27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Rum]

Sheer arsehattery of the first order.

There's a risk that terrorists might hijack a plane and fly it into a school. Does that mean it is negligent not to build plane proof bunkers?

[Blind groper]

Seth is in a minority in his belief that people should be permitted to carry guns concealed.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/4/282.full

I quote from the conclusion :

"Conclusions—The public believes that increased gun carrying by others reduces rather than increases their safety. Overwhelmingly, the public believes that in many venues gun carrying should be prohibited."

[aspire1670]

No armed cops or metal detectors at my high school (96-2000) or at the high school my daughter will go to.

So, you DON'T care if your daughter is slaughtered like an animal by some deranged gunman. Very illuminating.

Why bother posting things like this? Trying to convince us that you're an enlightened, rational one? You only make yourself sound like a callous jerk. And not a very intelligent one at that.

Go hide in your bunker and rant about those Marxists or something.

No, I'll continue to make my point using whatever controversial language is required. For someone to say, in a thread about a deadly attack on schoolchildren, that she's determined to send her daughter to a school that DOES NOT have adequate protections in place to keep deranged shooters out of the school is a classic example of liberal hoplophobe head-in-the-sand denial that got all those poor kids killed in Connecticut.

From the latest reports it appears that the killer gained entry to the building by smashing out a window so he could unlock the door. While the principle bravely tried to physically attack him and stop him, which is one of the bravest things I've heard of lately, the question still remains as to why and how the killer was able to gain entry simply by breaking a window.

No security foyer barrier glass should be anything but ballistic-rated glass, and the doors should be heavy-duty ballistic-rated doors that can be electrically deadbolted (both inner and outer) to create a bullet-proof man-trap.

So it appears that what happened here was gross negligence on the part of the school board in not taking security and the threat of a school shooter seriously enough, and considering cost and "appearance" over student safety in upgrading the school's entryway.

This is not in the least bit uncommon, because educators don't want to think about these sorts of things, and school boards don't want to spend the money it takes to hire professional security engineers and designers, and the costs involved in making schools truly secure.

As I said, if Obama wants to do something meaningful to prevent this sort of thing, he'll divert all that Race to the Trough money he's been spending trying to coerce school districts and states into signing on to federal educational mandates (universal Marxist indoctrination curricula) and he'll use the facilities of the Department of Defense and Homeland Security to create construction and renovation guidelines for all schools, and direct federal consultation by federal experts in actually performing the work to harden every schoolhouse in America to a minimum standard that will actually keep a deranged gunman from gaining access to the halls...and he'll pay for it all out of federal education money.

That would be a real and meaningful response to this slaughter. But he won't. He'll instead dance on the graves of the children while enacting regulations that will be utterly useless in preventing school shootings that are intended only to forward his Marxist anti-gun agenda and his attempts to disarm law abiding Americans.

Because he doesn't care about schoolchildren, he cares about his Progressive Marxist agenda, and to get that into place he FIRST has to figure out how to disarm the citizenry. To him, those children are martyrs to the Progressive Marxist cause.

My favourite progressive Marxist was Harpo. He spoke a lot of sense, Seth. You should be guided by his example.

[Jason]

So your solution is to turn every school into a maximum security facility - because the children must naturally be prevented from being able to open the doors from the inside and unintentionally allowing an attacker entry.

[Seth]

The solution to a disease is not more disease.

First you need to properly identify the disease. You haven't. Guns aren't the disease, people are. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are antibiotics that can cure the disease, or at least lessen its severity.

[Rum]

The solution to a disease is not more disease.

First you need to properly identify the disease. You haven't. Guns aren't the disease, people are. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are antibiotics that can cure the disease, or at least lessen its severity.

Everyone is a law abiding citizen.

Until they break the law.

[aspire1670]

aspire1670, this post contains a personal attack on another member. This is a reminder that personal attacks are against forum rules. Repeated rule violations will result in a warning and, if continued, possible temporary suspension(s). Please refrain from addressing fellow forum members in personally derogatory terms, and focus on the ideas instead. Thank you.


Gallstones, this post contains a personal attack on another member. This is a reminder that personal attacks are against forum rules. Repeated rule violations will result in a warning and, if continued, possible temporary suspension(s). Please refrain from addressing fellow forum members in personally derogatory terms, and focus on the ideas instead. Thank you.

You are quite correct and I apologise to J of N. I should of course have described J of N's post as a clear example of dumb fuckery.

aspire 1670, your post is a clear example of ignoring our forum rules, particularly the injunction to play nice. This post is a warning from the staff to refrain from such behavior in future posts, or you may be subject to a suspension.

Your post is an even clearer example of not understanding your own rules. But thst's hardly a surprise.

[Jason]

Yes, but everyone is not sane until they go on a shooting rampage.

[Blind groper]

Let me add something to the argument about concealed carry.

Seth believes that it reduces crime. The basis for this belief is the observation that more Americans these days are carrying concealed guns and the crime rate is dropping. Fine. But that is not cause and effect. The problem with that argument is that crime rates throughout the entire civilised world are dropping in parallel with the drop in crime rates in the USA.

How is it that crime rates drop in so many countries where concealed carry is prohibited?

The answer, as I have pointed out before, is that the entire western world is undergoing a demographic change - age structure. All those western nations are moving to a state with a lower percentage of young people, and a higher percentage of older people. One effect is to reduce crime, and especially violent crime, since older people are less prone to committing those crimes. It has exactly nothing at all to do with concealed carry.

No one actually knows what increased concealed carry will do, but the majority of Americans certainly do not believe it makes them safer. Quite the reverse, and they are probably right.

