule,
This is a rhetorical question, right?
The answer is simple.
As I pointed out above by reference to the “25 Worst”, there will be a shooting at a police station just as soon as someone “goes postal” at a police station.
The shooter will be a cop or someone who has had enough and wants to take a few cops with him.
To quote the mass shooter Robert Hawkins “I just want to take a few pieces of sh*t with me… just think tho, I’m gonna be f**kin famous”
The shooters in the “Worst 25” did not have an issue with cop stations.
They had issues with work, school, estranged wives, lawyers, investment disasters, repair shops, their badly-sucking lives, families.
Apart from 6 of 25, they clearly went shooting where those issues were.
Even for the 6, more research might find a particular reason for their choice.
Take James Huberty
Read about his genuinely awful life: http://www.murderpedia.org/male.H/h/huberty-james.htm
He did try to “reach out” to a metal clinic the day before.
In the end, he had a family day out. Zoo and McDonalds. Happy family (not) surrounded by possibly really happy families at both places.
They go home and then he annouces that he is going “hunting humans”.
He was apparently seen at two other locations before he hit the McDonalds – but think about it. Considering his last hours with his family, he was going to end up shooting people at either the zoo or at a McDonalds. He probably chose a McDonalds as there would be more people packed into a tight space than would be at the zoo. Or maybe he thought more highly of animals than he did of humans. As he reportedly said to his wife earlier that day – “Society has had its chance”.
I had thought about classifying him as the 20th “postal” in the 25 shooters for this reason. I left him out as it is not as clear cut as the 19.
Anyhoo, that’s why there are “no shootings at a police station”.
No cops have gone postal yet.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
There have been a number of shootings at police stations, but none of the character and intent of school shooters, and in virtually every case, the police quickly dispatched the shooter because they were, unlike teachers, armed.
The question remains what is the best–and fastest possible–response to a school shooter? The answer is obvious.
RuleofOrder said:
Sling, if you would have read the rest of the post, its obvious.
Mike, the answer is indeed obvious, concealed or unconcealed should carry the same weight. The only real answer for concealed is to lull an attacker into a false sense of security, by then it may already be to late, that includes for schools.
Joel Bunning said:
Rule, I think you raise an interesting point. The question with open carry is–does this make me more of a target, or does it serve more as a deterrence? I don’t know if any studies have been done on this. That said, I’d guess more cops have had their guns taken from them than have concealed carriers, but yeah, I’ve got no hard statistics on that.
I lean towards concealed carry. I carried a gun openly, while in uniform, for near a decade of my life and concern about a gun grab was always high in my mind.
In a mugging, I’m likelier than not on the surprised end. In a school shooting, I’m only surprised if he picks the classroom I’m in first. That said, in a mugging, I’d pull my concealed gun from near the same part of my body most people think I’d pull a wallet. So who’s surprised when I pull the trigger?
RuleofOrder said:
“So who’s surprised when I pull the trigger?” — Are you expecting the would be assailant to stand there, gun in hand, and not pull the trigger after you do so? If the would be assailant didn’t have a gun, rather, had a knife, would he go after some one obviously displaying a firearm?
Just so we are talking about the same thing here, you feel as though a mugger is going to pick the person obviously carrying a firearm over the person whom isn’t/doesn’t appear to be?
Chip Bennett said:
At this point, is the argument even about armed teachers as defense/deterrent to would-be school shooters anymore, or has it devolved into a general argument about using guns for self-defense in general?
SlingTrebuchet said:
I think we’re pretty much still on schools.
Diversions into, say, a guy using a shotgun to down/disable four cops in a Detroit precinct station are useful in order to bring some clarity.
– It demonstrates that ‘carry’ – even open carry by trained people – is not a deterrent to someone on a mission.
– It raises a consideration that although not a deterrent, it could be a damage limitation measure – depending on how effectively a surprised group can respond to one or more attackers who have the advantage of surprise, bloodymindedness and focus – and who are not concerned with survival.
