LawBeefaroni wrote:Well, if the SRO wasn't there or decided to hide in the parking lot, it might have been different. 17 kids weren't killed so it's not as big of a story, understandably, but the what-if shouldn't be ignored.
As soon as the gunfire began, Gaskill rushed to the scene. He fired a round at the shooter, who also fired a round at the same time, Cameron said.
It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.
"DFC [Deputy First Class] Gaskill fired at the shooter ... almost simultaneously as the shooter fired," Cameron said. "This is something we train, practice and in reality, hope would never come to fruition. This is our worst nightmare."
....
Gaskill's response was hailed as an example of exactly what a resource officer is supposed to do in such a circumstance, particularly when contrasted to the actions of the security officer in last month's shooting in Parkland, Florida. (In the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, the armed school resource deputy waited outside the school building as the shooter gunned down students inside.)
Let's not overlook the SRO in question, according to an official at the press conference, was a trained SWAT responder. Not a gun enthusiast splitting his professional development hrs. between crisis response, biology, student counseling, and academic decathlon.
The longer I think about it, I'm not that fundamentally opposed trained armed people inside a school building. I have on many occasions been impressed with and grateful to our SRO'S. And I've seen teachers with great passion do alot of shit in their limited time. But we have to accept if we do this the of quality teacher/gun holder will be comparable with coaches, directors, teacher advocates etc. in both aspects of their job. I imagine each of us have known some good and some shitty. If you accept that a solid percentage of people who put in the training are going to be less good at both teaching and crisis response even with 120 hrs. of training, go for it.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Re: Shootings
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:51 pm
by Freyland
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:41 pm
Well, if the SRO wasn't there or decided to hide in the parking lot, it might have been different. 17 kids weren't killed so it's not as big of a story, understandably, but the what-if shouldn't be ignored.
As soon as the gunfire began, Gaskill rushed to the scene. He fired a round at the shooter, who also fired a round at the same time, Cameron said.
It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.
"DFC [Deputy First Class] Gaskill fired at the shooter ... almost simultaneously as the shooter fired," Cameron said. "This is something we train, practice and in reality, hope would never come to fruition. This is our worst nightmare."
....
Gaskill's response was hailed as an example of exactly what a resource officer is supposed to do in such a circumstance, particularly when contrasted to the actions of the security officer in last month's shooting in Parkland, Florida. (In the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, the armed school resource deputy waited outside the school building as the shooter gunned down students inside.)
Allow me to be more clear to my point. I applaud the actions of the well-trained officer. I am grateful he was there at that time, as well as all the time bullets have not been on the curriculum. I am not against highly trained professionals protecting us in that capacity or a variety of others.
Fox being the one to air that story (still hasn't shown up on my various news feeds), to me, is because it fits Fox's/NRA/Pathologic Conservative/Trump Wormetongue agenda nicely.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:58 am
by msteelers
A quick google search shows multiple outlets covering the story.
This isn’t a story only being covered by conservative media.
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:41 pm
Well, if the SRO wasn't there or decided to hide in the parking lot, it might have been different. 17 kids weren't killed so it's not as big of a story, understandably, but the what-if shouldn't be ignored.
As soon as the gunfire began, Gaskill rushed to the scene. He fired a round at the shooter, who also fired a round at the same time, Cameron said.
It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.
"DFC [Deputy First Class] Gaskill fired at the shooter ... almost simultaneously as the shooter fired," Cameron said. "This is something we train, practice and in reality, hope would never come to fruition. This is our worst nightmare."
....
Gaskill's response was hailed as an example of exactly what a resource officer is supposed to do in such a circumstance, particularly when contrasted to the actions of the security officer in last month's shooting in Parkland, Florida. (In the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, the armed school resource deputy waited outside the school building as the shooter gunned down students inside.)
Allow me to be more clear to my point. I applaud the actions of the well-trained officer. I am grateful he was there at that time, as well as all the time bullets have not been on the curriculum. I am not against highly trained professionals protecting us in that capacity or a variety of others.
Fox being the one to air that story (still hasn't shown up on my various news feeds), to me, is because it fits Fox's/NRA/Pathologic Conservative/Trump Wormetongue agenda nicely.
No it doesn't. An armed trained officer is much much different than an armed teacher. We already have armed officers in schools. I have no desire to carry a weapon and at least a hundred reasons not to.
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:41 pm
Well, if the SRO wasn't there or decided to hide in the parking lot, it might have been different. 17 kids weren't killed so it's not as big of a story, understandably, but the what-if shouldn't be ignored.
As soon as the gunfire began, Gaskill rushed to the scene. He fired a round at the shooter, who also fired a round at the same time, Cameron said.
It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.
