Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How many attempted public or school shootings have been foiled by armed security or by someone with concealed carry? How many people have been injured in accidents or unintentional shootings by armed security and concealed carry members of the public?

Actually the idea of members of the public carrying hidden guns so they can be a hero one day would concern me a little if I was living in the US. The potential for escalating situations by having more people pull guns, or just having people mis use them and end up injuring the wrong people, seems a fairly great risk as compared to the risk of someone just deciding to shoot me dead. Sure, some people carry knives in the UK to rob people, I'm not convinced we'd all be better off if we all had knives in our pockets.

Sounds like Columbine had armed security present and Virginia Tech had a whole police department on campus. So it would seem to having armed people on the scene does nothing to prevent these kind of things.

The NRA is also comparing the idea to Air Marshals, an agency that has not stopped a single terrorist attack even though they were on the same plane. That is not an agency I would hold up as your model.

 d-usa wrote:
Sounds like Columbine had armed security present and Virginia Tech had a whole police department on campus. So it would seem to having armed people on the scene does nothing to prevent these kind of things.

They had a campus police department, but that doesn't mean they were actually on the scene when the shooting happened (they weren't). It's like a small town having a police department, they still can't be on every block and every building at once. If I recall correctly, Virginia Tech's response time was also pretty crappy, unfortunately.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How many attempted public or school shootings have been foiled by armed security or by someone with concealed carry? How many people have been injured in accidents or unintentional shootings by armed security and concealed carry members of the public?

Actually the idea of members of the public carrying hidden guns so they can be a hero one day would concern me a little if I was living in the US. The potential for escalating situations by having more people pull guns, or just having people mis use them and end up injuring the wrong people, seems a fairly great risk as compared to the risk of someone just deciding to shoot me dead. Sure, some people carry knives in the UK to rob people, I'm not convinced we'd all be better off if we all had knives in our pockets.

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/08/07/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/



– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas. Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two.

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/sheriff-concealed-weapon-saves-church-from-man-armed-with-shotgun/

and on a somewhat more melancholy note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

Wherein the armed civilian dies himself, but saves a kid from the crazed gunman. He was, interestingly, the first shooter to wound the gunman, who was wearing a bulletproof vest.


also: http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Sounds like Columbine had armed security present and Virginia Tech had a whole police department on campus. So it would seem to having armed people on the scene does nothing to prevent these kind of things.

They had a campus police department, but that doesn't mean they were actually on the scene when the shooting happened (they weren't). It's like a small town having a police department, they still can't be on every block and every building at once. If I recall correctly, Virginia Tech's response time was also pretty crappy, unfortunately.

And an armed guard in a school is going to do what exactly when the bad guy starts shooting up children at the other end of the school?

 d-usa wrote:

And an armed guard in a school is going to do what exactly when the bad guy starts shooting up children at the other end of the school?

I might point out, if you've ever been to a school with armed guards, there's not just one of them. One of the schools I've done business with required a network overhaul that pulled part of their internal alarm system. Every time we pulled and replaced one of the teacher's panic buttons, there were two armed guards in the room the entire time that panic button was deactivated.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

And an armed guard in a school is going to do what exactly when the bad guy starts shooting up children at the other end of the school?

I might point out, if you've ever been to a school with armed guards, there's not just one of them. One of the schools I've done business with required a network overhaul that pulled part of their internal alarm system. Every time we pulled and replaced one of the teacher's panic buttons, there were two armed guards in the room the entire time that panic button was deactivated.

So if the argument was "we need armed guards" and the counter arguments is "Columbine had them and Virginia Tech had them", then the counter argument is simply "We need more armed guards then"?

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Sounds like Columbine had armed security present and Virginia Tech had a whole police department on campus. So it would seem to having armed people on the scene does nothing to prevent these kind of things.

They had a campus police department, but that doesn't mean they were actually on the scene when the shooting happened (they weren't). It's like a small town having a police department, they still can't be on every block and every building at once. If I recall correctly, Virginia Tech's response time was also pretty crappy, unfortunately.

And an armed guard in a school is going to do what exactly when the bad guy starts shooting up children at the other end of the school?