In the case of Detroit, those four cops did very badly despite the attackers tactics not being wonderful. His lack of greater success might be due to him making the attack only 2 hours after he saw the cops searching his house. He hadn’t really planned anything apart from going in to do some shooting.
Say the 4 cops in their precinct were 4 CCW teachers having coffee in Columbine.
One assumes the cops had some ongoing situational awareness / mental_imaging from random bozos and arrestees coming in the door. The teachers would have that.
Next thing they know, Harris and Klebold have come into the room – shooting.
“Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.
Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times.”
With this in mind, look at that Detroit video that I linked above. It’s a mess.
I think it’s no contest. Four of the school’s CCW teachers are toast with the opening shots.
Meanwhile bombs are going off (a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes), and everybody apart from Harris and Klebold are in shock.
The pair put in a great deal of planning. I think that it’s a certainty that if CCW was a possibility, they they would have tagged the likely CCW teachers and in any case would have targeted school staff as a priority in case they had misjudged a likely CCW..
It’s a certainly that with such planning, they would wear body armor if they expected return fire.
Regretfully, without some changes in society, a Columbine might well happen again.
At best, CCW teachers might help to reduce the body count, but it’s by no means certain.
If the possibility of reducing the body count in an attack is “enough”, then just arm those teachers that want to be armed. Don’t worry overmuch about crazy people having easy access to major firepower.
Hey! Why not arm students? Well, say the over-16’s only – and younger ones who have shown themselves to be be skilled.
RuleofOrder said:
“At this point, is the argument even about armed teachers as defense/deterrent to would-be school shooters anymore, or has it devolved into a general argument about using guns for self-defense in general?”—- barring our hosts observations about distractions, I feel its appropriate for both school and self defense.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear RuleofOrder:
It is indeed, and one issue I’ve mentioned in other articles in writing about the murder of Massachusetts teacher Coleen Ritzer, is teachers are in danger from deranged students in schools and out. Are their lives worth less on school grounds, particularly when schools are adamant about not being able to protect them, than off school grounds where they may carry concealed handguns in most states?
SlingTrebuchet said:
Thanks Mike,
Up above, a “Why are there no shootings at police stations?” kite was flown.
The implication was that shooters would not dare to shoot in places where people would shoot back.
Clearly, that assertion/implication was bogus. People do go shooting in police stations.
They enter in the certain knowledge that they will be taking on
– armed people who carry openly every day
– people whose daily job often involves the threat of shooting – and can involve actual shooting involving colleagues or themselves.
In other words, they fully realise that they are going to be shot at in return. They mostly intend to end up dead. They want to take a few or many people with them.
If people will do that, then they certainly will enter a school even if they know that teachers may be armed.
.
As anyone should expect, I went looking for detailed reports of shootings at police stations.
The first two I found are an interesting contrast in the effectiveness of the attack.
First:
April 2014: Lamar Moore, 38, of Detroit entered the 6th Precinct on the city’s northwest side about 4:30 p.m. Sunday and shot Cmdr. Brian Davis, Officer David Anderson; Sgt. Ray Saati; and Sgt. Carrie Schulz. Officers returned fire and killed Moore.
Police later released the CCTV recording of the incident.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/violent-gunfight-at-detroit-police-station-caught-on-tape/
He went in with a shotgun ( I’m not sure right now what the fire-rate capability was).
There was a firefight in which he downed all four officers that were behind the counter. It seems to be other officers arriving that finished Moore off. The four shot officers appear to be down and incapacitated at the end.
Moore’s ‘tactics’ seem a little strange. He walks up to the counter and shoots. Officers take cover, He retreats back towards the door, still firing. Maybe he’s thinking of running or maybe he considers that their return fire will be less effective at a distance.
In the end, he runs at the counter and vaults it. He then goes hunting the cops around the cover. It’s full-on close range. One cop seems to hit him a few times at point-blank range.
I wonder if he would have been more deadly if he had pressed home his attack immediately with the advantage of shock/surprise. That would have left him better able to deal with other officers arriving.
What if he had been wearing body-armor? He would have had more time.
His attack seems to have been an immediate reaction to an event rather than something planned days in advance.
