Posted on 12/22/2012 5:13:24 AM PST by chrisnj
Today, the same elite media who no doubt send their own kids to private schools that employ armed security, just can't stop howling ridicule at the NRA's idea to give every student in America those same protections. Because the NRA's idea is so appealing, as I write this, the media's going overboard, mocking it as bizarre, crazy, and out of touch. This is how the media works to silence and vilify the opposition and to ensure that only their ideas control The Narrative. The media doesn't care about securing our schools; they only care about coming after our guns and handing Obama another political win. The media also doesn’t care how wildly hypocritical they look. In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Leftist kneejerk reaction against anything proposed by the NRA. Not only is their response hypocritical, it makes no sense. They demand a ban on ARs or high cap mags. Even IF that were effective it is useless against any other form of threat. A guard can react to multiple types of attacks, even those not involving guns. Its a flexible and sensible response commonly used to defend valuable targets. The left is not against it because it won’t work, their aim is destroy the NRA and 2nd ammendment.
Not much sense in having the police in schools if they can’t carry guns. One liberal I was explaining this to told me perhaps they could carry Tasers. Meanwhile, go to all government office buildings and you’ll be hard press to find police without a gun.
A suggestion:
The overriding priority in protecting the building occupants is to implement commonly known security methodology. With correctly applied security, the community policies on guns or eccentic people will negligibly impsct school safety.
Security principles are uncompromising. Their execution can never be permitted as a bargaining chip for any employees union involved in the operation of the site.
A site free of prohibited weapons can be established without making it accessible to unsecure persons, but the safe zone starts at the point of entry/exit. Whatever the situation outside the door is irrelevant. It is the control of the entrance and from that the building contents that matters.
The current paradigm of today's typical school operation must change to make the school safe for children.
Please wake up to this, and expect to leave the current school operational mode behind, as well as any ungovernable students. Or teachers.
bookmark
I agree.
Police or guards, must have gun(s), because the most dangerous intruders are those with guns. The lunatic can shoot the guard and go on rampage with no one to stop him/her.
There must be a good man with gun to stop the bad man with gun!
Liberal writing against this Breitbart article:
http://www.politicususa.com/bitter-crazy-breitbart-writer-thinks-clintons-cops-progam-nra.html
Not necessarily, Think of a gasoline station with a bulletproof guard booth, but with a 2-way search box and/or room lockable from the inside, and a door beyond through which the guard must buzz each visitor after personal check. No entry of persons unauthorized by office. A snifferdog for drugs or bombs.
Come on, be original! It is the admission protocol that must be changed. Not much problem with those coming out.
And here I'm just one amateur that has seen a hundred of these plant, or corporate office complex, or airport, or courthouse setups. Some armed, some not. But no getting into the building without authorization, with contraband, or without a non-negotiable buzzlock on the entry door. More doors, more guards.
The freedom to come-and-go without restriction from the school building must go into the dust-bin now. Malingerers, unruly people, and lunatics have spoiled it for everybody else.
This is just caused by practical terrorism with a special form for schools.
Not necessarily, Think of a gasoline station with a bulletproof guard booth, but with a 2-way search box and/or room lockable from the inside, and a door beyond through which the guard must buzz each visitor after personal check. No entry of persons unauthorized by office. A snifferdog for drugs or bombs.
Come on, be original! It is the admission protocol that must be changed. Not much problem with those coming out.
And here I'm just one amateur that has seen a hundred of these plant, or corporate office complex, or airport, or courthouse setups. Some armed, some not. But no getting into the building without authorization, with contraband, or without a non-negotiable buzzlock on the entry door. More doors, more guards.
Start thinking outside the box ---
The freedom to come-and-go without restriction from the school building must go into the dust-bin now. Malingerers, unruly people, and lunatics have spoiled it for everybody else.
This is just caused by practical terrorism with a special form for schools.
So every window, door, booth has to be bullet-proof; every door has a (unarmed) guard.
Unless the school ground is securely fenced, the lunatic can still go into the ground and shoot/kill the unarmed guard, then what?
Anyway, protect the schools by any means. If you can convince the schools to protect the school buildings the way you suggest, by all means,
The power that be are hell-bent on striping our second amendment right. They are not the least bit interested in protecting the kids with any security measures at all.
I looked for the smiley or sarc tag but didn’t see one.
No, bag checks don’t work well. At all. ‘nuff said.
Never mind what happens when an attacker say “here it is” and starts shooting.
No, and no. Potential perpetrators must not find an entrance they can carry devices through. Windows need not be bullet ptoofed, just blocked with outside bars or mesh. Any unsecured door makes the whole enterprise unsecure.
Unless the school ground is securely fenced, the lunatic can still go into the ground and shoot/kill the unarmed guard, then what?
Of course, a perimeter fence is the most commonly used defense against penetration, Is this not sinking in? And yes, a guard can be protected by a bulletproof window at the entry. Armed or unarmed, no one is getting into the building at his point of entry, a door that he has to buzz, if he is disabled or dead, so there's no sense in hurting him. Use your thinking cap.
Anyway, protect the schools by any means.
