School Shootings: a new analysis

[The_Barbarian]

So, your answer is; “I don’t care what the statistics say, I believe otherwise.”

Guess this one is at an end. If anyone can show us that Columbine was a posted “gun-free zone” as Mellensdad claims, I’d like to hear about it.

 

[melensdad]

If anyone can show us that Columbine was a posted “gun-free zone” as Mellensdad claims, I’d like to hear about it.

I never made such a claim. You are making false claims about me AGAIN. Further you are changing the topic to something that is trivial and off topic.

I did post a parody cartoon that illustrated several different shooting events and implied each was a gun free zone.

Staying ON TOPIC, what I posted was new information from police trainers and experts who claim that GUN FREE ZONE sings may attract killers and may actually make the schools, malls, and workplaces LESS SAFE. I provided links to the stories and a couple quotes taken from them. That is what I posted. Please stop twisting other people’s words to distort and confuse serious issues.

If you care to look at the details of each incident you can learn. In both incidences the gunman ignored the signs ( guess he could not read) , Both incidences 911 was called and people died in the minutes waiting for cops to show up. But in Trolley Square there was an armed guy eating in the resturant with his wife who engaged the gunman and saved people, he happened to be a off duty cop from another city, but still waiting for the cops to arrive would cost more lives. Others in the mall were armed and pulled their guns to defend themselves. Legally carring saved their lives. If this had occured in a different state then at least several more would be dead.

In Utah the 'gun free" zones are few (you can legally carry in schools), and in general the signs in malls are ignored since in Utah if you are in a “gun free zone” with a conceal carry and someone does find out, all they can do is ask you to leave, there is no penalty.

Many states have similar laws that allow legal carry holders to ignore GUN FREE ZONE signs. Basically it says that legal carry people have an exemption to the signs as long as the guns are concealed and if they ask you to leave then you must do so. But as you state, if your gun is concealed they don’t know anyway, and you are not in violation of the law. I do believe that Ohio is one state that is different, if there is a GUN FREE ZONE sign, I believe you must disarm before entering.

Here in Indiana we are allowed to carry onto school property under strict guidelines. I cannot carry into the building but I don’t have disarm when I take my daughter to/from a school event, etc.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I never made such a claim. You are making false claims about me AGAIN. Further you are changing the topic to something that is trivial and off topic.

I did post a parody cartoon that illustrated several different shooting events and implied each was a gun free zone.

So you’re telling me that they are “parodies” and there really wasn’t a “gun-free” zone in those places? So if not, isn’t that stuff dishonest? I’m not claiming you drew them, or even knew that they were dishonest. But isn’t that a tip-off about the people who did draw them?

Staying ON TOPIC, what I posted was new information from police trainers and experts who claim that GUN FREE ZONE sings may attract killers and may actually make the schools,

The problem is, the evidence doesn’t support that. In fact, you have yet to show us any shootings took place in schools with posted gun-free zones.

 

[melensdad]

So you’re telling me that they are “parodies” and there really wasn’t a “gun-free” zone in those places? So if not, isn’t that stuff dishonest? I’m not claiming you drew them, or even knew that they were dishonest. But isn’t that a tip-off about the people who did draw them?
…
The problem is, the evidence doesn’t support that. In fact, you have yet to show us any shootings took place in schools with posted gun-free zones.

**TWISTING STATEMENTS AGAIN

Please re-read my prior post. You claim the evidence doesn’t support the police testimony but you only supply old evidence and it is not even directly related to their testimony. Further you limit your evidence and your arguments to only one type of mass shooting and you mislead others by implying that those are the only type of mass shootings since you ignore everything else.

PLEASE STOP THE GAMES. You insist that I produce evidence to back up claims I never made! Why? If I didn’t make a claim then why would I have to back it up? Because you falsely state that I made a claim? That is what you have done many times. You state I said something that I clearly did not say. You never apologize when I correct your statement. You repeat it again. By doing so it is clear that you do not value the truth and rather just post falsehoods to argue. **

 

[The_Barbarian]

It’s a well-known fact, that if you post something in huge red letters, it has to be true.

Let’s just close, noting that the cartoons dishonestly depicted events, without assuming that you knew they were dishonest when you posted them.

Nuff said.

 

[melensdad]

It’s a well-known fact, that if you post something in huge red letters, it has to be true.

Let’s just close, noting that the cartoons dishonestly depicted events, without assuming that you knew they were dishonest when you posted them.

Nuff said.

