On stopping schoolground killers
An interesting piece on changes to police tactics. The traditional response was bring up the SWAT team, plan it out carefully, then go in. As the matter was better understood, this switched to whoever gets there first goes in immediately -- seconds passing means people dying. To my mind, this is a powerful argument for allowing teachers to be armed. The article ends:
"The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.
In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.
Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.
Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.
The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.
Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.
They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed.
As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves."
Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson....
Shocking, simply shocking.. who would have thought that a "gun free" zone would CONTRIBUTE to the problem? /sarc
Posted by: Hartley at November 17, 2008 06:49 PM
Now to inject this "discovery" into the United Nations Department of Disarmament Affairs' Programme of Action to circumvent their global gun control agenda.
Posted by: Don Hamrick at November 17, 2008 07:43 PM
any. armed. resistance.
Posted by: jon at November 17, 2008 07:49 PM
FORCING OBAMA TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
If Obama can prove his "U.S. born citizen" status to the U.S. Supreme Court, Philip J. Berg, v. Barack Obama, et al., No. 08-570 by December 1, 2008 and he is permitted to take office on Jan. 20, 2009, (IF NOT, THEN BIDEN?) then he can be asked, requested, or demanded to convene a national summit on violence in America under the following federal laws:
TITLE 42 — THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 136 — VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
SUBCHAPTER XII — PRESIDENTIAL SUMMIT ON VIOLENCE AND NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CONTROL
§ 14191. Presidential summit
Congress calls on the President to convene a national summit on violence in America prior to convening the Commission established under this subchapter.
§ 14192. Establishment; committees and task forces; representation
§ 14193. Purposes
The purposes of the Commission are as follows:
(1) To develop a comprehensive proposal for preventing and controlling crime and violence in the United States, including cost estimates for implementing any recommendations made by the Commission.
(2) To bring attention to successful models and programs in crime prevention and crime control.
(3) To reach out beyond the traditional criminal justice community for ideas for controlling and preventing crime.
(4) To recommend improvements in the coordination of local, State, Federal, and international crime control and prevention efforts, including efforts relating to crime near international borders.
(5) To make a comprehensive study of the economic and social factors leading to or contributing to crime and violence, including the causes of illicit drug use and other substance abuse, and to develop specific proposals for legislative and administrative actions to reduce crime and violence and the factors that contribute to it.
(6) To recommend means of utilizing criminal justice resources as effectively as possible, including targeting finite correctional facility space to the most serious and violent offenders, and considering increased use of intermediate sanctions for offenders who can be dealt with adequately by such means.
(7) To examine distinctive crime problems and the impact of crime on members of minority groups, Indians living on reservations, and other groups defined by race, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, or other characteristics, and to recommend specific responses to the distinctive crime problems of such groups.
(8) To examine the problem of sexual assaults, domestic violence, and other criminal and unlawful acts that particularly affect women, and to recommend Federal, State, and local strategies for more effectively preventing and punishing such crimes and acts.
(9) To examine the treatment of victims in Federal, State, and local criminal justice systems, and to develop recommendations to enhance and protect the rights of victims.
(10) To examine the ability of Federal, State, and local criminal justice systems to administer criminal law and criminal sanctions impartially without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or other legally proscribed grounds, and to make recommendations for correcting any deficiencies in the impartial administration of justice on these grounds.
(11) To examine the nature, scope, causes, and complexities of violence in schools and to recommend a comprehensive response to that problem.
§ 14194. Responsibilities of Commission
(a) In general
(b) Crime and violence generally
(c) Causes of demand for drugs
(d) Violence in schools
(e) Violence against women
§ 14195. Administrative matters
§ 14196. Staff and support services
§ 14197. Powers
§ 14198. Report; termination
§ 14199. Authorization of appropriations
Posted by: Don Hamrick at November 17, 2008 08:18 PM
Its time to repeal the laws making schools gun free zones. Do it for the children.
Posted by: Somebody #57 at November 17, 2008 08:38 PM
The TACTICIANS are only NOW realizing this?
Did they hire the dumb, crappy tacticians?
I don't know if I should laugh or cyr.
Posted by: Gregg at November 17, 2008 10:32 PM
Is it that mass murderers rarely attack armed targets, or is it that murderers who attack armed targets, rarely achieve mass?
Posted by: Critic at November 18, 2008 12:51 AM
Either way, Critic, the body count is lower when the intended target is armed and trained.
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at November 18, 2008 06:55 AM
While I agree with the article, I'm somewhat disappointed at the paltry support of it's contentions with hard references. A commenter to the article also pointed this out. It's harder to win the argument when all you can show is the equivalent of an unsupported opinion. Anonymous "researchers" and "experts" are exactly the tack anti-gunners use in their arguments. Our side should do better!
