So we see today the local prosectuor in Oxford, MI, laying out the facts that have motivated her to charge the deeply disturbed young killer's parents, parents who lied to their lawyer about plans to turn themselves in and have now hit the road. They actually bought their son, whom they clearly knew, by his social media presence, amongst other things, was in need of serious psychiatric intervention, a sig sauer for Christmas (probably is not even legal in MI for a 15yo to own such a handgun). The kid's teacher caught the kid earlier in the day of the shooting, writing a 'doomsday' type letter where he drew a picture of a gun and commented something to the effect that 'the bad thoughts just won't go away'. Kid was immediately summoned to office, and parents called in immediately. Parents were ordered to get the kid counseling within 48 hours, but refused to take him home--- somehow idiot admins simply let him back into class, and did not search his backpack. I am normally very reticent to consider charging parents for kids' crimes, but in this case, I am more or less ready to say send the kid to a mental hospital, and mom and dad to break rocks for hard time.
Of course, with each one of these American-exceptionalist school shooting sprees, we whine about 'thoughts and prayers', and just do nothing. I have lost at least as much patience for this attitude, at least amongst politicians, as I have for vaccinidiocy...
Well, clearly it's a big problem that the country is deeply divided into very different views on guns.
In several high-profile school shootings, the parents may not have been tip-top parents (as who is?), but they were deeply distressed and horrified at their son's actions. These parents are a different, well, caliber.
I was reminded of the school shooter Kip Kinkel, who killed and wounded many in his school in Oregon in the late '90s, and who may have inspired the Columbine shooters. He was a troubled boy and his parents, apparently seeking to give him a hobby, bought him a gun. It transpires now that he may have been a paranoid schizophrenic, and his desire for a gun was part of his frantic desire to protect himself from imaginary conspiracies. Kinkel's parents seem to have been well-meaning, though obviously they made a terrible choice (and paid a terrible price, as he killed them too). I'm not sure this latest kid's parents were well-meaning. But whether or no, I think the idea of "Our kid is troubled, so we'll buy him a gun to give him something to occupy him" — well, you just wonder what world these people are living in. A world of denial, I guess. Lethal denial.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 04, 2021, 08:59:41 AM
Well, clearly it's a big problem that the country is deeply divided into very different views on guns.
In several high-profile school shootings, the parents may not have been tip-top parents (as who is?), but they were deeply distressed and horrified at their son's actions. These parents are a different, well, caliber.
I was reminded of the school shooter Kip Kinkel, who killed and wounded many in his school in Oregon in the late '90s, and who may have inspired the Columbine shooters. He was a troubled boy and his parents, apparently seeking to give him a hobby, bought him a gun. It transpires now that he may have been a paranoid schizophrenic, and his desire for a gun was part of his frantic desire to protect himself from imaginary conspiracies. Kinkel's parents seem to have been well-meaning, though obviously they made a terrible choice (and paid a terrible price, as he killed them too). I'm not sure this latest kid's parents were well-meaning. But whether or no, I think the idea of "Our kid is troubled, so we'll buy him a gun to give him something to occupy him" — well, you just wonder what world these people are living in. A world of denial, I guess. Lethal denial.
And Nancy Lanza (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/12/18/167527771/nancy-lanza-gunmans-mother-from-charmed-upbringing-to-first-victim), whose son was the Sandy Hook shooter,
Quote
Before he forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday and began a rampage that would leave 20 children and six adults dead, police say, 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother at their home in Newtown, Conn.
After the Lanzas moved to Newtown, "time passed, the family fractured and broke apart. Around the time of the divorce, Ryan Lanza [Adam's brother] graduated from college and moved to work in New York. Adam stayed with Nancy Lanza, and her life took on strange habits. She didn't let visitors into their home. She collected powerful weapons. And she began to bring her increasingly troubled son to 'multiple shooting ranges,' officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Monday, to practice using those guns together."