There are no other means to protect the students in the school. If so, manufacturers would have already found simpler, cheaper, less obtrusive ways to protect their plants, workers, and inventory.
If you can convince the schools to protect the school buildings the way you suggest, by all means,
I don't have to do the convincing. If the spree shooters haven't already, those responsible for school safety are still thinking they will be able to establish security without obtruding on the pleasant, relaxing country club campus aura. You seem to be still holding this concept.
That is no longer possible!
You can have as many roaming policemen that you want, and that may improve the response time and suppress a perpetrator's desire, but that will not and cannot protect the children,
The approach to security is to control the environment, not the people
. School campuses ans security staffing must be redesigned to bring them into the realities of anarchy and terrorism. Right now they are hiding their heads in the sands of time -- in the past.
The power that be are hell-bent on striping our second amendment right. They are not the least bit interested in protecting the kids with any security measures at all.
That is exactly what I am saying. But those who think that the current facilities can be used safely without significant modification is refusing to face the issues.
These people rejecting the salutory functional purpose of firearms in personal defense are simply looking at the Constitution, then looking at the government apparatus, and saying, "Please, please take away these God-given rights that the Constitution was designed for us to keep forever. I don't like these devices and I don't trust my neighbor not to use them on me if he exercises his tight to possess them."
You don't give any reference, so I can't grasp what your thought is. Why don't you at least clue us in to which post you are replying.
Bag checks work very well for security of airlines andand pilfering of manufacturing facilities. Whatever gives you the idea of saying it won't work on schoolbags or briefcases?
It seems that you are ignorant of security procedures?
I know from personal experience that what you describe is trivial to defeat.
If you think bag checks are a viable security measure to prevent school massacres, you’re too stupid to be part of the discussion.
And I don’t say that lightly.
“Why don’t you at least clue us in to which post you are replying.”
Uh, that would be obvious from the “To” field at the end of the post, just like every post on FR. Thought you’d have figured that out in the last 3 years you’ve been here.
Uh, I usually like to give the responder a break by pulling and displaying the line segment to which I am commenting so as he/she does not to have to switch back and forth.
You might try that as a convenience, Uh. I figured that thoughtfulness out at about 3 years less one hour if not quicker, Duh. Got it? Uh?
I wasn’t about to quote the entire post - which was, as I indicated, ridiculous. The simple reference of “To” was enough.
“Why don’t you at least clue us in to which post you are replying.”
Hence my comment about the “To” field.
Looked Post 16 over for a place to put one but, nope -- all dead serious, Uh.
No, bag checks don’t work well. At all. ‘nuff said.
Maybe you have done this. Illuminate, eh? The kind of protocol on the sites I've seen wouldn't permit a long gun get near the entrance.
Never mind what happens when an attacker say “here it is” and starts shooting.
How did the gun(s) and ammo get into or past a secure entry point? Adam Lanza's scheme depended on an unattended and unsecure door. So did James Holmes' Aurora theater shooting in July, and the Columbine spree.
The school problem is that of bunching up in a dedicated site, requiring a different protocol than that of safeness for free movement in the general open population.
This is a great piece of research here.
Excellent!
Then there was the case where a kid pulled a fire alarm, then went outside, grabbed a hunting rifle, and shot people as they left the building. Lots of people.
Shotguns have been snuck onto airplanes.
Checkpoints are shooting galleries waiting to happen, having so many people bunched up in such a small place (a TSA disaster waiting to happen).
Many rifles can be broken down to small packages.
Never mind everything already in the building which can be abused.
And no I’m not going into details. Suffice to say its not hard to beat bag checks, and if that’s the centerpiece of your school security a whole lot of people are going to die.
In contrast, many school would-be mass killings have been averted by armed staff and students. Not hypothetical.
That was when we trusted people and had no hindrance of entrance or exit. We cannot have that attitude going forward. This ploy is easy to defeat. Zero on this try to support your postulate.
Shotguns have been snuckeaked onto airplanes.
Not when everything passes through a metal detector with careful examination. Again, right now it would be difficult to get a single razor blade on, let alone a box-cutter. Zero here.
Checkpoints are shooting galleries waiting to happen, having so many people bunched up in such a small place (a TSA disaster waiting to happen).
Nah. One would not get very far there when a guard pulls down on the shooter. If the object is "get on the aircraft" (get in the school) vs merely starting something at the entry point, that's not feasible. Proper secure environment, say, initial entry through a metal detector to a shielded waiting area for closer individual scrutiny before further admission -- for example -- would at least make a shooting spree highly improbable.
Many rifles can be broken down to small packages.
Tut-tut. This is a trifle where such an attempt is expected and anticipated. Several of the sites where I worked the product ingredients were gold, platinum, palladium, silver, ruthenium, rhodium, etc. You could not get a weapon into, or a common pin out of one of these places without being noted. In addition, all briefcases were opened and examined -- even the plant manager's -- maybe not those of a visiting division manager or an Executive Board member, but a small variation for them was allowed and given there. Any vendor reps passed 1st echelon security to go to a less secure conference room for their business, but never finally entered the more restricted (senior) office/mfg/lab areas without approval and escort.
Never mind everything already in the building which can be abused.
