School Shootings: a new analysis

[melensdad]

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.

Actually, again correcting your constant mistruths, the article indicated that the signs may attract shooters to places that have signs, which may include schools, malls, and workplaces. It backed those conclusions up with expert testimony.

The fact that SOME schools that do NOT have signs were also attacked is NOT proof that the statements from the law enforcement officers is false, only that there are many circumstances that can attract shooters. That said, nowhere in the article did the experts say that the only places that have shootings have signs.

Please read the words from the first article again to refresh your memory:

**The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out “gun free” zones for their attacks. **

You will notice that it says ALMOST. You conveniently seem to avoid that word and you also conveniently limit all your discussion points to schools.

It appears that you are intentionally deceptive in your posting of very selective data, and your parsing of very selective wording to the exclusion of the original news story. We all understand that you dislike the original news story. However you have failed to post anything that has disproved the story, you have failed to post anything that has disproved the follow up data. You have, however, concentrated your attacks on very limited portions of this discussion, concentrating on a parody cartoon which you have yet to prove is untrue* (and even if that small portion of the parody cartoon is not accurate, the point it makes, which is the point of the cartoon, simply reinforces the news article and would not discredit the original article)* and you have outright lied about statements you claim people have made during this thread.
Barbarian:

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.

First your statement is a blatant lie because the Amish Schoolhouse shootings occurred in a tiny locked down 1 room school. The survivors fled out of windows. The shooter was let into the locked school because he was a trusted individual. Second, lockdowns do NOT take into account the problems of having shooters IN THE ROOM with the victims as occurred at Northern Illinois University. Third, lockdowns do not necessarily take into account the fact that many rooms have glass doors/windows which the shooter can shoot through. Fourth, the experts indicate that it is a sound tactic to get out of the building and out of the line of fire (but you simply dismiss those expert statements). Fifth, your lockdown argument can only work in a building like a school but clearly would have zero usefulness or application in shopping malls like Trolly Square and Omaha where running away was the only option and the article is clearly about MORE THAN JUST SCHOOLS despite your misleading and deceptive ploys at trying to focus it only on very limited events in very limited settings.

 

[melensdad]

Running was what they tried at Columbine. Didn’t work so well.
…
All those locked down survived. A lot of those who tried running didn’t.

Actually the vast majority of those who ran, something like 99% of them survived. Those who did not were in very close proximity to the shooter and many of those didn’t even have a chance to run. Again you are being very deceptive and inaccurate.

You seem to imply that everyone at the various mass shootings who died were people who ran. That is simply not true. Many where shot down before they had a chance to get out of chairs, before they even knew what was happening. Some probably never even saw the shooter shoot them. Yet your implication is that they all ran and died. Please cite your evidence for such outlandish claims.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually the vast majority of those who ran, something like 99% of them survived.

Thirty-five people were shot. You’re saying that there were nearly 3500 people in the school? And isn’t the fact that no one who locked down was even shot persuasive for you?

Those who did not were in very close proximity to the shooter and many of those didn’t even have a chance to run. Again you are being very deceptive and inaccurate.

See above. Tossing made up statistics around is certainly “deceptive and inaccurate.” Meantime, you still won’t face the fact that everyone who was locked down, survived, and many who ran died.

You seem to imply that everyone at the various mass shootings who died were people who ran.

No, and you know that. I said “many who ran, died.” That’s a fact.

That is simply not true.

It’s a fact. By now, if you can shed your political correctness and face the facts, you’ll admit that the best thing do do in one of these attacks is to lock down.

Everyone who does that survives uninjured. Many who don’t, die.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually, again correcting your constant mistruths, the article indicated that the signs may attract shooters to places that have signs, which may include schools, malls, and workplaces. It backed those conclusions up with expert testimony.

Name me one school where that actually happened.

The fact that SOME schools that do NOT have signs

All of those mentioned by Mellonsdad. Isn’t that a surprise? And I’m not much interested in second-hand testimonials. Evidence would be good.

And nothing desperate like describing a one-room school as “locked down” please.

 

[melensdad]

At Columbine 12 were killed. Knowledge and training of widespread tactics did not commonly exist for mass shootings in the school at the time of the event. Consequently the school body ran and panicked. Over 99% survived. Yet again you are mixing deceptive wordplay.

Oh, and ANOTHER reminder, this thread is NOT JUST ABOUT SCHOOLS so there is evidence, which has been supported, about the signs you keep questioning and about the cartoon.