And in an incredible irony (https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/12/ga-mom-says-rittenhouses-bad-parents-are-to-blame-she-is-then-killed-by-her-own-son-on-thanksgiving-video/?utm_source=right-rail-latest):
Quote
GA Mom Says Rittenhouse's "Bad" Parents Are To Blame; She Is Then Killed By Her Own Son On Thanksgiving
A Georgia family is still in shock as on Thanksgiving, Marcia Chance, 42, was fatally stabbed by her own son. Arriving on the scene, police found Chance inside a Lawrenceville home, on the floor – lifeless.
Having received reports of domestic assault, the Gwinnett County police arrested her 18-year-old son, Varian Alexander Hibbert, who was living at the residence and charged him with felony murder and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony.
While this is of course a tragic event for a family, days before her untimely death, Chance took to social media to blast the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and how his "bad" parents were to blame.
Which just goes to show how out-of-touch parents can be about their own parenting. Dunning-Kruger effect obviously.
I think many people are also in denial about how big the copycat effect is. Apparently the time of greatest danger for school shootings is just after another school shooting. A gun and a list of names were removed from a high school kid in my home town just today.
So put several ingredients together:
• a troubled teenage boy who feels (however wrongly) hopeless and as if he has nothing to lose
• societal messages that anger is powerful
• societal messages that guns equal power and masculinity
• easy access to a gun
• parents who are misguided, in denial, or who buy into the narrative about guns and power
and finally
• numerous examples of teenage boys who have shot up their schools, caused fear, caused everyone to talk about them, and come across (to the fearful and seemingly powerless) as 'badasses'
It's like saying "Here's the recipe!" Violence is contagious. There are boys across the country who are feeling the same way right now, and watching.
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
I think the "weapon of choice" for girls is social media; there have been many stories of girls attacking others on social media, including some where victims have committed suicide.
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
I snarked to my spouse the other day that the way to cut down on gun violence in schools was to allow the young women to carry if they wished (at least it would be much better than that suggestion a few years back that teachers carry). Spouse suggested this topic would make an excellent 21st century
Modest Proposal, but I don't have time to write it.
AR.
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
I looked it up. Various stats, but here is what I can see.
With 4 or more casualties, only 3 have been carried out by females acting alone. I wouldn't characterize any of those perpetrators as girls.
I only found one school shooting by a girl, with 2 victims.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2021, 11:37:25 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
I think the "weapon of choice" for girls is social media; there have been many stories of girls attacking others on social media, including some where victims have committed suicide.
Well, groups of kids don't die in a hail of mean Tweets.
So, there's that.
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
120 male; 3 female; 1 male & female (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/)
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 04, 2021, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
With 4 or more casualties, only 3 have been carried out by females acting alone. I wouldn't characterize any of those perpetrators as girls.
Because...they were adults and not teens or younger?
From Wikipedia:
Quote
"I Don't Like Mondays" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2I84-A9duY) is a song by Irish new wave group the Boomtown Rats about the 1979 Cleveland Elementary School shooting in San Diego.
According to Geldof, he wrote the song after reading a telex report at Georgia State University's campus radio station, WRAS, on the shooting spree of 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children in a school playground at Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California, on 29 January 1979, killing two adults and injuring eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime; her explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day".
Quote from: smallcleanrat on December 04, 2021, 09:11:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 04, 2021, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
Yes, adults. Amy Bishop was one, another was an adult woman at her workplace, and the third was a disturbed woman who shot at kids in a school setting.
With 4 or more casualties, only 3 have been carried out by females acting alone. I wouldn't characterize any of those perpetrators as girls.
Because...they were adults and not teens or younger?
Quote from: smallcleanrat on December 04, 2021, 09:11:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 04, 2021, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
With 4 or more casualties, only 3 have been carried out by females acting alone. I wouldn't characterize any of those perpetrators as girls.
Because...they were adults and not teens or younger?
