School Shootings: a new analysis

[melensdad]

You’d probably do better if you dealt with the evidence, instead of whining about how mean the Barbarian is. . .

He was neither whining nor was he implying you are mean.

You do, however, repeat lies, over and over again is some bizarre attempt to legitimize them. Further you parse sentences to suit your needs, even when it clearly changes the meaning of what the other person stated. When all else fails you then claim victim status, as you do above.

Sorry, you are what you are and I see right through you.

Getting back to the actual topic, here are some things from the original news story:

The other statistic that emerged from **a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks.
. . .
Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises. ** Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

The Barbarian may choose not to believe the information. The Barbarian may be skeptical of the conclusions.

• Please to disprove the news story.
• Please discredit the police officers who were interviewed.
• Please discredit TDI (the training and tactical company).
• Please discredit the National School Resource Officer Organization which uses the tactics.
• Please discredit the quotes from the story above.

If you can.

For those people who believe that the GUN FREE ZONE signs work, I submit that you may want to post one on your home and see how it works out.

 

[melensdad]

**Here is ANOTHER news story, seems to indicate that RUNNING AWAY is the correct tactic. ** tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2006011/

So when my wife said she would direct her students to flee, apparently that was the correct answer. Of course, a local police official confirmed it to her long ago. Still, I’m sort of amazed that people defend the choice to lock themselves in a room and wait to be killed. Now the story does suggest that barricading the doors is also an option but clearly suggesting running as viable.

C. Mark Wilson, emergency manager/planner for the Raleigh County Emergency Operations Center . . . ** told educators to move away from the sound of gunfire and run in a zig-zag direction.** Running in a straight line makes someone an easier target.
. . .
In a “last resort” situation** when fleeing is impossible, **Beckley police Sgt. Jake Corey said, educators should fight back.
​

​

 

[The_Barbarian]

Here’s what they actually said…

Wilson told educators to move away from the sound of gunfire and run in a zig-zag direction. Running in a straight line makes someone an easier target. They should barricade themselves and students, then turn out the lights.

Not an “option;” it’s what they say teachers should do. And it’s no surprise, given the experience of places like Columbine. The ones who ran often died. The ones who locked down, all survived.

 

[melensdad]

Not an “option;” it’s what they say teachers should do. And it’s no surprise, given the experience of places like Columbine. The ones who ran often died. The ones who locked down, all survived.

Clearly it was an option. Not sure why you say it is not. The article quoted 2 different people. One mentioned running first, barricading second. The other mentioned running first, fighting second. Clearly both mentioned running.

BTW, those in Virginia Tech who stayed in the classrooms died.

 

[whatevergirl]

As I read through this thread…I felt myself becoming paranoid.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Clearly it was an option. Not sure why you say it is not.

Because they said it should be done.

Let’s take another look…

Wilson told educators to move away from the sound of gunfire and run in a zig-zag direction. Running in a straight line makes someone an easier target. They should barricade themselves and students, then turn out the lights.

Not “they could;” it says they should do that.

BTW, those in Virginia Tech who stayed in the classrooms died.

Those who were unable to lock down the room did. But even though they couldn’t lock the door, some students figured it out for themselves, and didn’t die:

Zach Petkewicz, a student, said he barricaded a classroom door to keep the gunman out, and the gunman shot through the door.

“Me and two others got up, threw a couple of tables in front of it and had to physically hold it there while there were gunshots going on,” he said on CNN. “He came to our door and tried the handle. He couldn’t get it in because we were pushing up against it. He tried to force his way in and got the door to open up about six inches and then we just lunged at it and closed it back up. That’s when he backed up and shot twice into the middle of the door, thinking we were up against it trying to get him out.”
nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17virginia.html

They lived. The ones who tried to run, they died. Dumb idea.

For those people who believe that the GUN FREE ZONE signs work, I submit that you may want to post one on your home and see how it works out.

Does that mean I’d have to give up my gun?

 

[The_Barbarian]

He was neither whining nor was he implying you are mean.