His major motivation appears to be that the sky was about to fall on him.
He had apparently kept a 13-year-old runaway girl chained up as a sex slave in his house. After some days, she managed to escape during his absence and call 911. Police got a warrant to search the house. He came back and saw the police searching. He was going to be in BIG trouble – and probably in even more trouble in prison because of the nature of the crime.
Perhaps he decided to go for suicide-by-cop – but in a spectacular fashion that would distract from the girl. He seems to have been of a criminal background. His brother was about to be sentenced the following Monday in a double-murder case.
.
Second:
Daniel Christoph Yealu, 29 walked into the Venice Boulevard station , approached the front desk and fired a Glock pistol at the two officers there. One of the officers was wounded before the pair returned fire.
Four rounds hit the officer in his ballistic vest and three hit his extremities, but he was expected to recover. It seems that the wounded officer returned fire that resulted in Yealu’s death two weeks later in hospital.
Official said Yealu was carrying extra magazines and had a “heavily modified” AK-47 in his car parked outside. Authorities later found what Beck described as an “armament” of high-powered weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition at Yealu’s home.
Motivation unknown, but:
Yealu, a onetime security guard, had applied to join the Los Angeles Police Department in 2009 but was rejected.
Police said he walked into the station, told the desk officer, “‘I have a complaint,'” and opened fire with a handgun.
His Method was a bit silly:
He walked in with a handgun. He left very serious fire-power in his car outside and at home.
If he had gone in with the AK-47, would we have had (at least) two dead officers?
It seems he did a rapid fire on just one officer with the Glock. It is not clear where the second officer was when the firing began or what distance each one was from Yealu. I would have gone for close-range headshots, but that’s easy to say as I am sitting a keyboard and drinking coffee!
.
The first police station shooting would be more like a school shooting – because of the weaponry.
The Detroit shooter downed all four officers behind the counter. He might possibly have killed them all with a different tactic.
Are teachers going to fare any better than police officers?
I have seen another kite being flow on this question.
The proposition is that an average CCW will be more effective than an average cop. This would be on the basis that cops only carry because of the job – and are also really bad shots.
I came across a study that pokes a big hole in that proposition. That has to go in a following comment due to the one-link per comment limitation.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Why are cops “bad shots”?
Quick story:
The study shows that “Mental imagery boosts shooting accuracy under threat”
The study had a controlled sample of LEOs imagine themselves shooting with unfailing accuracy even when under the stress of an attack.
The sample group then performed significantly better in a simulated threatening situation.
Full story (worth studying):
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7079958-New-study-Mental-imagery-boosts-shooting-accuracy-under-threat/
.
Here’s a problem:
Your average CCW who hits 90% on the range may be no better than your average cop who hits 90% on the range. Both might only hit 15 to 50% in action.
Maybe a teacher would fare worse than a cop. A cop must surely experience a minor form of Mental Imaging on a daily basis. A teacher’s Mental Imaging is related to effective teaching – hopefully.
Here’s a build on the problem:
Your average school shooter may be using (albeit unconsciously) Mental Imagery – making them more effective. They have an image of themselves killing effectively. This could mean that an “unskilled” shooter would be more effective in the heat of battle that would be a “skilled” CCW.
.
If CCW teachers were allowed, what would the percentages be in schools?
I linked above a survey of teachers taken in the aftermath of
It implies that 72% of teachers thought themselves unlikely to carry even if policy allowed.
There were even gun owners who said that they would not carry in school.
There would be swings and roundabouts. Say an average of 28% of teachers carried. Some school would have more percentage, some less.
Unlike cops, their working lives year after year pass without any drama confrontation-wise.
Even if obliged to attend regular Mental Imaging sessions in which they imagine themselves killings accurately, are they really going to do any better than those 4 cops downed in Detroit’s 6th Precinct?
.
I’ll accept “fastest” – once the shooting starts.
“Best” all depends on how you define “response”.
At best – repeat: at best – CCW teachers might help to reduce the body count.
That’s not a solution. That’s a hope for damage limitation.