Because gender is only the imposition of a flawed societal concept on reality.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2021, 07:39:17 PM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on December 04, 2021, 09:11:57 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on December 04, 2021, 01:35:03 PM
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
With 4 or more casualties, only 3 have been carried out by females acting alone. I wouldn't characterize any of those perpetrators as girls.
Because...they were adults and not teens or younger?
Because gender ^violence^ is only the imposition of a flawed societal concept on reality.
There. FTFY.
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 06, 2021, 08:51:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2021, 07:39:17 PM
Because gender ^violence^ is only the imposition of a flawed societal concept on reality.
There. FTFY.
I'm not sure what that means. Is "violence" a flawed societal concept?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 06, 2021, 09:13:50 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 06, 2021, 08:51:51 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on December 05, 2021, 07:39:17 PM
Because gender ^violence^ is only the imposition of a flawed societal concept on reality.
There. FTFY.
I'm not sure what that means. Is "violence" a flawed societal concept?
Silence is violence. Thinking about being silent is violence. Waking up, and then not doing anything to fight inequality, all day long, in spite of your opportunity, is violence.
Please get help. I mean that seriously.
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 06, 2021, 07:06:16 PM
Please get help. I mean that seriously.
Ditto. From the heart.
Makes me kinda look forward to my college's annual active shooter drill training.
As for some of you upthread, consider a dosage increase. You're talking out of your ass and frightening the horses.
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 06, 2021, 07:29:20 PM
Makes me kinda look forward to my college's annual active shooter drill training.
As for some of you upthread, consider a dosage increase. You're talking out of your ass and frightening the horses.
I honestly can't be sure whether this is serious or not. Do places actually have active shooter training? And is it an
annual thing????? (If it's sarcasm and I'm missing it, it comes from being Canadian and hearing of elementary or high schools in the US with armed guards and/or metal detectors at the doors, which are locked during the school day. It's dystopian enough that it's hard to imagine what might be exaggeration.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 05:34:05 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 06, 2021, 07:29:20 PM
Makes me kinda look forward to my college's annual active shooter drill training.
As for some of you upthread, consider a dosage increase. You're talking out of your ass and frightening the horses.
I honestly can't be sure whether this is serious or not. Do places actually have active shooter training? And is it an annual thing????? (If it's sarcasm and I'm missing it, it comes from being Canadian and hearing of elementary or high schools in the US with armed guards and/or metal detectors at the doors, which are locked during the school day. It's dystopian enough that it's hard to imagine what might be exaggeration.)
Many US high schools have active shooter drills and training, including the one in Michigan where four students were murdered by a fellow student.
Yes. When I was subbing in the public schools, a few years back, they didn't call it a "shooter drill," but there was an announcement one day to take cover following emergency procedures (never saying if it were a drill, or for real, which got my attention...)
The 1st graders I was with that day knew to file into the cubby area, where they couldn't be seen or hit by anyone firing through the doors, and wait while their teacher locked said doors and joined them.
We--the volunteer parent assistant, and I as an extra sub--stayed with them until the all-clear sounded.
I reflected it was a far cry from the days when the one older 3rd-grade teacher in our elementary school used to (on her own) declare an air-raid drill and make her students shelter under their desks. This was c. 20 years after the end of WWII, but she was into preparedness....the principal finally got her to stop.
M.
My great-nephew, a member of a university police department, gives active attacker trainings every year. (Active "attacker," since weapons other than guns may be used). His university has not yet gone to the automated online training.
And before my university went to online training, I attended a training session in person and thought it was excellent. Only a few months after that, we had a chance to put our knowledge to use, as a person with a long gun had been spotted on campus and we all had to go into lockdown. (No one was harmed—he was apprehended fairly quickly.)
When I was a kid, we had fire drills. In all my life, I have only had to evacuate a building twice--once for a fire, once for a gas leak. I wonder: How many fire-related emergencies are there in schools vs. active shooter situations? Surely there are statistics.