Hopefully respond as quickly as possible and either stop the shooter, or at least distract him before further help arrives. Being at the other end of a school building is a lot different than being at the other end of a small town or at the other end of a college campus.

The point is, having an armed guard is not a magic fix that is always guaranteed to work, but it increases the options and increases response time. An armed guard has an option other than fleeing for his life or lunging at the shooter while unarmed and getting shot like some of the staff and faculty at Sandy Hook.

What about getting shot like the staff and faculty and students at Columbine?

If the NRA is right about their idea that "putting armed guards in school" is the answer, and we are going to ignore history, then the liberals are also right about their idea that "more gun laws" are the answer. Because both were present at Columbine and both were equally effective.

 d-usa wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

And an armed guard in a school is going to do what exactly when the bad guy starts shooting up children at the other end of the school?

I might point out, if you've ever been to a school with armed guards, there's not just one of them. One of the schools I've done business with required a network overhaul that pulled part of their internal alarm system. Every time we pulled and replaced one of the teacher's panic buttons, there were two armed guards in the room the entire time that panic button was deactivated.

So if the argument was "we need armed guards" and the counter arguments is "Columbine had them and Virginia Tech had them", then the counter argument is simply "We need more armed guards then"?

I think it's fair to point out that the Columbine guard was a Sheriff's deputy, and police procedure for dealing with an active shooter was pretty different when Columbine happened. Back then, police would usually trying to contain the situation and wait for backup, but nowadays they are more likely to try to gain entry, even if they are alone. A good example of this is the Alrosa Villa shooting in Columbus, Ohio where Dimebag Darrell and several other people were killed. The first officer on the scene knew there was an active shooter, he entered the rear entrance alone and killed the shooter. There were more officers who went in the front entrance, but Officer Niggemeyer arrived first and went in the back by himself, but the point is, they all entered the building immediately and stopped a shooting that was still in progress. When Columbine happened, the officers waited a long time to enter the school, and it was all over by the time they actually went in.

In the case of Virginia Tech, the police response time was slow in general, and was further slowed by Cho barricading the entrances of the building he was in with chains.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
What about getting shot like the staff and faculty and students at Columbine?

No one on the staff and faculty were armed, other than the Sheriff's deputy, who left the building, traded shots with one of the shooters from outside of the building, and did not reenter the building after that.

There are some pretty specific reasons the armed guard was ineffective during the Columbine shooting, particularly that he seems to have taken a pretty passive role when dealing with the shooters, and police since Columbine tend to react at least a bit more aggressively when it comes to building entries during active shooter scenarios.

Also, allowing trained teachers to carry concealed in schools would be a bit different than having an armed guard or two in a school.

Another part of the problem is, our sample size is pretty friggin' small. A guard was ineffective at Columbine, the campus police responded slowly at Virginia Tech. That doesn't mean that guard or campus police responses are always going to be ineffective.

Another fact is that this is not going to last more than 5 years.

Schools are already strapped for cash, and the same people screaming for more security will scream against raising the taxes to pay for them and either teachers will be laid off or security will be relaxed.

It's a knee jerk reaction to something that will not be fixed by this. It's another case of "at least we are doing something" even though it does nothing.

These kids are 0.006% of people killed by guns this year alone. Lets be realistic and admit that school shootings are not the problem here.

 d-usa wrote:
Another fact is that this is not going to last more than 5 years.

Schools are already strapped for cash, and the same people screaming for more security will scream against raising the taxes to pay for them and either teachers will be laid off or security will be relaxed.

It's a knee jerk reaction to something that will not be fixed by this. It's another case of "at least we are doing something" even though it does nothing.

These kids are 0.006% of people killed by guns this year alone. Lets be realistic and admit that school shootings are not the problem here.

I get your arguments... and they're valid.

Simply put, having an armed present on campus and/or armed citizen in the population isn't a cure-all.

Can you agree that it gives those who are being shot at a chance to survive? Isn't that what we're really talking about?

 d-usa wrote:
Another fact is that this is not going to last more than 5 years.

Schools are already strapped for cash, and the same people screaming for more security will scream against raising the taxes to pay for them and either teachers will be laid off or security will be relaxed.