I know whining, I used to get paid to recognize it.

You do, however, repeat lies, over and over again is some bizarre attempt to legitimize them.

Simply screaming “liar” at people who present contrary evidence isn’t going to do your credibility any good. As I said, you need to learn to put an argument together, instead of calling names.

Further you parse sentences to suit your needs, even when it clearly changes the meaning of what the other person stated.

Funny you should mention that. One person here parsed this to us:

C. Mark Wilson, emergency manager/planner for the Raleigh County Emergency Operations Center . . . told educators to move away from the sound of gunfire and run in a zig-zag direction. Running in a straight line makes someone an easier target.

What he really said:

Wilson told educators to move away from the sound of gunfire and run in a zig-zag direction. Running in a straight line makes someone an easier target. They should barricade themselves and students, then turn out the lights.

When all else fails you then claim victim status, as you do above.

You guys obsess too much about being “victims.” If someone gets mad and calls names, he’s victimizing no one but himself. Feeling sorry for yourself isn’t going to help you.

Sorry, you are what you are and I see right through you.

(one of the benefits of paranoia is the ability to read minds)

• Please to disprove the news story.

Don’t have to. You posted the assertions. Up to you to support them.

For those people who believe that the GUN FREE ZONE signs work, I submit that you may want to post one on your home and see how it works out.

Would that mean I’d have to give up my gun?

 

[melensdad]

The ones who tried to run, they died. Dumb idea.

But you are discounting all the other areas of the building where they did run and left alive? So perhaps if the active shooter is in front of you the best answer it to barricade, but as for the rest of the building, fleeing is the better option in my opinion, and also in the opinion of the other ‘expert’ quoted in the news article. Clearly written:

** when fleeing is impossible**

and the other expert wrote:

**told educators to move away from the sound of gunfire **

This clearly indicates that if you can then you should get out of the area. Be it a shopping mall, a workplace or a school. If someone is shooting, get the heck out of there. I can’t understand why you would choose to tell people that is a bad idea.

In Virginia Tech and in the shopping mall in Salt Lake City hundreds did flee and are alive today because when the shooting started they did not stick around to watch. I watched the videos of Columbine, I saw kids running away, going out the windows and not one was shot.

Now if I was facing the shooter, in the same room or the same hallway, then I’d think that running would make me a target. But if he is not in my room, or if he is at the far end of a long hall, then me, I’ll listen to the words of these officers and run the other way out a back door.

Thank you for your opinion, but the evidence seems very clear to me, and to the officers in these various news stories posted here. GET OUT OF THE BUILDING.

---

BTW, I posted a secular news story in the secular news area. Since doing that you have done nothing but complain about it, parse it, and parse the words of people who have responded to you. When suggested that you may want to try to refute the story you replied with:

Don’t have to. You posted the assertions. Up to you to support them.

I think you are being intellectually lazy. I posted a news story. I then posted a follow up news story that agrees with the first one. So I did support it.

If you don’t like the story then disprove it. Since you are not disproving it, it must be true. I don’t see anyone else here defending the notion of sticking around when shooting starts.

I don’t see anyone else here (or elsewhere) who is suggesting that the GUN FREE ZONE signs are effective.

I don’t see anyone who suggests that if you want to feel safe in your home you should put a GUN FREE ZONE sign on your front door.

I don’t even see any evidence that disputes the thought that GUN FREE ZONE signs don’t attract murder.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The ones who tried to run, they died. Dumb idea.
But you are discounting all the other areas of the building where they did run and left alive?

No. Just noting that everyone who locked down survived, and many who didn’t, died. That’s very good evidence that cut and run is a bad idea.

Barbarian, regarding the idea that he has to refute assertions:
Don’t have to. You posted the assertions. Up to you to support them.

I think you are being intellectually lazy.

I’m the one who actually researched the facts and you won’t even support your claims that Columbine (for example) was a posted gun-free zone.

And you’re calling me “intellectually lazy?”