Apparently this cartoon, with Columbine in the corner is what you are nit-picking about?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4572&d=1226707476

First, I never claimed that the cartoon was 100% accurate, I simply said it sends a message. I never claimed that Columbine had those signs up, however, federal law was in effect and that was a Gun Free Zone at the time of the shootings (the federal laws were enacted in 1994, 5 years prior to the shootings). ** So regardless of whether the cartoon parody was 100% accurate or not, the message is very clear, that was a gun free school zone!**

Further, this thread is not about whether people read signs. Nor is it about their ability to read. Nor is it about the cartoon.

This thread is about the risks imposed by “gun free zones” and if these zones actually increase the risks and draw active shooters to these zones. I simply posted the story and you have been nit-picking at cartoons and parsing words to divert people from the topic and the seriousness of the story.

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers

Reported by: Brendan Keefe
Email: Brendan.Keefe@wcpo.com
Last Update: 1:22 am

There have been so many school shootings over the last 40 years that researchers have been able to develop a profile of the typical mass murderer.
…
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.
…
Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event.
…
As soon as they’re confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.​

 

[st_lucy]

I’d be interested in seeing your guy’s numbers. They seem to be directly contradicted by the evidence compiled by law enforcement people.

And the idea of running is psychologically unsound. Flight sets you out as a target. Few people have the foresight to bring equipment to force locked doors, and fewer still will force them, ignoring potential victims trying to escape.
Also, a teacher who abandons his students and runs is abandoning his responsibility for them; it is not what a professional would do.

The lockdown process was designed by LE professionals who have studied the behavior of mass murderers. Cut and run is not a reasonable response.

Anyone can tell you that a moving target is a lot harder to hit than a sitting target. I agree with the OP get those kids out and fast. And this would go for anyone in any of these siturations.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

If I remember there was a teacher at Columbine had his handgun in his car parked off campus because he was not allowed to care a firearm on school property.

I do not know if the campus was posted.

 

[The_Barbarian]

First, I never claimed that the cartoon was 100% accurate, I simply said it sends a message.

In fact, it was completely false. There wasn’t any sort of signage like that, was there? The argument you presented was that such signs encourage attacks, and you used these as support for your argument. But although they “sent a message”, the message was completely false, wasn’t it?

I never claimed that Columbine had those signs up, however, federal law was in effect and that was a Gun Free Zone at the time of the shootings (the federal laws were enacted in 1994, 5 years prior to the shootings).

So you’ve abandoned the argument that it was signs that caused the attack?

So regardless of whether the cartoon parody was 100% accurate or not

Let’s be honest here. The cartoon was 100% false, wasn’t it? No such signs existed at Columbine.

And yes, I know what your site says, but since the evidence at Columbine and elsewhere doesn’t support it, then we have to conclude that they are wrong.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Anyone can tell you that a moving target is a lot harder to hit than a sitting target.

And anyone an attacker can’t see or get to, is nearly impossible to hit. That’s been the experience from evidence, too. Those in these situations who locked down, all survived. Many who tried to run, died.

I agree with the OP get those kids out and fast.

That has, in the past, led to many deaths. The evidence shows that such attackers, when faced with locked doors, move on to easier targets.

 

[melensdad]

In fact, it was completely false. There wasn’t any sort of signage like that, was there? The argument you presented was that such signs encourage attacks, and you used these as support for your argument. But although they “sent a message”, the message was completely false, wasn’t it?

Absolutely not. You are twisting words again, and changing the subject and going off topic.

So you’ve abandoned the argument that it was signs that caused the attack?

Again, you are absolutely incorrect. The cartoon is only a tangent to real topic. The parody cartoon is not the focus of the thread, despite your efforts to make it such.

Let’s be honest here. The cartoon was 100% false, wasn’t it? No such signs existed at Columbine.

First there were 4 parts to that cartoon, I believe there was evidence that at least 3 of the parts were substantiated. So at the most the cartoon could only be 25% incorrect. And since you have not proved that a sign was not posted then it is possible the parody cartoon is 100% CORRECT.

Still, the cartoon is only a tangent to the thread, not the main topic. Why don’t you go back to the main topic?

And yes, I know what your site says, but since the evidence at Columbine and elsewhere doesn’t support it, then we have to conclude that they are wrong.

Well if you know what both of the articles say, and by the way they are not ‘my sites’ since they are media outlets, then you must have overlooked the fact that they talked about MORE THAN JUST SCHOOLS and in fact showed information about malls, workplaces and schools. You keep your focus on Columbine to the exclusion of all the other evidence and you have not even proven that your allegations about Columbine are true.