"DFC [Deputy First Class] Gaskill fired at the shooter ... almost simultaneously as the shooter fired," Cameron said. "This is something we train, practice and in reality, hope would never come to fruition. This is our worst nightmare."
....
Gaskill's response was hailed as an example of exactly what a resource officer is supposed to do in such a circumstance, particularly when contrasted to the actions of the security officer in last month's shooting in Parkland, Florida. (In the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, the armed school resource deputy waited outside the school building as the shooter gunned down students inside.)
Allow me to be more clear to my point. I applaud the actions of the well-trained officer. I am grateful he was there at that time, as well as all the time bullets have not been on the curriculum. I am not against highly trained professionals protecting us in that capacity or a variety of others.
Fox being the one to air that story (still hasn't shown up on my various news feeds), to me, is because it fits Fox's/NRA/Pathologic Conservative/Trump Wormetongue agenda nicely.
No it doesn't. An armed trained officer is much much different than an armed teacher. We already have armed officers in schools. I have no desire to carry a weapon and at least a hundred reasons not to.
1) Yes, it does. Because regardless of who was the Armed Defender (in this case a highly trained hired officer), it provides an opportunity to tell the Base "See? It works to have armed protection at schools." We've discussed to death on this forum about how little it takes to spike the Kool-Aid.
2) I have no idea why you felt compelled to discuss your personal lack of desire to carry a firearm in any capacity in response to my post. It has nothing to do with my opinion about Fox News focusing on that story. Yes, I know you teach (thank you). But I'm discussing agendas impacting journalism, not whether or not you want to participate in that agenda.
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:41 pm
Well, if the SRO wasn't there or decided to hide in the parking lot, it might have been different. 17 kids weren't killed so it's not as big of a story, understandably, but the what-if shouldn't be ignored.
As soon as the gunfire began, Gaskill rushed to the scene. He fired a round at the shooter, who also fired a round at the same time, Cameron said.
It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.
"DFC [Deputy First Class] Gaskill fired at the shooter ... almost simultaneously as the shooter fired," Cameron said. "This is something we train, practice and in reality, hope would never come to fruition. This is our worst nightmare."
....
Gaskill's response was hailed as an example of exactly what a resource officer is supposed to do in such a circumstance, particularly when contrasted to the actions of the security officer in last month's shooting in Parkland, Florida. (In the incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, the armed school resource deputy waited outside the school building as the shooter gunned down students inside.)
Allow me to be more clear to my point. I applaud the actions of the well-trained officer. I am grateful he was there at that time, as well as all the time bullets have not been on the curriculum. I am not against highly trained professionals protecting us in that capacity or a variety of others.
Fox being the one to air that story (still hasn't shown up on my various news feeds), to me, is because it fits Fox's/NRA/Pathologic Conservative/Trump Wormetongue agenda nicely.
No it doesn't. An armed trained officer is much much different than an armed teacher. We already have armed officers in schools. I have no desire to carry a weapon and at least a hundred reasons not to.
1) Yes, it does. Because regardless of who was the Armed Defender (in this case a highly trained hired officer), it provides an opportunity to tell the Base "See? It works to have armed protection at schools." We've discussed to death on this forum about how little it takes to spike the Kool-Aid.
2) I have no idea why you felt compelled to discuss your personal lack of desire to carry a firearm in any capacity in response to my post. It has nothing to do with my opinion about Fox News focusing on that story. Yes, I know you teach (thank you). But I'm discussing agendas impacting journalism, not whether or not you want to participate in that agenda.
1) let them point to that and then point to Parkland where the officer did not respond. I get that the base won't look far but then the base wasn't going to need convincing anyway. Those whose votes are malleable will require more to gain/lose them.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:22 am
by Zaxxon
My girls and I attended the March for Our Lives Colorado today. Among many other speakers was Maddie King, a Stoneman Douglas survivor. Her speech:
Emma Gonzales, from DC:
These kids may be rough around the edges in their speaking (they're high schoolers!), but they have a fire inside and it sure seems to be catching. Here in Denver the crowd was estimated to be around 100k.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:54 am
by hepcat
I just wish they had a snowball's chance in hell of seeing anything come from their work. The NRA isn't going anywhere, nor are they going to give even an inch of ground on anything. Instead, these teenagers are going to be met with venom and hate from a large sector of this country. The lesson they'll ultimately learn is that getting involved in your government rarely pays off for the big ticket items unless you have deep pockets.
Well, at least for now, that is. We may get effective, compassionate leadership someday.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:00 am
by Carpet_pissr
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:54 am
I just wish they had a snowball's chance in hell of seeing anything come from their work. The NRA isn't going anywhere, nor are they going to give even an inch of ground on anything. Instead, these teenagers are going to be met with venom and hate.