Given that it might reduce body count, it could be worth doing, but the real problem is outside in society. Crazy disaffected people can get their hands on serious firepower way too easily.
How can the Navy Yard shooter, for example, shoot out the tyres of a car during an argument over parking but still be allowed to hold and buy guns?
When shooters come shooting, they are mostly not concerned with surviving. They are focussed on killing.
If shooters can go into police stations in the knowledge that just about everyone is going to be armed, then shooters can go into schools where some teachers (that they might already have tagged) are CCW.
Joel Bunning said:
Thanks for the link, Sling! I just bookmarked it and I’ll be sure to check it out when I have the time. Right now it’s time to get back to the grindstone. See’yall later!
DNS Guns said:
I would rather have the possibility that a ccw teacher “might help” instead of the certainly of no help if confronted with an active shooter. Just as I would rather have my gun with me than not if confronted by a mugger. Being able to possibly defend myself beats no possibility every time.
SlingTrebuchet said:
I do agree with you DNS.
Something is better than nothing.
What we might disagree on are measures that might help to avoid situations where the something ( say only 20 dead kids instead of 50 ) is called upon.
.
There may be downsides to teachers carrying, but maybe they overall might or might not counterbalance the upside. That would need analysis.
A culture of armed teachers might create bad psychological issues for students – and everyone.
An assault by a pupil on a member of staff might end up in a shooting. That might be a teacher feeling threatened or a student grabbing the gun. The presence of guns raises the stakes.
Consider these numbers and add guns to the mix:
“Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010”—indicating that 145,100 public school teachers had been physically attacked by students at their schools in the course of a single school year and that another 276,700 public school teachers had been threatened with injury by a student in that school year.”
“Public school students physically attacked 50,000 teachers (5.7 percent of the teachers) in city schools, 48,900 teachers (4.1 percent) in suburban schools, 19,200 students (4.1 percent) in town schools, and 27,000 teachers (3.2 percent) in rural schools.
Female teachers were more likely than male teachers to be physically attacked by a student. 119,500 female teachers (or 4.1 percent the teachers) were physically attacked by a student during the school year, while 34,900 male teachers (or 3.7 percent) were physically attacked by a student.”
The numbers are from a goverment report linked in
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bullied-teachers-145100-public-school-teachers-physically-attacked-students-276700
Warning!! It does mention Obama, but don’t let that distract you from considering the numbers – which would equally happen under Bush.
.
When the first CCW teacher shoots a student that has assaulted them, ( you know it’s going to happen) some/many would say “The student deserved it. The teacher was entitled to defend him/her-self.”
Others might wonder if the teacher overreacted, etc. The teacher might say that they sensed the student’s hand going towards the gun….. yadda, yadda.
For the first few such shooting, there will be huge debate. Then it will settle down.
Next thing you know , in a system where huge numbers of teachers get assaulted every year, there are going to be shootings on a regular basis – because teachers had brought guns to the party. The way of the world is that they would increase.
Now you’ve got a different sort of body count.
On the other hand, xome would say “My kids go to a school that does not have such a violence problem so I’ll opt for CCW teachers thank you.”
There is no “one size fits all”.
.
There are problems with some views presented here.
An assertion that shooters would only attack in gun-free zones is objectively false.
An assertion that shooters are cowards is just name-calling.
An assertion that shooters stop and kill themselves at the first sign of any armed opposition is objectively false.
It seems to me that whereas CCW teachers might obviously help to reduce body count in a mass shooting, some people propose it as the solution, basing this the sort of bogus (macho?) assertions that I mention.
An aspect seemingly lost in the debate is the down-side of guns in (all) schools.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
You’re erecting straw men here. I certainly did not suggest that shooter attack only in gun-free zones. It is not name calling to speak of the identifiable characteristics and behaviors of school shooters, most of which kill themselves shortly before or immediately after they face armed opposition. Acting in this way is hardly inherently brave. It is also not false to observe their means of killing themselves nor the fact that most do so when facing armed opposition. Macho has nothing to do with arming teachers, rather it is the only pragmatic, effective way to reduce, even eliminate casualties.