Why don’t you focus on the actual topic?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

And anyone an attacker can’t see or get to, is nearly impossible to hit. That’s been the experience from evidence, too. Those in these situations who locked down, all survived. Many who tried to run, died.

That has, in the past, led to many deaths. The evidence shows that such attackers, when faced with locked doors, move on to easier targets.

“Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out”—Father John Corapi.
:sad_yes:

 

[Sir_Knight]

So, your answer is; “I don’t care what the statistics say, I believe otherwise.”

Guess this one is at an end. If anyone can show us that Columbine was a posted “gun-free zone” as Mellensdad claims, I’d like to hear about it.

Just because something is not labeled as a “No Gun Zone” doesn’t mean that it isn’t a gun free zone accroding to the law AND the bad people who wish to do harm to others KNOW this – they know that no one will be armed except for them.

There are no signs outside or even inside my daughter’s school saying that it is a “Gun Free Zone” but I challenge you to walk up to the Principal or an Administrator waving a gun around and see how quickly you end up being hauled away in handcuffs. Be sure to let me know how the excuse that there were no signs posted works for you in front of a judge.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Barbarian observes:
So much for the notion of the attacker picking his school. The report goes on to describe lockdown procedures that are more effective than screaming “run for your lives, kids!”

Running was what they tried at Columbine. Didn’t work so well.

Worked a whole lot better than those that stayed and were shot in the classroom.

All those locked down survived. A lot of those who tried running didn’t.

Uh, re-check your facts. More students were shot in the classroom than were shot in the hallways attempting to escape.

That’s not what the evidence shows.

That’s EXACTLY what the evidence shows.

the argument was that signage was the problem. I gather by now, you realize that non of those actually happened at schools that were posted gun-free zones. Using your reasoning, not putting up the signs invites attackers.

You missed the point entirely. The signs are not the issue. The fact that it is a gun-free zone is the issue whether there is a sign or no sign.

Um, no. Why do you suppose he repeatedly declined to support his allegations?

Because you keep mis-qouting him and twisting his words around.

That’s the point; the actual shootings happened at schools that weren’t posted gun-free zones. Exactly the opposite.

Again, the signs are not the issue. The fact that it is a gun-free zone is the issue whether there is a sign or no sign.

So far, the evidence points the other way.

Uh, not it doesn’t. More were shot in the classroom than those attempting to escape.

Political correctness should not overrule reality.

Now you are starting to see the light. The reality of the matter is that gun free zones do NOTHING to make a person safer and actually make a person less safe because no good guy will be armed and the bad guys know this. Therefore, they should be done away with even though it might not seem like the politically correct thing to do.

I don’t think it makes any difference one way or another. If anything, the evidence shows unposted schools are more dangerous.

Do you honestky think that someone who is planning on murdering people which can carry a death sentence will decide not to commit that act because they don’t want to violate a “gun free” zone which carries only a few years in jail?

Barbarian observes:
Even if you told teachers to cut and run in the case of an attack, they wouldn’t do it; they care far too much for their students to run and let the devil take the hindmost.

Someone will be last. They’ll be the targets.

Is it better to lose some or most?

As Columbine showed, those who simply locked down, all of them survived. The ones who tried to run, many of them died.

You are again twisting the facts around. More were shot in the classroom then in the hallways trying to escape.

Barbarian observes:
A rational plan for protection is much better, and when lightning does strike, the school will save lives by following the findings of people who actually know what the hazards are.

I know. But experience and evidence trump anyone’s beliefs.

Precisely why the plans are not publicly discussed.

Just because they are not publicly discussed, do you think that they are not public knowledge?

Barbarian observes:
Someone here once admitted that he had a gun so that he wouldn’t have to be frightened. If one needs a gun to not be frightened, the bad guys have already won. Terror is their goal. It’s possible to live without fear, trusting God, and remembering that there are worse things than dying.

Fearing dying so much that one must have a gun to not be frightened is one of them.

Proof texting isn’t going to help you. “Who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” That’s what He said.

Wrong again. Living by the sword to to take up the sword WITHOUT authority. Those who use a weapon to defend themselves and other innocent individual are not “lving by the sword”.

Turns out you’re wrong. The best protection, as experience has shown, is to lock down the school and protect all the students. Your plan would get many of them killed. You would be failing to protect yourself and others if you suggested they not do the safest thing.

Repeating an incorrect statement over and over again is not going to make it right. More were killed in the classroom than trying to escape.

That’s between you and God. But if I were you, I’d think about it.

