the SOP in an active shooter situation was to wait for the heavily armed and protected response teams (SWAT). The SOP today is for the first responding officers to engage the shooter(s). I do not know if children are any safer in the years since Columbine.

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2015, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)

They don't mind security at the courthouse, but school security....no way! We'd rather them be dead than safe!

...security considerations should begin with a safety and risk assessment. Threats, responses and means of mitigating these are considered and a plan to implement these responses and mitigating measures is developed. The plan would always include a schedule and a budget.

This would be considered a pro-gun response in that security measures, including the addition of armed security and/or arming present faculty and staff would be involved. There has been no push for this.

Disarming the nation as a whole or somehow expanding BGCs a mandating addition security from parents of students regarding weapons and supervision hasn't happened. No concerted plan to respond to a Columbine type incident has been forwarded and campaigned for on the part of pro-control.

My only conclusion, over 15 years after Dave Kopel wrote this article, is that from the president to the present day students' parents, everyone is comfortable with the current state of school security being the same as it was on 20 April 1999 for the most part.

I get the idea that public areas like the Walmart parking lot or public side walk in Time Square are places where you 'take your chances and roll your own dice' so to speak. The fact that we have designated "drug/gun free" zones means we think of those places as different and special. The fact that no change or even plan of improvement exists tells me that they're just not that special.

I hope there are no events any time soon and certainly no shootings at schools but whenever all these mouths, Watts, Nugent, Bloomberg, LaPierre, Feinstein, Rubio, Clinton, start talking again about some event, I'll know they're just looking for attention and don't really give a shit.

Good example of people feeling it's; "more important to feel good about yourself (gun free zone signs) than actually doing anything practical". They really don't like the way the real world solutions to the issue make them feel, so its easier to just pretend the problem is solved.

Or, from my more cynical side, maybe it's reflective of some people that are more interested in having the issue and feeling morally superior, than actually solving the problem.

I'm a bit less cynical than you. Should the rate of shootings drop, the pro-control folks will respond with a lot of mutual admiration for fellow restrictionists and their efforts that have finally begun to pay off. The pro-gun speakers will meanwhile proclaim they were right all along and that the increase in number of guns has no bearing on shootings.

Should shootings continue unabated, I expect all of those I named (and many others) to speak a lot, say very little and actually do even less.

After Sandy Hook, I suggested grants-in-aid to schoold districts to bolster security, harden facilities, screen visitors, or take other reasonable actions at the respective districts discretion. The hue and cry was against putting armed personnel in school and moral condemnation, glossing over the fact there were already 20,000 armed police at some 100,000 schools.

I believe the controller/banner/confiscator mainly cares about its static year-after-year doctrines as much as they care about the spectacular mass murder victims. Nothing passes muster with them if it doesn't involve bans and reams of regulations.

The ban battle Is The Thing.

The feds offer grants to the states to help defray the cost of NICS reporting. School grants could be funneled the same way. The money gets used by the states to fund plans that schools formulate along with their home/school/parent organizations. The school is empowered to do what fits its needs best (with state oversight).

IMNSHO both sides have more interest in proving themselves "right" than actually changing anything.

The debate is dominated by the extremes, now more than ever. Andnit will stay that way as long as the extremes -- esp. among the control/ban/confiscate contingent -- insist on culture war; after all, they have been at it for the longest time, and that approach is welded to MSM.