And as for the rest of the ‘evidence’ it is clear that nothing that anyone provides you with, at least nothing that supports the side you personally oppose, will ever be good enough for you. You are unable to report much ‘proof’ that supports your wild claims and unable to accept proof that refutes you.

It is clear you have no desire to hear the truth. It is also clear that you have no desire to do anything other than confuse people by mixing data or arguing about the validity of a cartoon.

Please stop with the lies. I’m tired of beating around the bush. They are lies. You repeat them over and over again, even after they are pointed out to you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

At Columbine 12 were killed.

Thirteen.

Knowledge and training of widespread tactics did not commonly exist for mass shootings in the school at the time of the event. Consequently the school body ran and panicked.

And many died. All those who locked down, they lived.

Over 99% survived.

There are about 1600 students. Thirty-five people were shot, none of them in lock-down.

Yet again you are mixing deceptive wordplay.

The truth matters. It should matter to you.

Oh, and ANOTHER reminder, this thread is NOT JUST ABOUT SCHOOLS so there is evidence, which has been supported, about the signs you keep questioning and about the cartoon.

I gather you now understand that the cartoon was not an honest depiction of the facts. BTW, I’m focusing on schools because in the last few years we have reliable stats for them.

And as for the rest of the ‘evidence’ it is clear that nothing that anyone provides you with, at least nothing that supports the side you personally oppose, will ever be good enough for you.

Just pulling numbers out of a hat won’t suffice. They have to be true, too.

You are unable to report much ‘proof’ that supports your wild claims and unable to accept proof that refutes you.

The police noted that no one who locked down was shot. But many who tried to run were shot.

It is clear you have no desire to hear the truth.

Your political correctness won’t let you accept the truth. Sometimes, the truth isn’t what we’d like it to be. Accept that.

Please stop with the lies.

Do you not know, that such accusations are not permitted here? And, as you know, I’ve told you the truth. You just aren’t ready to accept it.

I’m tired of beating around the bush. They are lies. You repeat them over and over again, even after they are pointed out to you.

And in the end, all you have left is to scream “liar.” That kind of behavior will win over no one. Get some evidence, and learn to make a cogent argument, and you will do better next time.

 

[The_Barbarian]

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.

You’re preaching to the choir. Aggressive and abusive posts will not persuade anyone who is on already in agreement with you. And it embarrasses some of them.

Barbarian suggests:
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.

Show us. Just making up statements won’t help you. Fact is, a number of fleeing students were shot in the back. And this should give you pause:

**The bombs had enough explosive power to destroy the entire cafeteria and bring the library above crashing down. Each shooter then returned to his car to wait until the bombs exploded. They intended to open fire on students fleeing the school through the main entrances once the cafeteria bombs detonated. **

If they had properly set the bombs, cut-and-run would have played right into their hands.

Barbarian observes:
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.

One, I think. But the point is, that more of them didn’t. And that is a real problem for the claim that signs attract attacks.

Which brings us to the reason you aren’t doing so well. If you would simply accept evidence when presented, you would be much more credible. When one accepts contrary evidence, it’s not a weakness. It expresses willingness to accept the facts.

It would greatly increase your credibility.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Fourth, the experts indicate that it is a sound tactic to get out of the building and out of the line of fire (but you simply dismiss those expert statements).

Let’s take a look at what people who actually know what they are talking about say:

Best Practices for School Security and Emergency Preparedness Planning
** 1.Most schools created emergency/crisis plans after the Columbine attack in April of 1999. Evaluations of school emergency plans nationwide consistently show that while schools have emergency plans and crisis teams named on paper, many plans are sitting on shelve collecting dust. Gaps in emergency plans include questionable content in the plans, a lack of training of school staff on emergency plans, and a lack of exercising plans in cooperation with public safety partners. A written plan sitting on a shelf is only as good as the paper it is written upo

2.School emergency plans should address preparedness procedures such as lockdowns, evacuations, parent-student reunification procedures, mobilizing school transportation during the school day, emergency communications protocols with parents and the media, and mobilizing mental health services.

3.School officials should meet regularly with their public safety partners: Police, fire, emergency medical services, and emergency management agencies to discuss safety, security, and emergency planning strategies.

1. School crisis teams must be trained.

5.Schools should have district-level and building level plans.

