School shootings....

[Andrew Colglazier]

Well, short of a gun, there are a few things which might be doable to secure a room.

Door bars are a possibility. These are bars which are designed to brace under a doorknob to prevent the door from being opened. They offer an extra level of strength to a locked door. They can be purchased from Walmart and the like for a few dollars.

At time of need, they can be retrieved from a corner and jammed under the knob. Of course, the door has to open in to make this thing effective.

Also; many schoolrooms have doors with sideglass, so someone passing by can look in. Sometimes they are reinforced with wire, sometimes not. I would be tempted to place a big filing cabinet right in front of the side glass to block the view of anyone on the outside. One on each sideo of the door would be even better.

Full of books and paper, they would make effective bullet stops.

Andy

 

[jh205]

Interesting thread.

On a slightly different note, what would you guys say is the reason that the US homicide rate is significantly higher than most other developed countries (5-6 per 100,000 in the US as against 1-2 per 100,000 in Western Europe, Australia etc.)?

 

[Jeff Clark]

Interesting thread.

On a slightly different note, what would you guys say is the reason that the US homicide rate is significantly higher than most other developed countries (5-6 per 100,000 in the US as against 1-2 per 100,000 in Western Europe, Australia etc.)?

The US was settled by a bunch of malcontents with a low threshold of action. We were the first British colony to take up arms and successfully rebel. Subsequently we attracted immigrants who would rather fight and switch. Europe is filled with the descendents of the placid "left behinds" while Australia was first settled by petty criminals who were forcefully transported. The only remarkable thing is that the US homicide rate is so low.

 

[Keith_H]

We do "lock-down" drills at school, just to place an artificial calm on people, when everybody knows that crouching in a group under desks will not be of much help (i've heard that the people near the door are supposed to rush the gunman).

I may be of the small minority that thinks that people carrying guns wont make the situation any better, If somebody like the Virginia school shooter is having homicidal thoughts, then they should have counselling, not carry a gun.

I don't think that gun free zones have any higher a chance of having shootings take place than a non-gun free zone.

 

[raghorn]

A large group of unarmed people, if they have the will, need to rapidly and continuously throw everything they can get their hands on at the assailant - shoes, books, chairs, etc., rush and dogpile the assailant. Sounds easy on paper, but the reality is that people are going to get shot. But if the alternative is getting shot while passively cowering, it's still a choice.

The armed response consists of rapid isolation and engagement - speed, surprise and violence of action. The first person on scene goes in for the kill, hopefully with a backup, but speed is the most important element.

Just remember that the same door barriers suggested to keep an assailant out will assist the assailant in barricading himself and victims inside, which buys him more time to carry out his action.

 

[I'mGatMan!]

After my thread yesterday, I think I'm going to come up with a few different plans for the varying classroom environs we have at my high school, and present them to the principal. Maybe he'd be willing to let me lead a workshop on making the classroom safer/more defensible during a professional development day.

Is it possible for you, or a you and a group of your co-workers to do the same for your college/university?

 

[Coldwood]

Interesting thread.

On a slightly different note, what would you guys say is the reason that the US homicide rate is significantly higher than most other developed countries (5-6 per 100,000 in the US as against 1-2 per 100,000 in Western Europe, Australia etc.)?

I don't know. But let's don't go thinking that our homicide rate is done by lone gunmen shooting down innocent people on the street. A lot of homicides occur in the kitchen, with a kitchen knife, after an evening of drinking and arguing. Some are the results of beatings with fists, etc. (Edit: It seems most homicides are done by somebody the victim knows personally) Read any newspaper, you will find homicides by all kinds of various means.

On the other hand, I think some of the most violent and dangerous places in the world are not America, but almost any country in Africa, and especially lately Kenya; Southeast Asia; China; Mexico City; the Middle East.

 

[Bufford]

Interesting thread.

On a slightly different note, what would you guys say is the reason that the US homicide rate is significantly higher than most other developed countries (5-6 per 100,000 in the US as against 1-2 per 100,000 in Western Europe, Australia etc.)?

