It's pretty close to ideal given that you have a generation of people intent on killing one another at school. Since you have to deal with those kinds of people, the best you can do is limit the damage they can cause. All things considered, if you can prevent anyone but the shooter from dying, you've done a pretty damn good job. I never suggested that people claimed schools didn't need adequate security, it's just something that hasn't really changed since Columbine and it's something that really does need to change....especially considering the fantasy of banning and confiscating all semi-automatic weapons isn't going to happen. Basically I choose to operate in the real world and deal with real world solutions.
I don't think many people have much of a problem with the idea of sworn police officers working armed security in a school. I think it's great he was able to neutralize the threat though less than ideal that he killed someone in the process. No indication I've seen that the amount of force used was unreasonable, so I'll take it. It doesn't exactly make me feel like celebrating though.
Thank you. This has been standard practice at many schools, including many schools we've attended, do attend, or at which we work. That's very different than arming teachers and having an order of magnitude more guns on campuses, in the hands of very distracted people with varying degrees of training.
Columbine had the same security as Parkland. That was my point. I'm sure there are some schools that have done better jobs of adding security to keep their kids safe, but so many others either haven't or they employ token security who are unreliable which was the case at Parkland.
The gun shooting kids problem isn't solved by just police officers at school. It's one factor that could help, but it's inadequate by itself.
My intermediate and high school both had cops - is there anyone here that went to a school without a police officer? My elementary school didn't have a cop when I was there but I'm pretty sure they added a resource officer in the 90s.
I'm sure in your delusional fantasy "real world", there are people wanting to confiscate weapons, but in the actual real world people are interested in realistic gun control proposals like stiffer background checks and potential age limits. Stuff that can pass with political will.
Hate to break it to you kiddo, but there are people out there that absolutely want to confiscate guns, some more than others. That doesn't mean it's everyone or whatever, but when you pretend that those people don't exist you just make yourself look foolish.
If the kid had an AR15 would he have killed more or less people? Would this security guard have been able to still take down the shooter?
AR-15's don't make people bullet proof....so maybe the one girl dies, but the security guard still makes him every bit as dead before he can do much more damage. Also, if the kid had an AR-15 instead of a hand gun, perhaps he doesn't make it inside the school with it, they aren't the easiest things in the world to conceal.
Like in the real world when you don't back up what you say. I am surprised you crawled out of your bubble to post on mass shootings again Bobby since you got called out last time. lol Still waiting on your to reply. To show you actually know what you are talking about.
It sounds like he was specifically targeting who he shot so this case is a bad example of an armed response to mass shooting. There are a lot of variables that would go into whether someone could take down an AR15 shooter with a handgun. The distance between them and the quality of the shooters would probably be most important. Both shooters being average skill with clear line of sight... 1-15 yards, even odds 15-25 yards, decent odds 25+ yards, advantage AR15. 50+ yards, large advantage AR15. 100+ yards, overwhelming advantage AR15.