Quote from: cathwen on December 07, 2021, 07:24:05 AM
My great-nephew, a member of a university police department, gives active attacker trainings every year. (Active "attacker," since weapons other than guns may be used). His university has not yet gone to the automated online training.
And before my university went to online training, I attended a training session in person and thought it was excellent. Only a few months after that, we had a chance to put our knowledge to use, as a person with a long gun had been spotted on campus and we all had to go into lockdown. (No one was harmed—he was apprehended fairly quickly.)
My university has online training as well, and we also went into lockdown because of a person with a gun (no actual shooting). We have had no actual drills.
I'm in the first generation that had active shooter drills as a normal part of our high school experience.
My university does online training in fight-run-hide protocols for everyone. They also do live simulations for emergency responders, but those don't directly involve faculty or students-- they just give us a heads up it will be happening so we don't get alarmed. The worry here is not really about our own students (though I guess you never know for sure) but about outside threats (without revealing identifying info, I'll just say we are an attractive target for some domestic terrorists). It's a balance between not scaring people, but being prepared.
I've certainly have been in buildings that had some sort of fire or smoking whatever that had to be evacuated. None were serious that I know of (I don't recall seeing or hearing about injuries or deaths). I have been in some active shooter situations, but all ended up being local armed robbers who had last been spotted in the area. I am not even sure if any even had fired a weapon. That is, none were the type of mass shootings we've all heard about.
Quote from: nebo113 on December 07, 2021, 05:41:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 05:34:05 AM
I honestly can't be sure whether this is serious or not. Do places actually have active shooter training? And is it an annual thing????? (If it's sarcasm and I'm missing it, it comes from being Canadian and hearing of elementary or high schools in the US with armed guards and/or metal detectors at the doors, which are locked during the school day. It's dystopian enough that it's hard to imagine what might be exaggeration.)
Many US high schools have active shooter drills and training, including the one in Michigan where four students were murdered by a fellow student.
Not only high schools! Also elementary schools, alas.
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 07, 2021, 08:42:09 AM
I have been in some active shooter situations, but all ended up being local armed robbers who had last been spotted in the area. I am not even sure if any even had fired a weapon.
So, no big deal I guess.
Seriously, the idea that this is something that one would experience more than once is pretty disturbing in a supposedly "civilized" society.
(From another thread, you may have noticed that yesterday marked the anniversary of 14 women being killed at a university. It happened in 1989, so
32 years later that's still the event that gets the most attention. Fortunately, it's not a record that is being challenged on any regular basis. Of course, we don't have parts of the country where it's OK to walk around carrying an AR-15. )
Yes, I do need help. Help me understand what is the utility or significance of dwelling on the fact that boys are statistically more likely to commit murder than girls to people who believe human beings cannot be sorted into two categories of gender? Wouldn't the data consist of only 'boys' and 'girls' who might (an off chance) truly be as identified, or actually something in between? Or are data compiled before the great advancement in knowledge called wokeism interpreted today as they were then when we hapless observers thought there were only two genders? How would that work? Frankly it sounds like some of you are selling yourself a religion that part of you won't buy. And I wouldn't blame it.
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 06, 2021, 07:29:20 PM
As for some of you upthread, consider a dosage increase. You're talking out of your ass and frightening the horses.
Well put.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 05:34:05 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 06, 2021, 07:29:20 PM
Makes me kinda look forward to my college's annual active shooter drill training.
As for some of you upthread, consider a dosage increase. You're talking out of your ass and frightening the horses.
I honestly can't be sure whether this is serious or not. Do places actually have active shooter training? And is it an annual thing????? (If it's sarcasm and I'm missing it, it comes from being Canadian and hearing of elementary or high schools in the US with armed guards and/or metal detectors at the doors, which are locked during the school day. It's dystopian enough that it's hard to imagine what might be exaggeration.)