Posted by: Alan A. at November 18, 2008 11:38 AM
I suspect that a deep inquiry will find that many cops are too gutless to go in just as many cops today can't deal with dogs (see www.theagitator.com) and shoot them regardless. My father was a cop in the 50s. I nkow form experience that cops in that day and age were a cut above today's cops. Those cops knew they had to put their lives on the line for the people. Today, it's not that way.
Posted by: fwb at November 18, 2008 11:52 AM
It's always aggravating to see stories make it to press that cite unnamed experts and uncited studies. I'd like to know the source on this, the better to bug Paula Aboud and other recalcitrant members of the AZ Senate.
Posted by: Ben Kalafut at November 18, 2008 01:26 PM
Yes, it is standard police procedure now that the first four officers arriving at a shooter-in-a-building scene form an assault squad and start to clear the building, because it DOES take SWAT too long to get there.
I took several days of this training before I retired 5 years ago.
JWB, you are right, and it's been only in the last 20 years that cops have been taught Rule Number One, "be careful so you can go home to mama and the kids". That line pervades everything a cop does now, and it makes policing not only less efficient, but actually more dangerous to officers and victims at the same time.
In 1973, when I raised MY right hand and swore the oath, it was with the same understanding that military officers and NCOs have: the operation must succeed, and if you don't make it home, but the operation succeeds, you have been successful.
Nowadays, the first consideration is officer safety, not victim safety.
And we are poorer culturally for this change.
Posted by: Rivrdog at November 18, 2008 02:09 PM
It must be true that our education system has failed -- "Now tacticians believe the signs [No Gun Zone] themselves may be an invitation to the active killers." Apparently these killers can't read and so don't realize that no guns are allowed in these areas.
Posted by: Tom at November 18, 2008 03:08 PM
ben kalafut, it has been a long time since I read a cop or retired cop who actually understood the issue. You, Sir, are a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: straightarrow at November 18, 2008 04:15 PM
The cops I know mostly became cops because they were the kind of people who were ready to rush in and defend the helpless, but they are crippled by departmental policies.
I realize there are more exceptions to the above, especially in big cities with politically correct hiring policies that limit the ability to select the best candidates.
Posted by: Steve W. at November 19, 2008 12:42 AM
"I suspect that a deep inquiry will find that many cops are too gutless to go in just as many cops today can't deal with dogs (see www.theagitator.com) and shoot them regardless. My father was a cop in the 50s. I nkow form experience that cops in that day and age were a cut above today's cops. Those cops knew they had to put their lives on the line for the people. Today, it's not that way."
Gee Wally, Do you think it has anything to do with being sued?
Posted by: Tom at November 19, 2008 05:38 PM
Police officers have learned over the last 40 years that to act may expose them to criminal and civil legal jeopardy and public attacks that were virtually nonexistant before.
And 40 years ago police were not at all shy about shooting dogs either.
Posted by: cm smith at November 20, 2008 04:52 AM
I don't want to get in over my head!
Posted by: Wally at November 20, 2008 11:41 AM
Liberal brains are hard wired in a way that doesn't allow them to accept armed self defense in their world. Logic is a waste of time.
Posted by: Max at November 20, 2008 04:56 PM
Where did you find all that US CODE documentation? Is that on the books now???
Posted by: Dave at November 20, 2008 05:15 PM
I live in Oklahoma and I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I regularly carry my gun (concealed) when I pick up my kids from school or when I'm shopping at the mall. I'll risk getting in trouble if it means my family is safe.
Posted by: Brian at November 20, 2008 09:06 PM
FWB, you said "I suspect that a deep inquiry will find that many cops are too gutless..."
Wow, you could not be more wrong. You say you know from experience, but I doubt your experience was a "deep inquiry."
What an insult to our police forces here in the US for you to say something like that. Your "experience" is based on your father being your hero. I'll admit my experience and FIERCE disagreement with you is based on my own little brother being MY hero. I'll tell you he is trained to shoot to kill and he, as a police officer given authority to use his own discretion, does not have to ask permission before he shoots someone who is threatening society. You seriously lack current background to make those types of comments.
I do thank your father for his service and sacrifice for his community, which may very well be mine. But I am offended at your easy dismissal of today's cops who protect and defend us EVERY DAY and we PRAY that he goes home to his wife and son, but that's EXACTLY why he is putting his life on the line EACH AND EVERY DAY.
Please rethink your position on this.
Posted by: KT at November 21, 2008 08:36 AM
Sorry Kt, you lose this one. I have a son and a brother who are cops, and I still hold that most cops today are gutless bullies. And so does one of the aforementioned relatives.
Posted by: straightarrow at November 22, 2008 10:52 PM