That will not include firearms unless clever planning and execution is involved. One would not expect that approach at all from K-8 graders, only maybe possibly from 9 - 10 graders, with 11-12 held under much closer examination not only merely in entry/exit aspects, but also in social behavior, reliability, and consistency as young adults.
And no I’m not going into details.
You cannot prove your point without going into details. No free pass on this, Uh.
Suffice to say its not hard to beat bag checks, ...
It is not sufficient to say so, simply on your authority. You'd better prove what you say with rational arguments. If you can, that is. We're all waiting, especially on the not hard part.
... and if that’s the centerpiece of your school security a whole lot of people are going to die.
Wrong, because this is a common concept and already proven method of securing sensitive sites where adverse penetration, smuggling, pilfering, and violent behavior are expected.
What our problem is, is that we have not yet seriously determined to abandon the utopian country-club campus aura, environment, and architecture, and begun to implement deadly effective security thinking in public schools.
The negative ideas you have offered are immature (in development, that is) to the serious defender, and you have shown that you do not have a rating beyond the current lay-persons "box" of security thinking, in doing the expert's pre-planning to counter the intents of a perpetrator who wishes to attack a very deliberately closed site and its personnel.
Neither do I, but I have been passed into and out of secure sites from Dijon to Kagoshima, with a hundred such stops between, and have seen how they work. They are pretty consistent in execution. (no pun, no /sarc as you hint mockingly)
In contrast, many school would-be mass killings have been averted by armed staff and students. Not hypothetical.
Name one school. But even one case does not prove the rule. It may merely be anecdotal. You and I may want to eliminate gun free zones, but it may be impossible to implement for public schools by the method you propose.
It is certainly true that the random presence of weaponry and defensive training within the school walls would be likely to crimp the degree of success that a potential perpetrator might experience, but it will not stop him. A building with Swiss-cheese penetration vulnerability will not eradicate the intents of one or two creative perpetrators, who intend to commit suicide by ones own hand or by returned fire as part of their goal. The trends show that this is what they have seemed to desire and carry out, which cannot be surmounted merely by a few roaming police or adventitious handgunners.
No possession of arms by high-school students, minors, should be allowed by parents or administration or local government. One does not know how a licensed but untrained gun-toter will react when challenged by an unexpected firefight situation. He can be just as dangerous as a perpetrator or as helpless as a victim. Many adults, though willing to be responsible for their own welfare, will not be placed in the role of being involuntarily responsible for that of the students, whether they are teachers, office, or maintenance staff. The possibility of getting into a firefight is not, nor should it ever be, a condition of employment for them. That is the kind of thing that protection services such as Wackenhut and Pinkerton are trained for, and lawfully perform as paid private mercenaries.
Furthermore, the tasks of sworn officers is to enforce the law generally, not to provide citizens with individual protection. He does not have authority to arrest anyone who is thinking or behaving suspiciously, AFIK. He can only arrest one who has broken the law, not one who is thinking about it.
In addition, trying to effectively secure an open-boundary system would likely simply be economically foolish. For a community to be able to afford protecting their school children against an Adam Lanza type demands an impenetrable perimeter with a controlled entrance/exit doctrine. Let me say, in this you have not thought of nor mentioned the factor of explosives, which Barbaro (Olean, 1974), Harris & Klebold (Columbine, 1999), and Holmes (Aurora, 2012) had included in their preparations. Nor do I see discovering non-metallic cutlery without individual inspections, either. When we move to the next level (and I presume we will) of experiencing suicide bombing by the perpetrator of himself, we must have bag/briefcase inspection as a part of the school security protocol, and perhaps canine intervention.
Almost certainly the backpack carryall idea will have to go. Perhaps carrying a zillion personal items back and forth between home and school will also have to go, especially when letting 200 students into the building at a time will require too much time and congestion. Another plan is bringing items once at the beginning of term for continual storage, and taking them out once at the end of term. This might work; with no backpacks, lunchboxes, containers etc. carried in by regular occupants. Just their bodies and clothes, eh? For adults, securely store one's personal firearm at the door -- no guns unless the person has have been trained and vetted for a voluntarily offered security role. Then the individual check of staff and visitors would be less overwhelming, or bunching.
A policemen in every hall and classroom can not alone squash bombing or bringing in a ceramic knife, so start upgrading you thinking to make security practical and economical.
What I have thus far proposed has been shown to work, whereas your approach will only be a partial solution. I think you need to go back to your drawing table, go out and examine some point-of-entry/exit installations, and get some professional advice, before you address this problem with simplistic coffee-chat-type ruminations.
Thanks for the opportunity to put your ideas under a critical spotlight. Everyone will benefit from the exposure of that kind of cursory rejection.
My nephew was until recently in charge of security over many embassies. I wish I was able to have his opinions on this. I doubt they would be like yours here. However, I certainly believe that the current legislation for "gun-fee zones" is juvenile and idiotic, and does not work. Neither does banning responsible people from choosing to bear arms for their own protection. In the open environment as in public or private colleges, it is really unwise to prevent adult-age students, instructors, or staff from exercising their 2nd Amdt rights.
Respectfully ---
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.