I don’t see anyone else here (or elsewhere) who is suggesting that the GUN FREE ZONE signs are effective.

If you’d just support your claim, we could find out. Of the four you mentioned, show us how many were posted gun-free zones, and how many weren’t, and we’d at least have some evidence. I think I know why you refuse to substantiate your claim.

I don’t see anyone who suggests that if you want to feel safe in your home you should put a GUN FREE ZONE sign on your front door.

I don’t think that’s what they are for.

I don’t even see any evidence that disputes the thought that GUN FREE ZONE signs don’t attract murder.

Other than the apparent lack of them in all the mass murder cases you mentioned, and the lack of mass murder cases where they were used.

That should be a tip-off, um?

 

[melensdad]

Barbarian observes:
The ones who tried to run, they died. Dumb idea.
But you are discounting all the other areas of the building where they did run and left alive?

No. Just noting that everyone who locked down survived, and many who didn’t, died. That’s very good evidence that cut and run is a bad idea.

There you go repeating something that makes no sense in hopes that it will somehow be true.

Those IN FRONT of the shooter who ran died. Those who STOOD STILL in front of the shooter died. Those who sat down IN FRONT of the shooter died.

Those who barricaded their rooms, when possible, lived. But the shooters did enter rooms and killed people and that is fact. That alone refutes your statement. Cho went from room to room and did his shooting. A postal worker, authorized to enter the Amish school, went into rooms and killed people. The children who fled survived.

Now go to other shootings. Take the shooting in Illinois at NIU. All those shots occurred inside one lecture hall. Those who did NOT run are the ones who died. Those who fled the lecture hall lived.

Please stop repeating the same statements in hopes they will magically become true when the facts are that they are not true. Stay and die. Run and live. That is generally true.

melensdad:

I don’t see anyone who suggests that if you want to feel safe in your home you should put a GUN FREE ZONE sign on your front door.
Barbarian:

I don’t think that’s what they are for.

Of course that is exactly what they are for. They are there to protect people. They put them on stores, on malls and on schools. Those signs are there to make us safe. Put one on your house. I’m sure you will feel safer.

 

[JustinR]

I think we can agree that decades ago school shootings were very rare, and now they are not. Same with mothers that kill their own kids, or kids who kill their family.

One Anaylsis of Why this has happened is written in a highly detailed and technical book by Dr Ann Tracy, She documents that EVERY school shooting had one thing in common, from Columbine on down, either the kids were on SSRI meds or took their parents meds. Dr . Tracy has testified before Congress, she has testified in the Andrea Yeates trial who killed her own kids, and in trails of killers in many school shootings.
Her book is called PROZAC PANACEA OR PANDORA ? For over a dozen years she has been researching and speaking out about how all the SSRI antidepressants such as paxil, zoloft, lovan, prozac, luvox, etc, all change the brain and result in these shootings. Eli Lily patented LSD as medical drug in 1956 touting the great benefits, in 1987 they gave us Prozac, and these SSRI drugs are taken by millions now, with many people acting out with no regard to others. There are some “black box” warnings on some of these meds, but not enough has been done. She also warns that once on these not to stop these meds suddenly.

Also consider the current huge epidemic of female school teachers who are having affairs with their pupils, I would like to see how many are on these anti depressents.

With every school shooting , my first question is are these kids on Proazac or other anti depressents, and so far every one has been .

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think we can agree that decades ago school shootings were very rare,

There was more violence decades ago. As long as the Department of Justice has been keeping records, it’s been declining.

and now they are not.

About one school shooting per school every 100,000 years. That’s exceedingly rare. All sorts of things, such as drownings, are far more common.

Same with mothers that kill their own kids, or kids who kill their family.

Hmm… let’s see the stats on that. I think that’s also on the decline, but I don’t have the numbers right now. Can you show us?

