I just had to wait a few hours before a thread on the subject appeared (again) on FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2972441/posts
(A) Mass murderers are best deterred, by far, by voluntarily armed citizens.
(B) What you insist on would take great effort and cost, and
(C) is easily defeated despite
(D) your extraordinary measures.
(E) What I suggest has already saved a couple dozen lives
(F) since the Newtown massacre, at no public effort nor cost.
Case 1. As he was leaving, stopped by principal.
Nope.
Consider:
(A) - Shooting was over. Woodham's shooting was not stopped by the principal, only the shooter. The principal did not prevent or interrupt the shooting.
(E) - Did he deter any more deaths? Only possibly hypothesized, not proven by available data.
(F) - Happened in 1997, hence does not pass the "since Newtown" constraint.
Therefore, this case does not support any of your points. Scratch this one.
(C) A simple hand detector would have found his rifle. With correct security protocol, he would not even have gotten the door guard.
(D) This would not be considered extraordinary. My system would have worked, and no student would have died. Thus no school deaths.
Score 1 for my method.
Case 2. ... Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun ...
Consider:
(A), (E), (F - )Almost identical to Case 1, so this doesn't count to make any of your points, either.
Scratch another one for your idea, too.
(C), (D) - My system would have worked.
Therefore score another one for me.
Case 3. ... Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar ...
Consider:
(A) - I made it crystal clear that the enviroment I was discussing was a closed, school system. not an open, general population. This case does not count because it is outside the discussion. In any case, it did not deter the first death.
(F) - Furthermore, it is also before the Newtown incident, therefore does not reinforce your hypothesis, anyway.
Fails to support your argument on three points, at least. Scratch it.
(C) - The gun-toters could have been turned away at the door if the owner had wished, posted a sign, and enforced it by a metal detector and hired guard. Hence deterred; and
(D) Not extraordinary; and
(E) 2 lives saved, especially in states where concealed guns are unlawful on a bar customer.
Score another one for my example differentiation from the general open population vs the closed special school problem.
Case 4. ... Murray killed four people at a church.
Consider:
(A) - Again, this fails because the environment is not a closed school instance.
(F) - Also, again is before the Newtown incident.
Again, fails to support your attempt to challence my thoughts on defending a school and its clients.
Score: Zero for you, three for me.
You have not only absolutely failed to support your point, you have shown you have no valid data to even make sense.
So far, my suggestions have been vindicated.
Please don't waste your time and mine by not thinking your position through. Your opinions about school protection are not fact-based. This problem is not anywhere near as trivial as you think, considering not only the physical and mechanical facts, but also the legal, religious, social, and business dimensions.
Yes, a real implementation of the type of solution i proposed would need security experts' counsel, be expensive, and likely require modification of the physical premises. But in all this discussion, you have not proven your approach to work satisfactorily. It is no more acceptable than NRA's or Farah's.
With respectful rejection of your opinion --