1. School emergency plans should be reviewed (in cooperation with public safety partners) and updated at least annually.
2. Schools must work with public safety officials to identify potential staging areas for media, parents, medical personnel, and others who will respond in an emergency.
3. School emergency plans must be exercised in order to reach their maximum potential usefulness. While full scale simulation drills are valuable in teaching important lessons, they are very time and labor intensive in their planning. Schools are strongly encouraged, however, to hold tabletop exercises with their district and building crisis teams, public safety and community agency partners, and other key stakeholders. Tabletops, which can be done in a half-day or day of professional development training time, allow schools to work through hypothetical scenarios to see if the plans they have on paper would work in a real emergency.
4. Schools should practice lockdown drills over the course of a school year as they do fire drills, tornado drills, and other drills. Any drills should be practiced in a realistic manner, such as during lunch hours, not simply when it is convenient and least disruptive to the school day. Schools must practice in the times and manner they would experience in a real emergency.
   **

schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_shootings_Fall_2006.html

 

[melensdad]

Barbarian, thank you for confirming the fact that I was right and you lied. Yes, as you proved, over 99% of the 1600 students in Columbine survived, most of whom ran. I appreciate the affirmation of the data.

As you say the truth matters.

It is also interesting that you are quoting older studies. The information I posted is current. The so-called evidence you posted is a couple years old and perhaps out of date.

Again, as you say the truth matters.

I am interested in the truth. Not old theory. Not old practices.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, thank you for confirming the fact that I was right and you lied.

No matter how bad things are for you, false accusations about lying can only make it worse for you. It might feel good right now, but you’ll have to live with the consequences later. Keep in mind that even if I wasn’t right about 35 people being shot, (I am right about that) it would no more be a lie than your incorrect statement that only 12 people were killed. You can do better than this. I forgive you, but as I said, there are still consequences for that kind of behavior.

Yes, as you proved, over 99% of the 1600 students in Columbine survived, most of whom ran.

Actually, about twice that number were shot. And none of those locked down were injured or killed.

I appreciate the affirmation of the data.

No problem. I know better than to accuse you of lying, when you are probably just wrong. As you know, when you posted the lies about Columbine being a posted gun-free zone, I gave you the benefit of a doubt and assumed you were merely guilty of trusting others who lied to you.

As you say the truth matters.

Indeed. It should matter to you enough to check your figures before you make assertions like that.

It is also interesting that you are quoting older studies. The information I posted is current.

Unfortunately, it’s also wrong. The reason people who actually know about these things recommend lock-downs is simple; in each shooting, no one who was locked down was injured, while many who tried to run, were shot.

The so-called evidence you posted is a couple years old and perhaps out of date.

Truth ages pretty well. The facts haven’t changed.

Again, as you say the truth matters.

I am interested in the truth.

So long as it doesn’t contradict political correctness. And the fact is, the people who actually understand what happens in these situations recommend lock-downs, because they work. So far, worked 100% of the time. But running often gets you killed.

Time and political correctness won’t change the facts. Not even if you really, really want them to change.

 

[melensdad]

Barbarian, no lying on my part. No deception on my part either.

You were very clear with your intentional mixing of survival and killing data. You use the one that suits your needs to illustrate your point, then switch to the other, or simply avoid the other.

You further lied, several times about my wife. You were told what you said was not true and continued your lie.

Personally I think people see through your tactics of deceit. You still continue to use them. I’m simply not going to back down. You will probably continue to lie, I will continue to tell everyone what you are doing.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, no lying on my part. No deception on my part either.

So I chose to believe. I think you were taken in by others who lied to you.

You were very clear with your intentional mixing of survival and killing data.

I was very clear that the number referred to those shot, not only those killed. You didn’t want to talk about all the casualties, because the number shot trying to escape was much larger than you’d like to admit. On the other hand, the number shot who were locked down is zero.

You use the one that suits your needs to illustrate your point, then switch to the other, or simply avoid the other.

Both support my argument. No one locked down was shot at all, much less killed. But many who tried to run were.

You further lied, several times about my wife.

Nope. Did you lie when you falsely claimed that only 12 people were killed at Columbine? It’s a very foolish thing to accuse someone of lying, when it’s possible to be mistaken.

You were told what you said was not true and continued your lie.

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, it turns out that I didn’t.

Personally I think people see through your tactics of deceit.

The beauty of using evidence is, that personal attacks are ineffective against it. Even if you convince people that the Barbarian is an evil person, the facts remain.

You still continue to use them. I’m simply not going to back down.

It would probably help your credibility. If you’re willing to admit you are wrong in a few things, people tend to trust you more. Your steadfast refusal to admit facts in evidence hurt you considerably.

I will continue to tell everyone what you are doing.

Everyone can see what I’m doing. That’s another great thing about evidence.

If you engage in personal attacks, you just make it easier for me.

 

[melensdad]

So I chose to believe. I think you were taken in by others who lied to you.[/close]No, I simply posted articles that are not only current, but disagree with the ‘evidence’ you cited, and your evidence is not very strong.
The Barbarian;4459479:

I was very clear that the number referred to those shot, not only those killed. You didn’t want to talk about all the casualties, because the number shot trying to escape was much larger than you’d like to admit. On the other hand, the number shot who were locked down is zero.

Nope, again you lie. You have constantly mixed your statements to suit your needs. You make statements that IMPLY your number is the total dead and I countered with the correct and honest numbers. I did not hide the fact that the number I cited was the death toll number, I clearly stated that. I did not imply that it was something else, as you have done.

Both support my argument. No one locked down was shot at all, much less killed. But many who tried to run were.

And many, especially in NON-school settings could not be locked down because there was no way to do that. And Lock Downs may not be the best answer, as per the articles I cited and as per the fact that many rooms have glass doors/windows. You conveniently ignore those facts.

Did you lie when you falsely claimed that only 12 people were killed at Columbine? It’s a very foolish thing to accuse someone of lying, when it’s possible to be mistaken.

No. How could I have lied? Unless the news reports were wrong, 12 people died. You keep quoting the total number of people shot and you imply all those people died. Most of those who were shot have recovered. 12 died.

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, it turns out that I didn’t.

Yes, you did lie about my wife’s statement and I did correct you at least twice. You are a liar sir. It is proven.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian oberves:
I was very clear that the number referred to those shot, not only those killed. You didn’t want to talk about all the casualties, because the number shot trying to escape was much larger than you’d like to admit. On the other hand, the number shot who were locked down is zero.

Nope, again you lie.

It’s documented fact. No one who was in lock-down was shot. And I never misrepresented the number killed there. You did, but I chose to believe that your misrepresentation was an error, not an intentional lie on your part.

You have constantly mixed your statements to suit your needs. You make statements that IMPLY your number is the total dead

I did? (Barbarian checks) Nope. I always made a distinction between the number shot and the number killed (13, not 12, as you told us)

and I countered with the correct and honest numbers.

In fact, you didn’t. I chose not to call you a liar for that misrepresentation, deciding instead that you just messed up.

Barbarian observes:
Both support my argument. No one locked down was shot at all, much less killed. But many who tried to run were.

And many, especially in NON-school settings could not be locked down because there was no way to do that. And Lock Downs may not be the best answer, as per the articles I cited and as per the fact that many rooms have glass doors/windows. You conveniently ignore those facts.

As you learned, security professionals recommend that schools do lock-downs in such cases. Perhaps you aren’t a CSP, and don’t understand the issues involved.

Barbarian asks:
Did you lie when you falsely claimed that only 12 people were killed at Columbine? It’s a very foolish thing to accuse someone of lying, when it’s possible to be mistaken.

No. How could I have lied? Unless the news reports were wrong, 12 people died.

Sometimes, as in this case, it’s good to check and see if the news reports are right. You’re wrong. There were 13 deaths.

You keep quoting the total number of people shot and you imply all those people died.

Nope. I told you more than once that 13 died, and 35 were shot.

Most of those who were shot have recovered. 12 died.

That is a falsehood, but I will again assume you just don’t know, rather than assume you are lying.

The thirteen people killed at Columbine:
acolumbinesite.com/victim/memoriam.html

Barbarian observes:
I did? (Barbarian checks) No, it turns out that I didn’t.

Yes, you did lie

You’re embarrassed and angry that you got so much of it wrong, and you’re lashing out. Perhaps you even believe that your accusations are true.

I forgive you.

 

[melensdad]

I forgive you.

I could care less.

You are a liar. I may have made a mistake and believed Wikipedia on the number of deaths in Columbine but you have intentionally been lying and misleading in this thread and you know it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I could care less.

Nevertheless, the truth matters. It should matter to you.

You are a liar.

You’re upset that you presented falsehoods here, perhaps unintentionally. But accusing others of that is not going to help you.

I may have made a mistake and believed Wikipedia on the number of deaths in Columbine

(Barbarian checks) No, I’m afraid that story won’t fly, either. Wikipedia says 13 people were killed, 15 if you include the two assailants.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

but you have intentionally been lying and misleading in this thread and you know it.

And now, we have a clue as to why you’ve been throwing accusations around.