One Anaylsis of Why this has happened is written in a highly detailed and technical book by Dr Ann Tracy, She documents that EVERY school shooting had one thing in common, from Columbine on down, either the kids were on SSRI meds or took their parents meds. Dr . Tracy has testified before Congress, she has testified in the Andrea Yeates trial who killed her own kids, and in trails of killers in many school shootings.
Her book is called PROZAC PANACEA OR PANDORA ? For over a dozen years she has been researching and speaking out about how all the SSRI antidepressants such as paxil, zoloft, lovan, prozac, luvox, etc, all change the brain and result in these shootings. Eli Lily patented LSD as medical drug in 1956 touting the great benefits, in 1987 they gave us Prozac, and these SSRI drugs are taken by millions now, with many people acting out with no regard to others. There are some “black box” warnings on some of these meds, but not enough has been done. She also warns that once on these not to stop these meds suddenly.

I have one son, a successful software project manager, who struggled with depression all his life. When it finally was found that he had a chemical imbalance that caused the depression, he was placed on one of those meds. He says it saved his life; he had struggled with suicidal thoughts for some time. Long as he’s on it, he’s fine. Without it, he’s seriously depressed.

Also consider the current huge epidemic of female school teachers who are having affairs with their pupils, I would like to see how many are on these anti depressents.

Could be an issue. I just know that my son is still with us, because of those drugs. But you might have something there. However, I know of one teacher, about 45 years ago, in my school, who hit on one of my friends in a most blatant way. She was weird; probably would have been a candidate for Prozac today.

With every school shooting , my first question is are these kids on Proazac or other anti depressents, and so far every one has been .

Since this is the kind of thing a suicidal kid might do in the first place, I wonder. Is there a place I can access this data on these kids? In general it’s tough to locate medical histories, even of criminals, due to privacy laws.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There you go repeating something that makes no sense in hopes that it will somehow be true.

It’s very true. Many who ran, died. Those who barricaded themselves in rooms lived.

Those who barricaded their rooms, when possible, lived. But the shooters did enter rooms and killed people and that is fact. That alone refutes your statement.

No. It merely shows that a reasonable lock-down program would have saved a lot of lives. Note that at Virginia Tech, a few students improvised a barricade and survived. Training teachers and students in lockdown procedures is even better. That’s why schools do it. That’s why the expert you cited said that teachers and students should barricade themselves in their rooms. So far, everyone who’s done that has lived.

Please stop repeating the same statements in hopes they will magically become true when the facts are that they are not true.

You may not like the facts. But they are facts. No one who barricaded themselves in a room has died. Many who tried to flee the building were killed.

Barbarian observes:
I don’t see anyone who suggests that if you want to feel safe in your home you should put a GUN FREE ZONE sign on your front door.

Barbarian chuckles:
I don’t think that’s what they are for.

Of course that is exactly what they are for.

Sounds pretty unlikely to me. Show me some safety organization promoting “gun-free zone” signage for private homes. I think someone’s having a little fun with your trust in them.

Put one on your house. I’m sure you will feel safer.

Does that mean I’d have to give up my gun?

 

[melensdad]

It’s very true. Many who ran, died. Those who barricaded themselves in rooms lived.

Many who stayed died. Many more who ran lived.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It’s very true. Many who ran, died. Those who barricaded themselves in rooms lived.

Many who stayed died.

Sounds like a testable assertion. Show us how many died after barricading themselves in a room or locking it down.

 

[melensdad]

Barbarian observes:
It’s very true. Many who ran, died. Those who barricaded themselves in rooms lived.

But the only ones who ran and died were IN THE LINE OF FIRE and those who ran and were out of the line of fire were never even fired upon and were safe.

You fail to acknowledge the point that if you are not in the line of fire then getting the heck out of the building is the wise choice.

You also fail to acknowledge that many who stayed died. Yes, if you could physically barricade the door then you probably had a 100% survival rate *(I don’t know that to be true, but its probably true) *however many doors have glass windows, many rooms have furniture that cannot be pushed in front of a door.

You seem to ignore the NIU shootings with the gunman INSIDE the room. Those who stayed died. Those who ran lived. There was no way to barricade the room either.