Significantly higher? No if anything these numbers are proof that there is really no difference in homicide rates here. These numbers suggest that the increase is only 3-5 more people per 100,000. 100,000 is alot of people, while3-5 persons are not. The gun control lobby will however flog these numbers forever to no end, in their plight to take away the guns, and the anti knife lobby will argue the same way too.

Far more people are killed in just one snowstorm on the roads, yet none of the 'nanny lobbies' are making a big deal about those deaths.

 

[Andrew Colglazier]

I don't know. But let's don't go thinking that our homicide rate is done by lone gunmen shooting down innocent people on the street. A lot of homicides occur in the kitchen, with a kitchen knife, after an evening of drinking and arguing. Some are the results of beatings with fists, etc. (Edit: It seems most homicides are done by somebody the victim knows personally) Read any newspaper, you will find homicides by all kinds of various means.

On the other hand, I think some of the most violent and dangerous places in the world are not America, but almost any country in Africa, and especially lately Kenya; Southeast Asia; China; Mexico City; the Middle East.

Very true. These types of shootings are statistically insignificant in the bigger picture.

The US has a different demographic than any other nation... countries that are largely homogeneous such as Japan or Sweden lack the racial and social tensions that have plagued the US, for example.

Countries with a mix of nationalities within their borders have higher crime and murder rates.

Countries controlled by despots and dicatators have a comparatively low murder rate within the population... because the government has a monopoly on force. Witness the defunct USSR, which had a relatively low murder rate, or even pre-war Iraq.

The EU countries have experienced a spike in crime since the experiment in open borders between economically diverse economies has commenced...

Where you have freedom and flux, you will have a higher crime rate than places where you have homogeniety and an overbearing state.

Andy

 

[Andrew Colglazier]

A large group of unarmed people, if they have the will, need to rapidly and continuously throw everything they can get their hands on at the assailant - shoes, books, chairs, etc., rush and dogpile the assailant. Sounds easy on paper, but the reality is that people are going to get shot. But if the alternative is getting shot while passively cowering, it's still a choice.

The armed response consists of rapid isolation and engagement - speed, surprise and violence of action. The first person on scene goes in for the kill, hopefully with a backup, but speed is the most important element.

Most people don't have the will. They might react strongly one on one if attacked, but in a group, the usual psychology is the same as for a flock of birds or a school of fish attacked by a predator. We hope that the other guy will get it in the neck, and not me.

People who haven't had any training won't generally think of attacking an assailant. They haven't developed the mindset, and they have no plan. They also will look for a leader; if no leader appears, the mass is just a mass.

Most people have no warrior mentality; they live their lives in complete safety, and have trouble even comprehending the fact that sudden violence is indeed happening. In fact, the vast majority of people in our society look on someone with a warrior mentality as a potentially dangerous oddity, not as a role model.

Law abiding citizens who arm themselves have thought about the possibility of attack, and have taken steps to prevent becoming victims. People who are more concerned about being kicked out of school or losing their jobs than arming themselves, have made the rational decision to do so and I don't quibble with it. The odds that they will need the weapon are miniscule, and their education or livelihood is quite important.

But..... in the event that you need to defend yourself, don't think for a moment that "the other guy/gal" standing next to you in the crowd will follow you in against the bad guy.

You have to always think that you will have to take action on your own. I applaud Dan for doing this.

Andy

 

[hotrodKelley]

I think the psychotropic drugs, television, video games, laws that infringe on the Constitution, the chemicals they put into the water and food, are to blame for these types of incidences.

Parents don't raise their kids anymore the t.v. and video games do.

When children act like children,(and they do most times), they must have ADD or whatever "new" symptom they create to sell you on a smorgasbord of toxic drugs that the side affects are endless......

Now you have a kid who doesn't have parents who raise him but the t.v. and violent video games, on top of taking drugs that keep him from "acting up."