It's a knee jerk reaction to something that will not be fixed by this. It's another case of "at least we are doing something" even though it does nothing.

These kids are 0.006% of people killed by guns this year alone. Lets be realistic and admit that school shootings are not the problem here.

Oh, I agree with you that school shootings are really more of an anomaly statistically, and I'm not saying we need to have armed guards in every school. I'm just not ready to say that they're always going to be ineffective or unable to stop a shooting in progress. Whether or not a shooting is stopped is going to depend on some extremely situational factors. An armed person is going to increase the chances of being able to stop a shooter, but it is not a guarantee. The chances of stopping a shooter with an armed citizen or guard present is going to be a lot higher than the basically 0% chance of stopping a shooter if all the victims are unarmed though.

And yeah, a lot of schools are already screwed financially, but that's a whole other can of worms.

 d-usa wrote:
What about getting shot like the staff and faculty and students at Columbine?

If the NRA is right about their idea that "putting armed guards in school" is the answer, and we are going to ignore history, then the liberals are also right about their idea that "more gun laws" are the answer. Because both were present at Columbine and both were equally effective.

Come on D-Usa, you know the answer is MOAR GUNZ! It has always been MOAR GUNZ, and will always be MOAR GUNZ! Until we make something even MOAR BETTER than a gun!

I for one welcome our new militarized society.

 d-usa wrote:

These kids are 0.006% of people killed by guns this year alone. Lets be realistic and admit that school shootings are not the problem here.

And, as I pointed out, Harvard Law studies have shown that gun bans have no correlation to murder rates. They just use something else.

My view is this: as long as madmen are using guns, they're not using bombs. Bombs are harder to stop, easier to build, and can be made out of the contents of the average kitchen and garage. A man with a gun can kill dozens in a min. A man with a bomb can kill hundreds in a second.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

My view is this: as long as madmen are using guns, they're not using bombs. Bombs are harder to stop, easier to build, and can be made out of the contents of the average kitchen and garage. A man with a gun can kill dozens in a min. A man with a bomb can kill hundreds in a second.

As I said pages ago there is no reason to presume that a man willing to go on a shooting spree is willing to put in the effort required to learn how to make a bomb, much as a man willing to make a bomb isn't necessarily willing to go on a shooting spree. The two simply aren't very tightly related, as Columbine and various incidences of domestic terrorism have shown.

 dogma wrote:
The two simply aren't very tightly related, as Columbine and various incidences of domestic terrorism have shown.

Um... Dogma, at Columbine they did use improvised explosives. The Aurora gunman did produce a large, complicated bomb. Frequently mass killings are not spur of the moment events that are enabled by the presence of firearms. They're very commonly things that the killer has put a great amount of time and effort into. David Hernandez Arroyo took the time to acquire better than average body armor for his attack at Tyler Courthouse.

If you want to talk domestic terrorism, McVeigh put a great deal of time into selecting his target for the OK City bombing, looking for a specific combination of Federal offices with the best chance of minimizing damage to surrounding structures.


Here's one for you to mull over, and granted, I'm taking this from wikipedia: Investigators have discovered that use of prescription drugs, primarily anti-depressants, is a commonality shared among perpetrators of the last six acts of mass violence which include Adam Lanza (Newtown Connecticut) James Holmes (Aurora Colorado) Cho Seung Hui (Virginia Tech) Steven Kazmierczak (Northern Illinois University)) Jeff Weise (Red Lake Minnesota) and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine). Additionally, concern has been raised over the discovery of such drugs accumulating in the Nation's drinking water supply due to their wide spread use


I don't know what Canada's rates are like with anti-depressant use, but maybe we should stop complaining about guns and look more closely at the US heavily medicated culture. Because a lot of these drugs now have side effects like 'Causes suicidal thoughts' or my favorites: 'may cause bouts of unreasonable aggression' and 'may cause long term alterations to brain chemistry'.

McVeigh didn't care to much about minimizing damages. He was also a fan of having a daycare in the building.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You are missing the crucial point -- which I have already mentioned twice before and which has been pointed out by other users -- that the USA assault data only includes attacks with weapons, while the UK data includes attacks without weapons and also sex crimes, which are not included in the US data.

