An excellent point you raise.



From about 5:55 to 9:56 Ben addresses specifically this.

The rest is good too, watch after the 10 minute mark to see Ben point-by-point absolutely destroy Bret Stephens argument for repeal of 2A in his column last year.

I'm glad to hear that. I hope you'll share that with your school district and get some traction going in that direction.


That is conjecture.

Schools have a duty of care. If the teachers won't protect the children, and I really don't see a problem with doing that, then they need to hire people to do so.

We don't need a coordinated political campaign to remedy this, the parents should sue the school for being negligent in their duty of care. No, they are not responsible for shooting the kids. But they are responsible for their plan of action to be "wait for the police to arrive" meanwhile dozens get shot.

The real answer is the democratic one right ? Ban all guns

The inability of anti-gunners to accept the reality that eradicating all the guns in America is a virtual impossibility that will inevitably lead to a bloodbath notwithstanding, there are actual common sense things that can be done to safeguard children at schools:

7 Simple Steps to Eliminate School Shootings Overnight
https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2018/02/18/how-to-eliminate-school-shootings-overnight-n2450380

Unfortunately I suspect the fact that these measures would likely have a huge positive impact in decreasing the frequency and lethality of school attacks and thus deprive those who really just want to #BanAllGuns of a powerfully emotional talking point that they incessantly use to emotionally manipulate people in this country is a big reason why the Bloombergs, the Pelosi's, and the Schumers of this world are against them. These measures would go far to gut their current attempts to enact the laws that they so desperately want.

The biggest problem towards finding a "solution" is that there is no solution. No matter how much money and effort and time is put into making even a single location secure, someone can cause mayhem and destruction if they are intent on doing so.



By looking to make something 100% "safe and secure" we will inevitably find ourselves walking down the path towards a totalitarian state.
This murderer killed our innocent children with an AR15, so ban AR15s.
This one used a SA handgun. Let's ban SA handguns.
Now a murderer used a few revolvers. Bam. Those are mass-killing weapons of terrorists.
I am shocked that we haven't started registering pressure cookers, since the use of one in Boston was so horrific that it allowed militarized police units to "suspend" our Constitution and Bill of Rights during the search for the murderers.

But in truth, ban AR15s and actually succeed in removing every single one in citizens' hands? They will be cranked out by good people and bad people in their garages because the technology exists, and they are TOOLS. They will be used by both good and bad people forever on.

Gun control is an empty promise of safety and security with only one real purpose in mind - disarming the civilian population.
ETA - It will still only disarm the law-abiding civilian population. Laws don't stop criminals from doing bad things. Laws in general cover the aftermath, not the action.

Precisely. Which is why the focus should be on things we can do to mitigate the chances of it happening, knowing full well that we can never remove completely the possibility that it will happen again. To leave a soft target, like a school as many currently are, with nearly no protection and in many cases virtually unfettered access is the height of naivety and stupidity. That said, I wont hold my breath that our fearless leaders will see things that way and move forward with that in mind.

Agree.
My preferred solution is the quickest (I think) of allowing any person with a CPL (or its variants) who have completed a BGC to conceal carry in any and all of our schools.
Regarding teachers and administrators- set up a program that pays for teacher training and periodic range time and ammo. The teachers and other staff can be kept private if the school administrators must know it, and the teachers trained and tested specifically for carrying in a school, good concealment and retention, etc.
That seems quick and voluntary and least expensive, not perfect. It is easy to find fault with a plan.
Armed guards - sure, but there are plenty of holes to be picked in that plan too, not least of which is the time it will take to implement a nationwide program. If we leave it to state by state - I guarantee that we're a decade away at least.

I am sure that there are plenty of people like me that can not be employed yet have passed the background check that would gladly volunteer so many days a week just for something to do.

This Texas Sheriff explains quite eloquently how he decided to support arming teachers and staff and the process is quite lengthy and thorough. Those opposed to it should watch this short video first.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/texas ... ign=buffer

Also, if I recall no school that has armed its teachers and staff en masse (and there are thousands) has ever had a mass shooting. The proof would seem to be in the pudding.

I still stand by my assertion that having one or two armed RSOs on campus is worse than nothing because, being alone and know, they are easy targets and shooters would go for them first from a starting position of concealment which the RSOs cannot anticipate without x-ray vision or hardened entrances and metal detectors. And they'd give the school a false sense of security which any deranged gunman could easily see through.

Also, lone RSOs would have to run from one end of a campus to the other. When seconds count the RSO is a couple minutes away.

I agree, except that I would still preferred to have armed RSO's over nothing at all.
Here's why : If a murderer were to have to choose between two schools (one with and one without armed RSOs) I believe that the choice would be the softest target.
Sure, they can be defeated - but we are talking about a standard murder situation, not an Ocean's 11 type of planning.

Layers of security work best. Most of us know that because of training or study or both.

Not only is having an RSO worse than nothing because of the false sense of security it will bestow but it also gives the antis "proof" that when a school shooting will occur that armed people couldn't stop it (when in reality the problem was not enough armed people) so we shouldn't bother with defending schools with guns.

Wrong. Flat wrong. The SRO's actions (or inaction) in the Douglas HS shooting have yet to be publicly examined. All that I have read/seen is that he never laid eyes on the shooter. Other assertions made right here on this board, like that SRO's are easily tracked and tagged, are also flat wrong, at least in the BSD.

I've said it before and it bothers me to have to say it again: The SRO at the Douglas HS shooting failed in his duty to attempt to protect students. Period, full stop. I am friends with several SRO's and former SRO's (yes, the do get reassigned to other units; they are not chosen to become SRO's because of some failure in "regular" policing). The BSD/BPD policy requires that the SRO, regardless of backup, locate and engage the active shooter. My friend Jan, now a detective, was 5'3" and made a practise of blending in with the student body during dismissal times, of not having a regular patrol schedule, and of very rarely being in her office (school shooters have previously specifically targeted admin and SRO's first). She is friendly and affable and pays attention to things some would dismiss as minor.

Oh, and her vehicle? Loaded down with SWAT gear, with SOP calling for her to retrieve necessary weapons from her vehicle and then hunting the hunter, again regardless of proximity of back up. I do not doubt that had there ever been a major incident whilst she was working as an SRO, she would have found the shooter and done her level best to neutralise him.

So yah, you stick incompetent cowards in a high school for "security"--and yes, I'm calling out the Douglas HS SRO here--and you've done nothing to protect the students or staff. You replace incompetent cowards with motivated, well-paid (Florida isn't even near the top of the scale in pay for LEO's) trained LEO's, different outcome.

Single humans get tired.

Single humans get hungry/thirsty/have to use the bathroom.

Single humans have two eyes and can't look in different directions at the same time. A pair of shooters like Columbine could easily exploit that.

Single humans can get scared and if there's no backup then there's the possibility you raised about cowardice and dereliction of duty.

Let's forget the tagging and tracking aspect. How can one RSO effectively protect several thousand people spread out across a large area? They can't.

Arming a large group of staff mixed in with the students and spread out across the entire large campus area is the only effective answer here. Look at it from a purely tactical viewpoint and don't let emotions or hyberbole into the equation.