Ditto the Amish school house shooting. The postman(?) was authorized in the building. He walked into the room. He pulled the gun after he was in there. Some went out windows and lived. Some stayed and died. Fleeing is a very viable option and sometimes the only option even if you are in the line of fire and clearly if you are not in the line of fire.

Look at the Salt Lake City Mall shootings. The shooter shot at everyone inside his lines of fire. The only safe option was to run out of the lines of fire. There were open stores all around, no rooms to barricade themselves into, just a wide open mall. The only option, run out of the line of fire. Those who stayed were shot/shot at.

FWIW, my wife’s classroom is a lecture hall with glass windows, explain exactly how that could be barricaded effectively when the furniture is built in and non-movable and the students could simply be shot through the window?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

There was more violence decades ago.
.

Do you have some stats on that? Years ago boys would carry guns to schools.

Guns were only banned from schools recently. Like at my Parish I can carry a firearm in every building except in the school. Dumb laws are just dumb laws.

What would be your solution?

I have noticed that you did not answer my question if you would put a **“Gun Free Zone” **sign in your front yard.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Do you have some stats on that? Years ago boys would carry guns to schools.

Yep.

For example, in the last 16 years, homicides at schools dropped by one-third.
krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/07violdeath.gif

**2005:
Violent crime against students in schools fell 50% from 1992 to 2002, according to a report from the Education and Justice Departments released in November. Crime outside schools, too, is at a 30-year low. **
eagleforum.org/educate/2005/mar05/violence.html

Guns were only banned from schools recently. Like at my Parish I can carry a firearm in every building except in the school. Dumb laws are just dumb laws.

They seem to be working.

What would be your solution?

Keep doing whatever is working.

I have noticed that you did not answer my question if you would put a “Gun Free Zone” sign in your front yard.

I wouldn’t have thought anyone was dumb enough to think “gun-free zones” were meant for residences. Besides, you still won’t tell me if I’d have to get rid of my gun.

Do you actually know of anyone who thinks “gun-free zone” signs should be placed at residences? If so, please give us a checkable link.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You fail to acknowledge the point that if you are not in the line of fire then getting the heck out of the building is the wise choice.

That’s not what the evidence shows. People moving through the building are simply putting themselves at risk, while locking themselves in has resulted in no shootings at all.

Yes, if you could physically barricade the door then you probably had a 100% survival rate (I don’t know that to be true, but its probably true) however many doors have glass windows, many rooms have furniture that cannot be pushed in front of a door.

That’s why lock-down programs exist. They identify places of safety and establish procedures to make sure as many people as possible are protected.

FWIW, my wife’s classroom is a lecture hall with glass windows, explain exactly how that could be barricaded effectively when the furniture is built in and non-movable and the students could simply be shot through the window?

Your wife told you the lockdown plan was to hide in an area exposed to windows? I really don’t think any school district has adminstrators that dumb. Can you provide some evidence for that?

 

[melensdad]

That’s not what the evidence shows. People moving through the building are simply putting themselves at risk, while locking themselves in has resulted in no shootings at all.

That’s why lock-down programs exist. They identify places of safety and establish procedures to make sure as many people as possible are protected.

Your wife told you the lockdown plan was to hide in an area exposed to windows? I really don’t think any school district has adminstrators that dumb. Can you provide some evidence for that?

You are making some wild assumptions here.

First, the school policy is a blanket policy, it makes no sense, especially in the light of the new understanding as illustrated in the article. As for the policy, it applies as is, lockdown in the room you are in. Some are windowless, some are not. My wife’s room is an interior room, windows on one side looking into a ‘common’ area, doors on 2 sides exiting into opposite areas.

Second, you are still ignoring all the other points. You are ignoring the NIU shootings. You are ignoring the mall shootings. You ignore the fact that most who fled survived and in some cases that was their option. You are ignoring the fact that some experts now say the GUN FREE ZONE signs attract murders and have even attempted to refute the experts on this point. I still don’t understand why you refute that and yet are unwilling to post one of those signs on your home.