It’s a teaching of the Church and Jesus said that He and His Church were One.

Barbarian observes:
In about 3/4 of school attacks, the attacker held some type of grudge, and in 2/3 of these cases, they can be attributed to some form of bullying. Meaning that the juvenile attacker (which ranges from 11-17) was a victim of some form of bullying.

Often the bullied ones don’t strike out, but they carry the scars for a long time. It’s one reason many of them are afraid to be without a weapon.

Most of them do. Violence in schools has dropped markedly, in part because bullying has become a more serious offense in recent years.

I was in high school 30/35 years ago and I never recall of a school shooting being reported on the News or in the papers.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I don’t think it makes any difference one way or another. If anything, the evidence shows unposted schools are more dangerous.

Do you honestky think that someone who is planning on murdering people which can carry a death sentence will decide not to commit that act because they don’t want to violate a “gun free” zone which carries only a few years in jail?

One has to go with the evidence. And as you know, those school shootings happened where there were not such signs.

Barbarian observes:
Even if you told teachers to cut and run in the case of an attack, they wouldn’t do it; they care far too much for their students to run and let the devil take the hindmost.

Someone will be last. They’ll be the targets.

Is it better to lose some or most?

Better to use a method that has so far been 100% successful. Running means people are going to die. Locking down makes students and teachers inaccessible to shooters.

Barbarian observes:
As Columbine showed, those who simply locked down, all of them survived. The ones who tried to run, many of them died.

You are again twisting the facts around.

It’s a fact. 100% of those locked down, lived. Those who ran, or were in areas not locked down often died. No point in denying the facts.

Barbarian observes:
A rational plan for protection is much better, and when lightning does strike, the school will save lives by following the findings of people who actually know what the hazards are.

Experience and evidence trump anyone’s beliefs.

Precisely why the plans are not publicly discussed.

Just because they are not publicly discussed, do you think that they are not public knowledge?

They aren’t for my school district. Some parts are known, such as what students are to do in such cases, but the key elements known by teachers and adminstrators, are not.

Barbarian observes:
Someone here once admitted that he had a gun so that he wouldn’t have to be frightened. If one needs a gun to not be frightened, the bad guys have already won. Terror is their goal. It’s possible to live without fear, trusting God, and remembering that there are worse things than dying.

Fearing dying so much that one must have a gun to not be frightened is one of them.

Proof texting isn’t going to help you. “Who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” That’s what He said.

Wrong again. Living by the sword to to take up the sword WITHOUT authority.

That’s not what Jesus said. You edited His words to make them more acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out you’re wrong. The best protection, as experience has shown, is to lock down the school and protect all the students. Your plan would get many of them killed. You would be failing to protect yourself and others if you suggested they not do the safest thing.

Repeating an incorrect statement over and over again is not going to make it right.

Denying the truth won’t help you. Fact is, all students in locked-down classrooms lived.

More were killed in the classroom than trying to escape.

Which is why we have lock-down procedures. If the teachers had merely locked the doors, lives would have been saved.

Barbarian observes:
In about 3/4 of school attacks, the attacker held some type of grudge, and in 2/3 of these cases, they can be attributed to some form of bullying. Meaning that the juvenile attacker (which ranges from 11-17) was a victim of some form of bullying.

Often the bullied ones don’t strike out, but they carry the scars for a long time. It’s one reason many of them are afraid to be without a weapon.

Most of them do. Violence in schools has dropped markedly, in part because bullying has become a more serious offense in recent years.

I was in high school 30/35 years ago and I never recall of a school shooting being reported on the News or in the papers.

Ignorance is not an argument. Show me some data.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So much for the notion of the attacker picking his school. The report goes on to describe lockdown procedures that are more effective than screaming “run for your lives, kids!”

Running was what they tried at Columbine. Didn’t work so well.

Worked a whole lot better than those that stayed and were shot in the classroom.

O.K. so we know that sitting in the open and running got a lot of people killed. Everyone who locked down in classrooms survived.
It seems pretty obvious that any reasonable person would go with something that actually was shown to work.

Barbarian observes:
All those locked down survived. A lot of those who tried running didn’t.

Uh, re-check your facts.

Already done. The ones who were behind barricaded or locked doors, they all lived. Many of the ones who ran, died.

More students were shot in the classroom than were shot in the hallways attempting to escape.

Because the school had no lockdown procedure, some classes were not protected. Again, this simply points out the foolishness of trying to flee an area where one is protected.