Going to be? It's already happened, and is happening. When even the parents of victims of Newtown are met with threats and hate (which continues, amazingly, today), it doesn't surprise me at all. Deeply saddens, but doesn't surprise.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:04 am
by Zaxxon
I wouldn't bet against these kids. They are getting huge numbers of new youngins registered to vote, and a big percentage of them are going to be single-issue voters.
Not that I expect the NRA to lay down and die,but this is a bigger push than we've yet seen on gun control.
In one of the most publicized moments at Saturday’s March for Our Lives, 18-year-old Emma González stood on the stage in complete silence, weeping. She marked the six minutes and 20 seconds that claimed the lives of 17 people at her high school in Parkland, Fla. And on her olive-green jacket, she wore several sewn-on patches, including a Cuban flag.
That flag, representing González’s Cuban heritage, became the subject of attacks from some conservatives online over the weekend. And on Sunday afternoon, one of those critical messages appeared on the Facebook page for the campaign of a U.S. congressman — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).
“This is how you look when you claim Cuban heritage yet don’t speak Spanish and ignore the fact that your ancestors fled the island when the dictatorship turned Cuba into a prison camp, after removing all weapons from its citizens; hence their right to self defense,” said the post, which also included a photo of González at the podium Saturday.
And if you value your sanity, do not visit King's FB site (linked in the article). 12-year-olds display far more maturity than he does.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:19 pm
by Moliere
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:10 am
That's an average morning in Chicago. But no one cares.
A new study blames Chicago’s sudden spike in gun violence in 2016 on the dramatic drop in street stops by Chicago police that year, but several crime experts quickly discounted its findings, particularly its conclusion that the Laquan McDonald scandal wasn’t a factor.
Chicago’s 58 percent jump in homicides in 2016 has fueled fierce debate about its cause among law enforcement officials, politicians and academics.
The study by two professors from the University of Utah cited the so-called ACLU effect as the most likely explanation for the sharp rise in violence to levels unseen in two decades.
Beginning in 2016, Chicago police officers had to more thoroughly document every street stop as part of a landmark agreement between the Police Department and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois to try to curb racial profiling and other unconstitutional practices. As a result, street stops plummeted, to about 100,000 for all of 2016, an 82 percent drop from about 600,000 in 2015, department records show.
Using what it called “empirical research tools,” the 98-page paper, which has not yet been published, calculated that the far fewer street stops led to nearly 240 additional killings in 2016 alone.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:42 pm
by GreenGoo
Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:04 am
I wouldn't bet against these kids. They are getting huge numbers of new youngins registered to vote, and a big percentage of them are going to be single-issue voters.
Not that I expect the NRA to lay down and die,but this is a bigger push than we've yet seen on gun control.
I was just thinking that if the conservatives want to make enemies of these kids, I can think of no better way to self destruct than to turn the next generation of voters permanently against them.
So keep on attacking the kids, conservative mouth pieces. It might help your cause today, right now, but every time you open your mouth you're putting another nail in the coffin of the GOP's future.
A new study blames Chicago’s sudden spike in gun violence in 2016 on the dramatic drop in street stops by Chicago police that year, but several crime experts quickly discounted its findings, particularly its conclusion that the Laquan McDonald scandal wasn’t a factor.
Shrug. I don't know what the truth is here, but I know that just because something works, doesn't mean it's a good idea, or in this case, legal. Permanent trackable time stamped gps tags on every American citizen would probably reduce crime by a significant amount as well.
Have at it, I guess.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:53 pm
by Isgrimnur
That's all right, they can already backtrack our locations by cell phone, and our vehicles through plate scanning.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:50 pm
by GreenGoo
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:53 pm
That's all right, they can already backtrack our locations by cell phone, and our vehicles through plate scanning.
Getting there.
Excellent.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 2:34 pm
by naednek
Zaxxon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:22 am
My girls and I attended the March for Our Lives Colorado today. Among many other speakers was Maddie King, a Stoneman Douglas survivor. Her speech:
Emma Gonzales, from DC:
These kids may be rough around the edges in their speaking (they're high schoolers!), but they have a fire inside and it sure seems to be catching. Here in Denver the crowd was estimated to be around 100k.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said 10 people have died and 10 more were wounded in what was the nation's deadliest such attack since the shooting at a Florida high school in February that gave rise to a campaign by teenagers for gun control.
Abbott said that "unlike Parkland, unlike Sutherland Springs, there were not those types of warning signs." He was referring to the Feb. 14 school shooting in Florida and one in November inside a church in a town near San Antonio.