As to a downside, there are problems inherent in everything schools do. However, when the upside is saving lives and the downsides are far lesser ills, this is a very logically and practically lopsided debate indeed.
Chip Bennett said:
As usual, Colion Noir lays it out. How to stop mass shootings? Eliminate defenseless-victim free-fire areas known as “gun free zones”, and stop deifying sociopath mass murderers:
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike: “You’re erecting straw men here. I certainly did not suggest that shooter attack only in gun-free zones.”
That right. *You* certainly did not suggest that.
However, some commenters have asserted it.
What you said was : “There is no doubt that mass killers carefully choose their targets, preferring gun free zones.”
This is not correct – at least going by “The Worst 25 Mass Shootings” that I referenced.
In at least 19 of the 25, there is no doubt but that “gun free zones” had absolutely no bearing on their choice. Their beef was directly with the place and/or with particular people in that place.
I think that should be “at least 20”, as the McDonalds shooter had just spent his last wife-and-kids time at the zoo and at a McDonalds. He had developed a hatred for humanity over the course of his clearly unfortunate life. In his last hours, the object of his hatred all around him being happy and driving him over the edge.
In summary: “gun free” was not a factor in “the Worst 25 (by death-count)” shooters’ choices. This is objective fact – not an opinion or theory.
.
Calling them cowards is indeed just name-calling.
Whether or not they are cowardly or brave is moot. The important thing is that they are crazy.
Mostly, but not universally, they take their own lives – but it was their plan to do so.
Some have done so before cops arrived. Some have engaged in gun-battles during which they get shot by others or shoot themselves. Some have stood around or wandered off and got arrested later..
Some have worn body armor – indicating that they expected a possibility of coming under fire, or that it was simply fetish-wear. In the case of the Florida salon shooting – where presumably there could have been CCW around, the shooter wore body armor.
He, as just one example, wanted to kill his ex and her associates. End of. Gun-free and CCW was not a barrier for his plan. Like the other 18/19 shooters of the 25, that location, regardless of any gun status, was where his target was.
Calling them cowards is worse than mere name-calling. It suggests a totally bogus solution.
Just above, Chip offers “Colion Noir lays it out. How to stop mass shootings?”
What are we meant to understand by “stop” in that headline and in the video?
I think that a large audience will interpret it as “No more mass shootings”. I think that is the intention.
That meaning of “stop” is clearly false.
That’s not a straw man. That’s a human man with fiercely-burning bale of straw firmly lodged in his ass.
The truth is that a presence of some CCW at the location of a mass shooting may help to reduce body-count. It will not prevent shooters from “going postal” which is what 19/20 of the 25 Worst did.
.
I remind you of my position on the matter of CCW teachers.
I wrote above:
“I do agree with you DNS.
Something is better than nothing.
What we might disagree on are ….”
Accepting that crazy disaffected people have easy access to significant fire-power, then arming teachers could help to reduce body-count.
So allow teachers to carry – those that are prepared to and have a certain level of training/expertise.
Just be aware that
1) It’s not a solution. It will not stop shootings. It’s a hope for damage-limitation.
2) You now have teachers who will be bringing guns into confrontational situations with students. The numbers I linked to above are probably objective fact.
I honestly don’t know how a balance between (1) and (2) would work out.
Realistically, as a statistical projection, you probably have a very small number of schools at which a shooting will take place.
However, you now have every school in the country with armed teachers. From the numbers on school violence that I linked above, some number of those teachers will be involved in violent confrontations with students.
I think it’s a certainty that down the line, teachers will end up shooting students and/or will be shot by students who have taken their gun.
.
So…
Arm teachers, but……
Be aware that doing so is simply the very last line of defence. It is a desperation measure.
To assert or even hint that this will stop shootings is very very dangerous nonsense. It’s dangerous because it invites inaction on other fronts.
While we’re at it, arm some of the students.
That follows the same logic.
I would trust a few clued-in seniors to protect my kids from a shooter more than I would trust that pompous lard-ass incompetent Franks (not his real name) .
That could increase the chances for a lesser body count, but of course there could be down-sides.
.