[Seth]

So your solution is to turn every school into a maximum security facility - because the children must naturally be prevented from being able to open the doors from the inside and unintentionally allowing an attacker entry.

Depends on the door. Yes, there are still vulnerabilities that have to be addressed, the most significant of which are fire exits and other exterior doors leading to outdoor areas.

The obvious first line of defense is the "closed campus," wherein the entire campus is surrounded by fencing that keeps persons from entering the schoolyard from the outside. Not infallible, but another in the layers of protection required.

Fire doors obviously have to be alarmed so that if they are opened it is immediately detected. This prevents the common practice of teachers propping open fire exits for "fresh air" or other reasons.

And every other entry to the building must be built to the same bullet-proof lockdown standards with "man trap" foyers and multiple levels of barriers.

But that's not all that's required of course. You still have to have armed teachers and staff in each segment who can engage a shooter if he makes it inside. And you have to have adequate monitoring of the entry and exit of students from the building to the grounds to help prevent an attacker from getting in that way. Armed teachers on the perimeter of the outside areas during recess is appropriate.

Perhaps in some places, double layer fencing with intrusion detection in the space between would be appropriate.

The security measures can be designed and built so that they look perfectly ordinary and don't look like a "prison," and ballistic reinforcement of classroom walls, doors and other safety areas can also be accomplished invisibly, so your rebuttal is specious nonsense.

But in short, yes, if it takes a bunker-like building with thick concrete and bullet proof glass and armed guards to keep kids safe, so be it. Their safety is more important than your loony aesthetic sensibilities.

Put the priorities in the right order, and spend what is required to make schools safe and these sort of attacks won't happen, even if everybody in the country carries a gun. Pander to loony hoplophobes and panty-waist liberal know-nothings who are more worried about the tender psyches of schoolchildren than they are about their actual physical safety, and these sorts of attacks will continue to occur.

[Seth]

The solution to a disease is not more disease.

First you need to properly identify the disease. You haven't. Guns aren't the disease, people are. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are antibiotics that can cure the disease, or at least lessen its severity.

Everyone is a law abiding citizen.

Until they break the law.

So, until they break the law, they have the liberty to be law abiding citizens. Or are you suggesting that we simply lock everyone up because they MIGHT commit a crime someday?

[Jason]

Concealed carry works on the same principle as nuclear deterrent. Once the arms race is initiated it's practically impossible to de-escalate it.

[Seth]

Seth is in a minority in his belief that people should be permitted to carry guns concealed.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/4/282.full

I quote from the conclusion :

"Conclusions—The public believes that increased gun carrying by others reduces rather than increases their safety. Overwhelmingly, the public believes that in many venues gun carrying should be prohibited."

Irrelevant, and factually untrue.

First, the true will of the majority is expressed by the legislatures of the states, 40 of which have determined that citizens are more safe, or at least are not less safe when licensed concealed carry is permitted, which is why they have voted to permit CCW. A telephone poll of a couple of thousand people doesn't trump the careful deliberation, examination of evidence and resulting legislation of 40 states. The research you cite is crap science.

Second, it's not relevant what the "public" believes because the right to armed self defense is an inherent, unalienable, natural and INDIVIDUAL right in this country and as such, it's not subject to the tyranny of the majority, any more than a woman's right to abortion is.

[aspire1670]

The solution to a disease is not more disease.

First you need to properly identify the disease. You haven't. Guns aren't the disease, people are. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are antibiotics that can cure the disease, or at least lessen its severity.

An antibiotic is a selective poison. It has been chosen so that it will kill the desired bacteria, but not the cells in your body. Whereas a bullet, not so much. If you don't believe me try shooting yourself in the head.

[Jason]

So your solution is to turn every school into a maximum security facility - because the children must naturally be prevented from being able to open the doors from the inside and unintentionally allowing an attacker entry.

Depends on the door. Yes, there are still vulnerabilities that have to be addressed, the most significant of which are fire exits and other exterior doors leading to outdoor areas.

The obvious first line of defense is the "closed campus," wherein the entire campus is surrounded by fencing that keeps persons from entering the schoolyard from the outside. Not infallible, but another in the layers of protection required.

Fire doors obviously have to be alarmed so that if they are opened it is immediately detected. This prevents the common practice of teachers propping open fire exits for "fresh air" or other reasons.

And every other entry to the building must be built to the same bullet-proof lockdown standards with "man trap" foyers and multiple levels of barriers.

But that's not all that's required of course. You still have to have armed teachers and staff in each segment who can engage a shooter if he makes it inside. And you have to have adequate monitoring of the entry and exit of students from the building to the grounds to help prevent an attacker from getting in that way. Armed teachers on the perimeter of the outside areas during recess is appropriate.

Perhaps in some places, double layer fencing with intrusion detection in the space between would be appropriate.

The security measures can be designed and built so that they look perfectly ordinary and don't look like a "prison," and ballistic reinforcement of classroom walls, doors and other safety areas can also be accomplished invisibly, so your rebuttal is specious nonsense.

But in short, yes, if it takes a bunker-like building with thick concrete and bullet proof glass and armed guards to keep kids safe, so be it. Their safety is more important than your loony aesthetic sensibilities.

Put the priorities in the right order, and spend what is required to make schools safe and these sort of attacks won't happen, even if everybody in the country carries a gun. Pander to loony hoplophobes and panty-waist liberal know-nothings who are more worried about the tender psyches of schoolchildren than they are about their actual physical safety, and these sorts of attacks will continue to occur.

Other objections aside, that would be prohibitively expensive. The teachers would have to be trained and paid to do two jobs - teach and act as a member of a garrison. All existing schools would have to be surveyed and extensively renovated. All new schools would be immensely more expensive to construct. In short, the public education system could not afford these measures.