Abbott says "the red-flag warnings were either non-existent, or very imperceptible" in the case of the suspected Santa Fe shooter.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:47 pm
by Zaxxon
Well, shit. I guess that means we really *do* just have to take everyone's guns, then.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:53 pm
by GreenGoo
"NOT MY FAULT!"
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 6:02 pm
by Rip
Not just that. He used a revolver and a shotgun. So I guess those assault and semi-automatic weapons bans will need extended to those.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 6:15 pm
by YellowKing
Rip wrote:Not just that. He used a revolver and a shotgun. So I guess those assault and semi-automatic weapons bans will need extended to those.
This will be predictably be the ace-up-the-sleeve for the pro-gun lobby to negate this shooting. I'm sure the parents having to bury their kids this week will take solace in the "fact" that nothing could have been done to stop it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 6:17 pm
by Exodor
Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 6:02 pm
Not just that. He used a revolver and a shotgun. So I guess those assault and semi-automatic weapons bans will need extended to those.
Sold!
Melt all the guns.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 7:00 pm
by GreenGoo
Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 6:02 pm
Not just that. He used a revolver and a shotgun. So I guess those assault and semi-automatic weapons bans will need extended to those.
The lieutenant governor, a social conservative firebrand who recently pushed to allow concealed carry in churches, listed off a series of what he called “outside the box” ideas for stopping school shootings. These included having students enter schools at different times (so there’d be fewer crowds to shoot at), parents doing a better job locking up their guns, and, most remarkably, limiting the number of doorways into schools.
“There are too many entrances and too many exits to our over 8,000 campuses,” Patrick said. “There aren’t enough people to put a guard at every entry and exit.”
There are a number of practical problems with this idea. If you have a mass shooter in the building, you don’t want to trap people in the building. It’s not obvious that security guards would be able to spot someone concealing a weapon even if they were at every door; in fact, there were two armed guards at Santa Fe on Friday. And closing most of the entryways to a school would create a serious fire hazard.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:01 pm
by Unagi
Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 6:02 pm
Not just that. He used a revolver and a shotgun. So I guess those assault and semi-automatic weapons bans will need extended to those.
Agreed.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:02 pm
by Unagi
Ak
Rip wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 6:02 pm
Not just that. He used a revolver and a shotgun. So I guess those assault and semi-automatic weapons bans will need extended to those.
It should also be noted how this all happened in Texas, where anyone can wear a gun on their hip.... yet that didn't stop it. So hard to wrap my head around that.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:07 pm
by Zaxxon
It's almost as if more guns aren't the solution.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:17 pm
by hepcat
Trump will demand we take guns away from people who show signs of being unhinged, the NRA will bitch slap him until he cries mommy, and we’ll have another shooting. Rinse, repeat.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:25 pm
by Kraken
More guns = more gun violence. There aren't a lot of facts one can bring to this debate, but that one's both clearly supported and intuitive. And yet we can't even agree on that much.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:28 pm
by Unagi
Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 10:07 pm
It's almost as if more guns aren't the solution.
That can't be right. We just don't have enough. I'm certain of it.
As more and more people have more and more guns - you will see that these crimes will just naturally start to decline over time and eventually settle to a level that's back to normal. We are just experiening an awkward phase of gun culture where it seems like we are just using these guns to shoot people. Eventually their intented use will win out and peace will prevail.
Kraken wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 10:25 pm
More guns = more gun violence. There aren't a lot of facts one can bring to this debate, but that one's both clearly supported and intuitive. And yet we can't even agree on that much.
Yet there are more guns than ever and murders and violent crimes committed with guns are at the lowest levels in decades.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:52 pm
by hepcat
And yet Americans are 25 times more likely to be shot and killed with guns than any other developed country.
Kraken wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 10:25 pm
More guns = more gun violence. There aren't a lot of facts one can bring to this debate, but that one's both clearly supported and intuitive. And yet we can't even agree on that much.
Yet there are more guns than ever and murders and violent crimes committed with guns are at the lowest levels in decades.
^^^See what I mean? Yes, the crime rate has been falling for decades for unrelated reasons. That's beside the point. Zaxxon's link is a good overview of relevant stats.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:00 am
by em2nought
School uniforms might help
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:11 am
by Alefroth
How do you live with yourself?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 1:36 am
by em2nought
Alefroth wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:11 am
How do you live with yourself?
It would also be great if coaches didn't publicly humiliate a future shooter by telling him he smells in front of his entire class.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat May 19, 2018 7:58 am
by hepcat
Alefroth wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 1:11 am
How do you live with yourself?
Sadly, the question is how do we live with people like him.
It would also be great if coaches didn't publicly humiliate a future shooter by telling him he smells in front of his entire class.
While I agree, I was under the assumption that Trumpies viewed complaining about that kind of thing the hallmark of snowflakes. I really wish you’d make up your mind.