On top of this you have the government telling us what we need to do to curb violence is to forfeit our guns, to be safe, and "let the police handle situations like this" as "they are more qualified". Police aren't paid to protect you. ONLY YOU can protect yourself, not the police or government. Hence, the 2nd Amendment. But the Constitution is just a "G.D. piece of paper", as GW-bush put it, so why should we rely on that?

We are in trouble folks.

 

[hotrodKelley]

I think the psychotropic drugs, television, video games, laws that infringe on the Constitution, the chemicals they put into the water and food, are to blame for these types of incidences.

Parents don't raise their kids anymore the t.v. and video games do.

When children act like children,(and they do most times), they must have ADD or whatever "new" symptom they create to sell you on a smorgasbord of toxic drugs that the side affects are endless......

Now you have a kid who doesn't have parents who raise him but the t.v. and violent video games, on top of taking drugs that keep him from "acting up."

On top of this you have the government telling us what we need to do to curb violence is to forfeit our guns, to be safe, and "let the police handle situations like this" as "they are more qualified". Police aren't paid to protect you. ONLY YOU can protect yourself, not the police or government. Hence, the 2nd Amendment. But the Constitution is just a "G.D. piece of paper", as GW-bush put it, so why should we rely on that?

We are in trouble folks.

Just read on yahoo news that he had received psychiatric treatment and was taking "medication". See? I told you.

 

[jh205]

Significantly higher? No if anything these numbers are proof that there is really no difference in homicide rates here. These numbers suggest that the increase is only 3-5 more people per 100,000. 100,000 is alot of people, while3-5 persons are not.

Of course 5-6 people is not a significant number in relation to 100,000, but if you extrapolate these stats to raw numbers it becomes very significant. If the US homicide rate is 5.5 per 100,000, that equates to a total of 16,500 murder victims per year. At European homicide rates (say 1.5), the raw figure would be 4500 victims per year. Thats a difference of 12,000 individual human lives lost per year, which is obviously very significant.

My guess is that there are parts of the US (the South, some inner city areas etc.) which in economic and social terms are a lot closer to 2nd world countries in Eastern Europe and South America than they are to developed countries such as Japan or Western Europe. I bet if you looked closer at the stats, these areas would account for the higher homicide rates, whilst the rest of the US would have a homicide rate closer to other developed countries.

 

[Coldwood]

Of course 5-6 people is not a significant number in relation to 100,000, but if you extrapolate these stats to raw numbers it becomes very significant. If the US homicide rate is 5.5 per 100,000, that equates to a total of 16,500 murder victims per year. At European homicide rates (say 1.5), the raw figure would be 4500 victims per year. Thats a difference of 12,000 individual human lives lost per year, which is obviously very significant.

My guess is that there are parts of the US (the South, some inner city areas etc.) which in economic and social terms are a lot closer to 2nd world countries in Eastern Europe and South America than they are to developed countries such as Japan or Western Europe. I bet if you looked closer at the stats, these areas would account for the higher homicide rates, whilst the rest of the US would have a homicide rate closer to other developed countries.

I don't know what part of the world you live in, but I think you just stepped in some serious doodoo. Comparing the South to Eastern European countries can get you killed (and I mean that in a light-handed way, not to be taken seriously)

I hate to bore you with facts, but you might take a look at this: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance.htm which says that violent crime in America has declined since '93. But if you don't like these facts, then you can Google your own.

Many homicides happen between criminals...and America is blessed lately with Russian mafia, Mexican mafia, Colombian drug cartels, etc....I don't mind if we lose a few thousand of them.

 

[Bufford]

Of course 5-6 people is not a significant number in relation to 100,000, but if you extrapolate these stats to raw numbers it becomes very significant. If the US homicide rate is 5.5 per 100,000, that equates to a total of 16,500 murder victims per year. At European homicide rates (say 1.5), the raw figure would be 4500 victims per year. Thats a difference of 12,000 individual human lives lost per year, which is obviously very significant.

How so? Remember that America has over 300,000,000 people. 12,000 is a very small number in comparison. The reality is that there is going to be a mortality rate of some percentage. And these numbers can be broken down and argued about forever, like the gun control lobby does.