Reading isn't a strong suit today, is it?

 d-usa wrote:
McVeigh didn't care to much about minimizing damages. He was also a fan of having a daycare in the building.

Sorry, that's not born out by trial testimony. McVeigh actually turned down the 40 story Federal Building in Arkansas on the grounds of excessive collateral damage to non-Federal targets. It was Federal agents, their friends and families he was targeting. One interesting thing that an EOD tech mentioned to me was that the explosive McVeigh used should not have done as extensive damage as was done to the building, except that the building had been built substandard, without many of the called for metal reinforcements most modern buildings have.

Don't you love the lowest bidder?

The daycare was federal employee families.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:
The two simply aren't very tightly related, as Columbine and various incidences of domestic terrorism have shown.

Um... Dogma, at Columbine they did use improvised explosives.

Yes I'm aware, that's the point. As I explained, whether or not someone is willing to build and use a bomb is not tightly related to their willingness to use firearms. As examples of this I pointed to Columbine and incidences of domestic terrorism as events involving the usage of explosives, despite the wide availability of firearms, which would seem to indicate that guns do not prevent people from employing bombs.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

The Aurora gunman did produce a large, complicated bomb.

Which goes against the sentiment you expressed above regarding the availability of firearms preventing the use of explosives.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Frequently mass killings are not spur of the moment events that are enabled by the presence of firearms.

Spur of the moment or not, the presence of firearms clearly enables mass killings. However, eliminating firearms will not make them go away, nor does sound regulation seek to eliminate firearms; but instead make them more difficult to obtain (and not just as regards mass killers).

At any rate, most mass killing do not involve meticulous planning. Planning yes, but not to the extent of bomb construction, which is why we see so few mass killings involving explosive devices.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Here's one for you to mull over, and granted, I'm taking this from wikipedia: Investigators have discovered that use of prescription drugs, primarily anti-depressants, is a commonality shared among perpetrators of the last six acts of mass violence which include Adam Lanza (Newtown Connecticut) James Holmes (Aurora Colorado) Cho Seung Hui (Virginia Tech) Steven Kazmierczak (Northern Illinois University)) Jeff Weise (Red Lake Minnesota) and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (Columbine). Additionally, concern has been raised over the discovery of such drugs accumulating in the Nation's drinking water supply due to their wide spread use

I don't know what Canada's rates are like with anti-depressant use, but maybe we should stop complaining about guns and look more closely at the US heavily medicated culture. Because a lot of these drugs now have side effects like 'Causes suicidal thoughts' or my favorites: 'may cause bouts of unreasonable aggression' and 'may cause long term alterations to brain chemistry'.

Shocking though it may seem, people who are taking anti-depressants tend to suffer from depression. Given this, it seems odd to point at the drugs and not the underlying mental illness.

As to side-effects, they've always been there, their presence isn't about changes in the drugs available, but in awareness of their effects. And of course they cause long-term alterations to brain chemistry, that's what mood altering drugs are supposed to do.

I'm gonna pull a whembly and just post a blog article here:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Don't think I have seen it, but sorry if it is a repeat.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm gonna pull a whembly and just post a blog article here:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Don't think I have seen it, but sorry if it is a repeat.

Am I so infamous that one can "pull a whembly" is now a dakka lexicon?

Dude... d-usa my man... Merry Christmas!

That was a nice gift.


(going to read that article soon...)

It's a thing now, deal with it

Good blog article, some of the comments were... less so. XD

 dogma wrote:

At any rate, most mass killing do not involve meticulous planning. Planning yes, but not to the extent of bomb construction, which is why we see so few mass killings involving explosive devices.

Sadly, that is a trend very much limited to the United States. Most of the rest of the world, mass killings still typically involve bombs.

 dogma wrote:

Shocking though it may seem, people who are taking anti-depressants tend to suffer from depression. Given this, it seems odd to point at the drugs and not the underlying mental illness.
As to side-effects, they've always been there, their presence isn't about changes in the drugs available, but in awareness of their effects. And of course they cause long-term alterations to brain chemistry, that's what mood altering drugs are supposed to do.

