HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "...your children and min...

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 10:50 AM

"...your children and mine are just as much at risk as they were the day before Columbine."

Consider: Heavily armored police with machine guns protected themselves, instead of rescuing teenagers who were being murdered a few yards away. Except for two talk show hosts, the Colorado and national media virtually ignored this reprehensible failure to act.

The anti-gun groups failed to push for the one item in their arsenal that could have prevented Columbine.

The major pro-gun groups failed to push for the one item in their arsenal that could have prevented Columbine.

And the worst of it is this: The leaders of these groups flinched not out of personal weakness but because both were pandering to congressmen who themselves lacked the nerve to take Columbine seriously. And these members of Congress were chosen in free elections by the American people, whose own lack of seriousness they well represent.


It's been 15 and half years since this was written:
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/WhatIfWeHadTakenColumbineSeriously.htm

And so, if there are two more people in America with hearts as depraved and souls as evil as the Columbine killers, your children and mine are just as much at risk as they were the day before Columbine.

8 replies, 1790 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply "...your children and mine are just as much at risk as they were the day before Columbine." (Original post)
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 OP
Snobblevitch Dec 2015 #1
ileus Dec 2015 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #3
DonP Dec 2015 #4
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #6
Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #5
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2015 #7
Eleanors38 Dec 2015 #8

Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Sun Dec 27, 2015, 09:41 PM

1. At the time of Columbine

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 07:10 AM

2. It's like they want more shootings the way they stall on school security.

Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2015, 09:43 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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 08:23 AM

3. IMHO...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 10:18 AM

4. Thoughtful and intelligent analysis - that will really piss some people off

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 04:20 PM

6. Any indignation will be short term.. until the next incident

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 12:33 PM

5. Good take on the article...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 28, 2015, 04:25 PM

7. A grant program would be a great start

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 29, 2015, 03:27 PM

8. Kates & Kleck were right 20 years ago...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread