School Shootings: a new analysis

[melensdad]

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.

Yesterday there was a mall shooting in Washington, 2 people died. Apparently it is a gang related shooting? Thousands of people, according to the new sources fled. They lived. The 2 who died, they did not flee.

Can you dispute that running away is the wrong tactic?

Trolly Square Mall, Salt Lake City, essentially the same thing happened as above but it was a premeditated shooting spree. Those who fled lived. Those who did not died. Ditto the mall in Omaha.

Again, can you dispute that running away is the wrong tactic?

At Columbine you noted some of the victims were shot in the back and used that as your evidence that running is wrong. However, if those students were in the line of fire they had not other option other than to stay and die. You ignore that fact. Perhaps they were running into a room but it was locked so they were shot in the back trying to get into a barricaded room? It really doesn’t matter, the fact is they were in the line of fire. Anyone in the line of fire is in trouble. They have only a few options.

• Run and hope to make it out of the area!
• Stay still and hope the shooter walks past them?
• Fight Back by rushing the shooter?

Barbarian:

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

Actually you are very wrong. It worked very well at Columbine. Columbine, 99% survived. 13 where murdered. Those who fled survived. And yes, in that case some did barricade themselves in rooms, those also lived. But the Amish schoolhouse shootings the shooter came into the locked room. All those who died did so in in that locked room. Those who fled survived.

Again, can you dispute that running away is the wrong tactic?

The initial post in this thread, I wrote that my wife would direct her students to exit the building via a back door. You twisted words and stated:
Barbarian:

You said she would run, and expose the kids as well. If she locked them in the classroom, they’d be much safer. If each teacher decided what he wanted to do in an emergency, regardless of the emergency plan, it would truly be a disaster. I hope she reconsiders it if ever comes to that.

I further wrote that she has a glass door and a wall of windows that are internal and overlook a common area. It is pointless to try to lock yourself into that room. I also mentioned that she teaches in a lecture hall. Consequently the furniture in her room is largely bolted to the floor and cannot be used for barricades.

You continue to harp on the fact that people should barricade themselves in and not run. Can you tell me how you would address the shooter inside the room in the Amish School shooting? Or perhaps you’d like to explain your theory to the survivors at Northern Illinois University where the people who fled survived and the people who stayed died.

As ‘evidence’ to support your view that people who run are targets and people who lock themselves in a room, you provide a link to a pdf file. The text of the file is many pages long. But it can be distilled by using its own statement of its OPINION of what should happen in an external threat:

… our vision of a National Safe
Schools project that helps to create a nationalized set of standards for lockdown procedures, external threat prevention by using technology to secure facilities and provide notification of sex offenders residing in the proximity of a school.

The white paper is just an opinion of what they suggest. It even states that it is just a recommendation.

And again today we have another mass shooting. This one in an Orthodox church. Several people died. Yet again, the shooter was among the people inside the room with them, no way to lock the shooter out when the shooter is inside the room with you.

Fact are facts, these shootings occur in shopping malls, public areas, universities, elementary and high schools, churches and workplaces. Not every case is suitable for locking down a room or a building because if the shooter is among the victims then the victim count will continue to rise.

You have yet to disprove either of these statements from the ABC 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.
Nor have you been able to deny this report from FOX news:
Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the “gun-free zones,” not other public places, where the attacks happen.

People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald’s in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

Yesterday there was a mall shooting in Washington, 2 people died. Apparently it is a gang related shooting? Thousands of people, according to the new sources fled. They lived. The 2 who died, they did not flee.

Can you dispute that running away is the wrong tactic?

As you learned, those who simply locked down in shootings haven’t been shot, much less killed. Many who tried to run died, and many more were shot.

Again, can you dispute that running away is the wrong tactic?

The difference between running and locking down is obvious. Everyone who has locked down has survived unharmed. Many who run, die. If you can’t lock down, running or resistance is all you have. The experts (people who really do understand the issue) say lock down first, run if you can’t, and fight if you can’t run.

At Columbine you noted some of the victims were shot in the back and used that as your evidence that running is wrong.

Getting shot is a bad idea, yes.

Perhaps they were running into a room but it was locked so they were shot in the back trying to get into a barricaded room?

No. There are quite a few analyses in the literature. Find one.

It really doesn’t matter, the fact is they were in the line of fire. Anyone in the line of fire is in trouble.

Right. And people who go to a room and lock in are out of the line of fire. They can’t hit what they can’t see.

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

Actually you are very wrong.

I’m quite right. All of those who locked down were uninjured. Many of those who ran, died or were shot.

Again, can you dispute that running away is the wrong tactic?

Depends on whether or not you think being shot is a bad thing. In the shooting in Virginia, although there was no lock-down procedure, the one classroom that improvised one, had no one injured. As in Columbine, the shooter’s plan was to have people panic and run and pick them off. Unlike Columbine, his plan worked. Those who ran played into his hands.

I further wrote that she has a glass door and a wall of windows that are internal and overlook a common area.

I’d like to know the name of the school that supposedly has a lockdown policy that calls for taking kids to a windowed room. Given your past difficulties with the truth, I’m not inclined to believe you.

You continue to harp on the fact that people should barricade themselves in and not run. Can you tell me how you would address the shooter inside the room in the Amish School shooting?

How many one-room schoolhouses have a lock-down plan? Think about what people are thinking of your argument right now.

Schools project that helps to create a nationalized set of standards for lockdown procedures, external threat prevention by using technology to secure facilities and provide notification of sex offenders residing in the proximity of a school.

The white paper is just an opinion of what they suggest. It even states that it is just a recommendation.

Perhaps you don’t understand what “recommendation” means. It is the way that safety and security professionals say “this is a best practice.” I

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

Unfortunately, your “statistics” turned out to be false, um? Columbine, contrary to your assertion, was not a posted “gun-free zone.”

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

Virginia tech was a posted Gun-free zone? Is this another of your “Columbine” statements?

 

[melensdad]

Barbarian observes:
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.

melensdad:

Yesterday there was a mall shooting in Washington, 2 people died. Apparently it is a gang related shooting? Thousands of people, according to the new sources fled. They lived. The 2 who died, they did not flee.

As you learned, those who simply locked down in shootings haven’t been shot, much less killed. Many who tried to run died, and many more were shot.
…
The difference between running and locking down is obvious. Everyone who has locked down has survived unharmed. Many who run, die. If you can’t lock down, running or resistance is all you have. The experts (people who really do understand the issue) say lock down first, run if you can’t, and fight if you can’t run.

How are your comments or how is the mall shooting in any way related to you wild statements? You say many who run die but you don’t give any alternatives to those who are in the path of the shooter other than to repeat your tired mantra. What would you have those people in close proximity to the gunman do?

Further, you claim the experts say “lock down first, run if you can’t” but that is another lie. Actual experts were quoted in one of the articles in this thread that said "if you can’t run . . . " which clearly implies run first.

Further, you continue to avoid the fact that many places simply cannot lock down.

Further, you harp on locking down but ignore the fact that many times the shooter is actually in the same room as the victims so locking down is pointless.

Further, you only presented an opinion paper as your so-called proof and you ignore all facts.

 

[melensdad]

How many one-room schoolhouses have a lock-down plan? Think about what people are thinking of your argument right now.

I don’t know how many do. But the reports indicated that the Amish school house did have a lock down and it actually locked out everyone from even entering the building.

Perhaps you don’t understand what “recommendation” means. It is the way that safety and security professionals say “this is a best practice.”

Yes, I understand that. And now there is NEW evidence that yielded new recommendations from safety and security professionals and they claim to have the best practices that seem to refute your recommendations. Why can’t you understand and admit that?

Unfortunately, your “statistics” turned out to be false, um? Columbine, contrary to your assertion, was not a posted “gun-free zone.”

Again, another of your lies. I never said it was posted with a sign. It was a gun free zone, but I never said it was posted.

Virginia tech was a posted Gun-free zone? Is this another of your “Columbine” statements?

I didn’t make that statement. Why do you lie and state I did? However it was stated in a news article. Why don’t you accuse the author of the article of lying?

 

[melensdad]

Given your past difficulties with the truth, I’m not inclined to believe you.

I made, and admitted 1 mistake with regard to Wikipedia. That is not a lie, its an error.

What is your excuse for being an outright liar and deceiver? You obviously only post to twist words, you seem to enjoy it. I pity you for what you do.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Stanmaxkolbe observers:

The Barbarian is a lost cause when it comes to this issue.

Dudes give up on him; your presenting facts, The Barbarian don’t care about your facts only his facts.

That’s the reason I don’t debate him.

 

[The_Barbarian]

(It’s a well-known fact that if you post stuff in larger print, it becomes believable)

Too bad max didn’t have any facts to bring to the table. But he did his usual character attack.

That’s our Max.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I made, and admitted 1 mistake with regard to Wikipedia. That is not a lie, its an error.

I’d like to believe that. But it didn’t say what you told me it did. Do you know how it looks when you accuse others of lying, and then present falsehoods you tell, as “mistakes?”

Be sensible and aware of your effect on others. Even if you’re angry, focus on the argument. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

 

[melensdad]

I’d like to believe that. But it didn’t say what you told me it did. Do you know how it looks when you accuse others of lying, and then present falsehoods you tell, as “mistakes?”

Be sensible and aware of your effect on others. Even if you’re angry, focus on the argument. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.

I’m not embarrassed, I’m not angry.

You are a liar and that is proven, you intentionally twist words of others to suit your purposes and distort facts, you intentional parse statements to make others appear wrong, you avoid the real topics and divert into minutia to confuse people and distort perception. These things cannot be disputed, others have pointed out your tactics and you have been exposed.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m not embarrassed, I’m not angry.

You responded to being reminded that you posted falsehoods, by accusing me of lying, instead. That’s not a calm and rational response.

You are a liar and that is proven,

It’s always a problem “proving” someone is a liar. When you told me that 12 people were killed at Columbine, I pointed out that there were 13. Then you told me that you got that number from Wikipedia. But that wasn’t true, either, was it?

If I was angry and embarrassed as you are, I’d be tempted to say you merely lied, instead of getting your facts mixed up once more.

But I know better than to do it. As you see, it didn’t do you any good, did it? Get a grip, and see if you can do something about saving your argument.

 

[melensdad]

You responded to being reminded that you posted falsehoods, by accusing me of lying, instead. That’s not a calm and rational response.

It’s always a problem “proving” someone is a liar. When you told me that 12 people were killed at Columbine, I pointed out that there were 13. Then you told me that you got that number from Wikipedia. But that wasn’t true, either, was it?

If I was angry and embarrassed as you are, I’d be tempted to say you merely lied, instead of getting your facts mixed up once more.

But I know better than to do it. As you see, it didn’t do you any good, did it? Get a grip, and see if you can do something about saving your argument.

I said I made a mistake, and admitted it. In this thread I made one. That is nothing for me to be embarrassed about. Yes I got the information from Wikipedia. Yes I made a mistake about it. Wikipedia said 12 students died. It also said 1 teacher died. I read the “12” and didn’t add the one. Simple error.

As for you being a liar, please go back through this thread. It is well documented you are not only a liar, but you intentionally deceive by twisting statements, by altering the topics and by parsing statements to suit you even when it clearly alters the meaning.

So I made a mistake, and admitted it.

What is your excuse for the lies, twists and intentional deceptions?

 

[Sir_Knight]

melensdad, I echo stanmaxkolbe comments and refer you to Matthew 7:6 – Do not persist in offering what is of value to those who have no appreciation for it, because your gift will not only become contaminated and be despised, your generous efforts could also be rebuffed and perhaps even openly attacked (Source).

You attempted to present new findings which better addressed a given problem. It is obvious that some do not appreciate that effort and would prefer to stick with outdated and less effective methods. So be it.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

(It’s a well-known fact that if you post stuff in larger print, it becomes believable)

Too bad max didn’t have any facts to bring to the table. But he did his usual character attack.

That’s our Max.

It’s a well known fact to me that I have been using Arial three point type since I joined there boards.:yup:

Another non-fact by The Barbarian News at Eleven.

Have a great Thanksgiving weekend everybody.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes that max uses large font, but mostly personal attacks.

It’s a well known fact to me that I have been using Arial three point type since I joined there boards.

My observation is that if you relied on cogent arguments instead of a larger font, you’d be a lot better off.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I said I made a mistake, and admitted it.

You expect people to believe that your numerous falsehoods are “mistakes.” If you want charity, you shouldn’t be crying “liar” whenever someone disagrees with you.

In this thread I made one.

You have also asserted on this board that Columbine was a posted gun-free zone. And then defended it as a “parody”, as if that made dishonesty all right. I chose to believe you didn’t know any better. But given your behavior, that seeming less and less likely.

That is nothing for me to be embarrassed about. Yes I got the information from Wikipedia. Yes I made a mistake about it. Wikipedia said 12 students died. It also said 1 teacher died. I read the “12” and didn’t add the one. Simple error.

That won’t fly, either. They were both in the same sentence. You really think that’s an excuse?

As for you being a liar, please go back through this thread. It is well documented you are not only a liar, but you intentionally deceive by twisting statements, by altering the topics and by parsing statements to suit you even when it clearly alters the meaning.

Sorry, simply repeating a false accusation isn’t going to help you at this point. It appears you are well aware that it isn’t true. It’s not much fun losing an argument. But abandoning everything to make personal attacks just undermines your position.

So I made a mistake, and admitted it.

Your first mistake was to post “facts” that were falsehoods. Your second was to lose your temper and make false accusations when you got caught. People will forget mistakes, but they rarely forget how you behaved.

No matter what your excuse is.

 

[melensdad]

melensdad, I echo stanmaxkolbe comments and refer you to Matthew 7:6 – Do not persist in offering what is of value to those who have no appreciation for it, because your gift will not only become contaminated and be despised, your generous efforts could also be rebuffed and perhaps even openly attacked (Source).

You attempted to present new findings which better addressed a given problem. It is obvious that some do not appreciate that effort and would prefer to stick with outdated and less effective methods. So be it.

Stanmaxkolbe observers:

The Barbarian is a lost cause when it comes to this issue.

Dudes give up on him; your presenting facts, The Barbarian don’t care about your facts only his facts.

That’s the reason I don’t debate him.

Thanks folks, this is good advice.

 

[The_Barbarian]

And it’s all over but the whining about the evil Barbarian.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Hey Bro, I don’t think your evil I just like to mess with you head sometimes.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Whining and calling names isn’t the way you do it. First rule of trolling is to not let your intended victim get you riled.

Be cool next time.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I didn’t call you a name?