Barbarian, regarding the number of students shot trying to escape, compared to the survival of all who were locked down.
That’s not what the evidence shows.

That’s EXACTLY what the evidence shows.

Sorry, denial isn’t going to help you at this point. Fact is, the one thing that has saved every person so far, is lockdown.

Barbarian observes:
the argument was that signage was the problem. I gather by now, you realize that non of those actually happened at schools that were posted gun-free zones. Using your reasoning, not putting up the signs invites attackers.

You missed the point entirely. The signs are not the issue. The fact that it is a gun-free zone is the issue whether there is a sign or no sign.

No. The argument was that the signs are an inducement for people to come there and kill. As you now realize, the numbers show just the opposite.

Barbarian
Um, no. Why do you suppose he repeatedly declined to support his allegations?

Because you keep mis-qouting him

How do you “misquote” a picture? Either it’s an honest presentation of the facts, or it isn’t. Either Columbine was a posted gun-free zone, or it wasn’t. His argument is that such places invite attacks, and he posted the picture to support his claim. I don’t think he knew it was a lie at the time, but someone clearly took advantage of his trust in them.

Barbarian observes:
That’s the point; the actual shootings happened at schools that weren’t posted gun-free zones. Exactly the opposite.

Again, the signs are not the issue.

That was the claim. Signs were said to make attacks more likely.

Barbarian, regarding the 100% survival of students in lock-down:
So far, the evidence points the other way.

Uh, not it doesn’t.

All the students in lock-down survived. Many who weren’t, died. There isn’t any way to change that.

Barbarian observes:
Political correctness should not overrule reality.

Now you are starting to see the light.

So why are you still adhering to the politically-correct (and false) claim that running is safer than lock-down?

The reality of the matter is that gun free zones do NOTHING to make a person safer and actually make a person less safe because no good guy will be armed and the bad guys know this.

That was the claim, but as you know, the “evidence” cited was false.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Just because something is not labeled as a “No Gun Zone” doesn’t mean that it isn’t a gun free zone accroding to the law AND the bad people who wish to do harm to others KNOW this – they know that no one will be armed except for them.

The argument is that such signs encourage attacks on schools. As you learned, that is false. The record shows attacks occuring at schools that don’t have the signs.

There are no signs outside or even inside my daughter’s school saying that it is a “Gun Free Zone” but I challenge you to walk up to the Principal or an Administrator waving a gun around and see how quickly you end up being hauled away in handcuffs. Be sure to let me know how the excuse that there were no signs posted works for you in front of a judge.

You seem to be arguing with yourself, now.

 

[wabrams]

Barbarian,

I haven’t really checked this thread in a couple of days, but after catching up, I have one observation: you have some awesome copy and paste skills, b/c you keep repeating the same garabge over and over w/o missing one punctuation mark or leaving a single word out.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I haven’t really checked this thread in a couple of days, but after catching up, I have one observation: you have some awesome copy and paste skills

What seems to infuriate some people here, is the research. Evidence is the best squelch, isn’t it?

b/c you keep repeating the same garabge over and over w/o missing one punctuation mark or leaving a single word out.

You’d probably be more effective if you’d learn to put together an effective argument. Harping on how terrible the evil Barbarian is, probably doesn’t impress many people.

Since you’re here, I’ll help you get started. Since the evidence shows that no student or teacher who actually locked down in these events was harmed, and many who tried to flee died, law enforcement people recommend a lock-down procedure as the safest policy.

The evidence also shows that no school so attacked had signs designating it as a gun-free zone. The argument presented here was that such signs encourage attacks, but since the evidence shows that is not the case, we have to conclude that the argument is faulty.

Can you show us otherwise?

 

[wabrams]

You’d probably be more effective if you’d learn to put together an effective argument. Harping on how terrible the evil Barbarian is, probably doesn’t impress many people.

In case you haven’t gathered, I could really care less what you think of me; plus my opnion of you is held by others, so your statement about me not impressing others is rather void of any substinance.

Since you’re here, I’ll help you get started. Since the evidence shows that no student or teacher who actually locked down in these events was harmed, and many who tried to flee died, law enforcement people recommend a lock-down procedure as the safest policy.

No one died from fleeing in the opposite direction of the gunmen as stated in evidence provided in an earlier post.

The evidence also shows that no school so attacked had signs designating it as a gun-free zone. The argument presented here was that such signs encourage attacks, but since the evidence shows that is not the case, we have to conclude that the argument is faulty.

You yourself yielded to evidence provided earlier that 2 schools mentioned had gun free zones signs postesd.