Even in a not free society, some tragedies just can’t be prevented.
Yep. Biggest school massacre was in a decidedly not-free country (and many of the casualties were likely caused by the rescuers).
I am surprised you don’t think that arming the staff and teachers would not have helped.
It almost certainly would have helped, in the sense that the carnage would have been reduced, but it probably wouldn’t have prevented it.
If the shooter had known that they may have been armed staff present he may have gone somewhere else. Shooters tend to not like to get shot at. The report, such as it was, didn’t find any particular reason why the shooter would dislike the elementary school, it just seemed to be a target of opportunity that he was familiar with.
Of course, if he decided to shoot up the nursery school down the street instead of the school it wouldn’t be much consolation.
Thats why you arm the day care workers too Daver.
Simply having armed guards is insufficient. Then the attacker knows to target them first.
If you have a few school/day care personnel armed, you get a herd immunity effect going where the potential attacker has to consider everyone armed.
A defense in depth is the ONLY response that had a chance of working. Anything else is fantasy.
You can’t stop every attack, because you can’t see them everyone of them coming. Some of the attacks will include top shelf armaments, and there’s nothing you can do to prevent that because some of the attacks come from military and law enforcement personnel. (One of the largest mass shootings was by a Korean policeman who made is way through a rural area knocking on people’s doors and then killing them before they could alert anyone.) If you set it up so the attacker h as a weapon X and his targets have nothing, you get horrifying incidents like Sandy Hook, Dunblane, and Utoya Norway, where the death toll is only limited by how much equipment the attacker can manage to lug around and how many targets he has, because he’s not faced with any viable opposition that could take him down no matter what the attacker/target numerical ratio might be. Thus, almost all public mass shootings are in places where guns are forbidden, guaranteeing and ample supply of helpless targets and no possible opposition. This moves the likely maximum death toll from three or four to thirty or forty.
Perhaps an acceptable alternative are dogs that could be used take down shooters.
Turns out the shooter played hours and hours of video games like dance dance revolution at least it wasn’t angry birds or words with friends which has been the cause of many fights.
Even in a not free society, some tragedies just can’t be prevented.
Yep. Biggest school massacre was in a decidedly not-free country (and many of the casualties were likely caused by the rescuers).
I am surprised you don’t think that arming the staff and teachers would not have helped.
It almost certainly would have helped, in the sense that the carnage would have been reduced, but it probably wouldn’t have prevented it.
If the shooter had known that they may have been armed staff present he may have gone somewhere else. Shooters tend to not like to get shot at. The report, such as it was, didn’t find any particular reason why the shooter would dislike the elementary school, it just seemed to be a target of opportunity that he was familiar with.
Of course, if he decided to shoot up the nursery school down the street instead of the school it wouldn’t be much consolation.
Thats why you arm the day care workers too Daver.
Simply having armed guards is insufficient. Then the attacker knows to target them first.
If you have a few school/day care personnel armed, you get a herd immunity effect going where the potential attacker has to consider everyone armed.
A defense in depth is the ONLY response that had a chance of working. Anything else is fantasy.
You can’t stop every attack, because you can’t see them everyone of them coming. Some of the attacks will include top shelf armaments, and there’s nothing you can do to prevent that because some of the attacks come from military and law enforcement personnel. (One of the largest mass shootings was by a Korean policeman who made is way through a rural area knocking on people’s doors and then killing them before they could alert anyone.) If you set it up so the attacker h as a weapon X and his targets have nothing, you get horrifying incidents like Sandy Hook, Dunblane, and Utoya Norway, where the death toll is only limited by how much equipment the attacker can manage to lug around and how many targets he has, because he’s not faced with any viable opposition that could take him down no matter what the attacker/target numerical ratio might be. Thus, almost all public mass shootings are in places where guns are forbidden, guaranteeing and ample supply of helpless targets and no possible opposition. This moves the likely maximum death toll from three or four to thirty or forty.
Perhaps an acceptable alternative are dogs that could be used take down shooters.
Turns out the shooter played hours and hours of video games like dance dance revolution at least it wasn’t angry birds or words with friends which has been the cause of many fights.
http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/dance-dance-revolucion.html
perhaps it was this?