 

[wabrams]

Barbarian suggests:
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.

wabrams observes:

Those who were not in proximity of the gunfire and fled lived, those who were close to the gunfire were shot.

Show us. Just making up statements won’t help you. Fact is, a number of fleeing students were shot in the back.

wabrams observes:

Sources were given to you earlier; I would suggest you go back and review them.

And this should give you pause:

**The bombs had enough explosive power to destroy the entire cafeteria and bring the library above crashing down. Each shooter then returned to his car to wait until the bombs exploded. They intended to open fire on students fleeing the school through the main entrances once the cafeteria bombs detonated. **

If they had properly set the bombs, cut-and-run would have played right into their hands.

Being locked down would have played in their hands as well, as students would have been buried in th rubble.

Barbarian observes:
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.

wabrams observes:

Evidence to the contrary has been given, which you in conceited to. Go back and re-read.

Which brings us to the reason you aren’t doing so well. If you would simply accept evidence when presented, you would be much more credible. When one accepts contrary evidence, it’s not a weakness. It expresses willingness to accept the facts.

It would greatly increase your credibility.

wabrams observes:

If you would simply accept that there is more than one way to handle a situation and that ONE agencies recommendations don’t dictate the entire USA, then this arguement would have been over 4 pages ago… But since you can’t read the counter information given to you and fail to acknowledge contrary evidence, it shows your weakess. It ealso xpresses unwillingness to accept the facts. It also greatly decreases your already minimal credibility.

 

[melensdad]

Nevertheless, the truth matters. It should matter to you.

When I said “I could care less” it was clearly in response to your statement of forgiveness. Now you twist statements again to imply that I don’t care about the truth. That is another of your deceptive practices, something you continue to do intentionally. At least I don’t twist your words. I can honestly call you a deceptive liar and not feel remorse because it is so commonly proved, by you.

These are not allegations, these are facts, you are a liar and cling to your lies. I however admitted my mistakes.

You have yet to prove any part of the original news story or the back up evidence to be in error. What so-called evidence you have presented is not only old and no longer stands up to the scrutiny of the new evidence and new tactics developed, and described in the original news story.

 

[The_Barbarian]

When I said “I could care less” it was clearly in response to your statement of forgiveness.

I know. I meant it sincerely.

Now you twist statements again to imply that I don’t care about the truth.

No, it means you don’t care that you have been forgiven by a fellow Christian. What does the Bible says about that?

These are not allegations, these are facts, you are a liar and cling to your lies. I however admitted my mistakes.

You continued to deny the truth, even after I showed you. But it was mostly out of stubborness, I think, not a conscious effort to deceive.

I could easily have called you a liar, after you asserted things factually wrong, and I could have called you a liar again, after you claimed you read it on Wikipedia (and you didn’t, because that wasn’t what Wikipedia says).

Your argument fell apart, and your response was to abandon it and instead make personal attacks. Nothing can ever be so bad for you that false accusations can’t make it worse.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Those who were not in proximity of the gunfire and fled lived, those who were close to the gunfire were shot.

Show us. Just making up statements won’t help you. Fact is, a number of fleeing students were shot in the back.

Sources were given to you earlier; I would suggest you go back and review them.

It’s a fact that it happened that way. Would you like to see some more evidence.

**The bombs had enough explosive power to destroy the entire cafeteria and bring the library above crashing down. Each shooter then returned to his car to wait until the bombs exploded. They intended to open fire on students fleeing the school through the main entrances once the cafeteria bombs detonated.

If they had properly set the bombs, cut-and-run would have played right into their hands. **

Being locked down would have played in their hands as well, as students would have been buried in th rubble.

No. There would have been no lock-down in the cafeteria or the library directly above. Classrooms would not have collapsed. But anyone fleeing the building would have been shot down.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Evidence to the contrary has been given, which you in conceited to.

Conceded. But one exception doesn’t make the rule. In fact, as you now realize, the rest of the schools were not posted. And yet they were all attacked.

Barbarian observes:
Which brings us to the reason you aren’t doing so well. If you would simply accept evidence when presented, you would be much more credible. When one accepts contrary evidence, it’s not a weakness. It expresses willingness to accept the facts.

It would greatly increase your credibility.

wabrams observes:

If you would simply accept that there is more than one way to handle a situation and that ONE agencies recommendations don’t dictate the entire USA,

I would be willing to see your data on any school with a plan that is simply “run” as opposed to lockdown. Show us.

Check a few school districts where you live. You’ll be enlightened.