Dogma, you have to be trying really hard to miss my point. I'm not talking the same anti-depressants that they used to prescribe, I'm talking things like serotonin inhibitors

Most of the symptoms that would lead a person to commit an act like this are not typically symptoms of depression. They are however, side effects of a certain class of anti-depressants (SSRIs), particularly what's known as 'discontinuation syndrome' or 'anti-depressant withdrawal'. Symptoms of the discontinuation syndrome can include agitation, anxiety, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, worsening of mood, dysphoria, crying spells or mood lability, overactivity or hyperactivity, depersonalization, and memory/concentration difficulties. These are on top the lingering side effects of headache, increase in suicidal thoughts, and sexual dysfunction. Onset is 1-7 days after taking an SSRI for a month or more, and can last months.

In about 11% of cases, these effects were permanent.

The most powerful side effects of this class come from a drug known as Paroxetine, commonly sold under the name Paxil. It's effect on young people was so marked that the European Medicines Agency's (EMEA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use issued warnings to doctors not to prescribe it to children and young adults due to it's negative effects on them, including most of the above.

One of the other characteristics were almost all of the shooters were young men who had been taking anti-depressants. I think that if we were to look, we'd find they were all taking SSRIs.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Sadly, that is a trend very much limited to the United States. Most of the rest of the world, mass killings still typically involve bombs.

Well, the US and the rest of the West. Though regardless, as we are talking about the US, I don't see the point of your statement.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Dogma, you have to be trying really hard to miss my point. I'm not talking the same anti-depressants that they used to prescribe, I'm talking things like serotonin inhibitors

Then that's what you should have said. I am not a mind-reader, and what you wrote previously didn't even insinuate the above.

Also, the class of antidepressants you're referring to includes fluoxetine (Prozac), which is hardly a new drug.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Most of the symptoms that would lead a person to commit an act like this are not typically symptoms of depression.

I've had to re-write this several times, and I hope this is civil:

I've been depressed before. In fact, I'm at high risk for affliction because of my family history. You don't have to believe me, and I suspect that you most likely will not, but one of things that accompanies the loss of valuation of the self is the loss of valuation of everything else. I'm callous at the best of times, but I've found ways and means to mitigate that callousness in my personal life. I'm not going to delve deeper into my own history on account of an internet argument, but I will say that any claim that typical symptoms of MDD do not indicate a desire to rampage is absolutely false; and indicative of a poor understanding of what MDD actually is.

I have been/was/is (does it ever really go away?) been diagnosed with Massive Depressive Disorder (I prefer "Clinical Depression" because MDD can apparently be confusing... I had one person think it was Bipolar... >.< and while I can concur on valuation... I can't say I ever had a desire to "rampage".

 dogma wrote:

I've had to re-write this several times, and I hope this is civil:

I've been depressed before. In fact, I'm at high risk for affliction because of my family history. You don't have to believe me, and I suspect that you most likely will not, but one of things that accompanies the loss of valuation of the self is the loss of valuation of everything else. I'm callous at the best of times, but I've found ways and means to mitigate that callousness in my personal life. I'm not going to delve deeper into my own history on account of an internet argument, but I will say that any claim that typical symptoms of MDD do not indicate a desire to rampage is absolutely false; and indicative of a poor understanding of what MDD actually is.

Dogma, I'm largely going by what I read and a friends experiences. What you're describing sounds like very severe MDD, but MDD like everything else in mental illness has a lot of variety. My understanding of it is most people who suffer from it are more likely to act against themselves than to lash out at another. In very intense examples it can resemble psychosis.

Diz tended toward the 'self loathing' end of the spectrum. She slipped her schedule about three days and got to experience discontinuation syndrome first hand.

I don't know your experiences, I can only go on what she told me, but according to her it was a thousand times worse than she had ever been before. She had been experiencing 'mild' depression (what her shrink told her, supposedly, not having experienced it first hand) before they prescribed Paxil to her (without disclosing all it's possible side effects) but discontinuation syndrome hit her hard enough that she literally tried to step out in front of a bus within two days of the earliest possible onset. I'm not sure how you'd view that, but I'd call it a several degree of magnitude difference.