Texas shooting.
-
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
Right, because I hate firefighters. I don't actually hate firefighters, but it would probably be ok if more people understood that their hero status is not based on consistently passing tests like these that the cops failed.
Did you know that almost 70% of firefighters in this country are volunteers?
@Copper said in Texas shooting.:
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
Right, because I hate firefighters. I don't actually hate firefighters, but it would probably be ok if more people understood that their hero status is not based on consistently passing tests like these that the cops failed.
Did you know that almost 70% of firefighters in this country are volunteers?
I suspect volunteer school shooter fighters would not wait for backup. But the posts Aqua is remembering, are probably my commentary on the unionized fire fighters in larger cities. Jobs for which applications pile up to the ceiling. There's a reason for that.
-
I suspect if lots of money is spent hardening schools that a fair amount of time is going to be spent explaining how an attack that occurred just wasn’t possible
I honestly don’t think that turning our children’s places of work, and in some cases their refuge, into fortresses is a good idea at all. What kind of message does it send? Aren’t we already being accused of being the overprotective generation?
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
I suspect if lots of money is spent hardening schools that a fair amount of time is going to be spent explaining how an attack that occurred just wasn’t possible
I honestly don’t think that turning our children’s places of work, and in some cases their refuge, into fortresses is a good idea at all. What kind of message does it send? Aren’t we already being accused of being the overprotective generation?
Agreed. I would rather err on the side of open than over protection. When I lived in Virginia the baseball games went from a turnstile to a thorough security check. In MN luckily so far it’s back to a turnstile.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
I suspect if lots of money is spent hardening schools that a fair amount of time is going to be spent explaining how an attack that occurred just wasn’t possible
I honestly don’t think that turning our children’s places of work, and in some cases their refuge, into fortresses is a good idea at all. What kind of message does it send? Aren’t we already being accused of being the overprotective generation?
Agreed. I would rather err on the side of open than over protection. When I lived in Virginia the baseball games went from a turnstile to a thorough security check. In MN luckily so far it’s back to a turnstile.
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
I suspect if lots of money is spent hardening schools that a fair amount of time is going to be spent explaining how an attack that occurred just wasn’t possible
I honestly don’t think that turning our children’s places of work, and in some cases their refuge, into fortresses is a good idea at all. What kind of message does it send? Aren’t we already being accused of being the overprotective generation?
Agreed. I would rather err on the side of open than over protection. When I lived in Virginia the baseball games went from a turnstile to a thorough security check. In MN luckily so far it’s back to a turnstile.
The thought of seeing these innocent, wide-eyed kids at age 6 being shepherded through high-security checkpoints by armed security guards is too dismal for words.
And arming teachers?
There has to be a better solution than further militarizing American society. The police already look like military units, and it's not a good look.
-
@89th said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
I suspect if lots of money is spent hardening schools that a fair amount of time is going to be spent explaining how an attack that occurred just wasn’t possible
I honestly don’t think that turning our children’s places of work, and in some cases their refuge, into fortresses is a good idea at all. What kind of message does it send? Aren’t we already being accused of being the overprotective generation?
Agreed. I would rather err on the side of open than over protection. When I lived in Virginia the baseball games went from a turnstile to a thorough security check. In MN luckily so far it’s back to a turnstile.
The thought of seeing these innocent, wide-eyed kids at age 6 being shepherded through high-security checkpoints by armed security guards is too dismal for words.
And arming teachers?
There has to be a better solution than further militarizing American society. The police already look like military units, and it's not a good look.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
too dismal for words.
Yes, it is.
And just as dismal
One side or the other, either democrat or republican, cnn or fox, will demand militarized schools. And that will be the end of the discussion. The line will be drawn.
-
Who is suggesting high security checkpoints? All I’m saying is once the school day starts and the kids are in, lock it down with one secure point of ingress where any visitor must be seen and ask for entry.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
A local candidate for school board dropped by today and I helped him with part of his platform...We were kicking the security stuff around and he told me something I didn't know. This school district was among the first, if not the very first, to put resource officer in every school - elementary, middle and high school.
Poor as we are, everybody should be able to do that.
-
Who is suggesting high security checkpoints? All I’m saying is once the school day starts and the kids are in, lock it down with one secure point of ingress where any visitor must be seen and ask for entry.
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
Who is suggesting high security checkpoints? All I’m saying is once the school day starts and the kids are in, lock it down with one secure point of ingress where any visitor must be seen and ask for entry.
Donald Trump is suggesting fortified single points of entry, metal detectors, and at least one armed officer on every campus.
I was only joking
-
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
Who is suggesting high security checkpoints? All I’m saying is once the school day starts and the kids are in, lock it down with one secure point of ingress where any visitor must be seen and ask for entry.
Donald Trump is suggesting fortified single points of entry, metal detectors, and at least one armed officer on every campus.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
Who is suggesting high security checkpoints? All I’m saying is once the school day starts and the kids are in, lock it down with one secure point of ingress where any visitor must be seen and ask for entry.
Donald Trump is suggesting fortified single points of entry, metal detectors, and at least one armed officer on every campus.
I don’t expect arguments against these sorts of measures to survive another shooting.
-
Exactly. This will continue to happen. They are beyond tragic, but also ridiculously rare. Work to require enhanced licensure for AR-15s (like a CDL to drive a big rig) and other similar ideas, but locking down schools further I can’t imagine will have any real impact. Wait, it’ll have an impact….not what you’d think, though.
-
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Texas shooting.:
40 miles.
So he took a bullet to the head that would have been a kill shot if the bad guy had twitched differently.
-
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
Not at all, I quite support securing the schools and support funding such measures, with attendant school bonds and property tax consequences. It’s the pro-gun yet at the same time anti-tax crowd who oftentimes stand in the way of actually funding the measures to beef up school security.
You seem to be a bit “head in the sand” where you appear unwilling to acknowledge the real limitations to beefing up school security, and keep thinking that doing so will always be cheap and simple. Perhaps a little reexaminations of your assumptions wouldn’t hurt?
-
Ax what the hell is wrong with you, man.
-
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
Not at all, I quite support securing the schools and support funding such measures, with attendant school bonds and property tax consequences. It’s the pro-gun yet at the same time anti-tax crowd who oftentimes stand in the way of actually funding the measures to beef up school security.
You seem to be a bit “head in the sand” where you appear unwilling to acknowledge the real limitations to beefing up school security, and keep thinking that doing so will always be cheap and simple. Perhaps a little reexaminations of your assumptions wouldn’t hurt?
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
Not at all, I quite support securing the schools and support funding such measures, with attendant school bonds and property tax consequences. It’s the pro-gun yet at the same time anti-tax crowd who oftentimes stand in the way of actually funding the measures to beef up school security.
You seem to be a bit “head in the sand” where you appear unwilling to acknowledge the real limitations to beefing up school security, and keep thinking that doing so will always be cheap and simple. Perhaps a little reexaminations of your assumptions wouldn’t hurt?
I never said any of that. You assumed it. Hence my assertion.
-
Anybody who thinks we can't increase security without tax increases, must assume that the security is of less value than everything else we're spending current tax money on. Ax, is that what you believe? That security is important, just not more important than what we're already spending money on?