Note that, as with everything in American schools, it varies greatly from district to district. Our local schools don't have armed guards or metal detectors. They do have a designated police officer who does rounds of them and gets to know the students, and talks to them about drugs and avoiding crime and so forth. I assume that they have shooter drills. In recent years there have been a couple of occasions when one or another local school has been on lock-down over what proved a false alarm. I don't know whether these occasions involved a full everybody-dive-under-your-desks alarm, or whether it was a state of alert in which students' movements were eliminated and nobody was allowed in or out of the schools until the police had had a chance to check things out. At any rate, it made the local papers and was the talk of the town for a few days.
The schools with the metal detectors and armed guards tend to be inner-city schools in neighborhoods with chronic gang activity that has infiltrated the schools. Suburban schools that have had actual shootings may have been frightened into going the armed guards and metal detectors route as well, and there may be some communities where pure fear of the worst has led to the same thing. But it's not the nationwide norm.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 09:55:44 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 07, 2021, 08:42:09 AM
I have been in some active shooter situations, but all ended up being local armed robbers who had last been spotted in the area. I am not even sure if any even had fired a weapon.
So, no big deal I guess.
Seriously, the idea that this is something that one would experience more than once is pretty disturbing in a supposedly "civilized" society.
Definitely so. The situation is unquestionably worse in the U.S. than it was a few decades ago. I can recall schools being disrupted by hoax bomb threats when I was a kid, but school shootings were just altogether unheard of. Other violent crime was far less common as well. But it increased decade on decade until by the 1980s most Americans were very much afraid of violent crime. After a peak in the late 1980s-early 1990s it fell dramatically in most places in the 1990s-early 2000s. Now it's spiking again, though still (for now) well below the peaks of earlier decades.
For a great many people the fear has never gone away. Many rural Americans old enough to remember the lurid headlines about urban crime in the 1980s are still afraid to visit a city of any size. Millions of Americans refuse to use public transportation or even to support having public transit stops in their neighborhoods because public transit has become inextricably linked with crime in their minds. And mass shootings by random lunatics, though statistically still far less of a threat than the widespread lawlessness of the 1980s was, are like airline crashes--each and every instance is reported extensively all over the country, to the point where each one of them feels to some people like it happened virtually next door.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 09:55:44 AM
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 07, 2021, 08:42:09 AM
I have been in some active shooter situations, but all ended up being local armed robbers who had last been spotted in the area. I am not even sure if any even had fired a weapon.
So, no big deal I guess.
Seriously, the idea that this is something that one would experience more than once is pretty disturbing in a supposedly "civilized" society.
(From another thread, you may have noticed that yesterday marked the anniversary of 14 women being killed at a university. It happened in 1989, so 32 years later that's still the event that gets the most attention. Fortunately, it's not a record that is being challenged on any regular basis. Of course, we don't have parts of the country where it's OK to walk around carrying an AR-15. )
I have a brother who was at U of Alabama in the same building where Amy Bishop was shooting people. He also was at Ohio State Univ. when they had a guy attacking people with a knife or machete and then was killed by campus police.
There really weren't [a significant number of] school shootings until the mid to late 90's, or if there were, they were very isolated in time and generally not mass shootings and not in suburbs. However, there was workplace violence, and I recall a mass shooting/hostage even in the NYC suburbs in the mid to late 1970's. A few, all over, in the 1980's. but, yes, we're at the point where I honestly can't remember some of the events people refer to because there are so many.
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 07, 2021, 01:33:41 PM
There really weren't [a significant number of] school shootings until the mid to late 90's, or if there were, they were very isolated in time and generally not mass shootings and not in suburbs. However, there was workplace violence, and I recall a mass shooting/hostage even in the NYC suburbs in the mid to late 1970's. A few, all over, in the 1980's. but, yes, we're at the point where I honestly can't remember some of the events people refer to because there are so many.
Does it sound very liberal of me to wonder what makes parents think that a kid who feels socially isolated will be
helped by having a gun? That seems a common theme in many of these cases; the idea that shooting will somehow calm the kid down. It's as if the proposed "cure" to a kid having impulse control issues would be getting them a sports car or a big motorcycle.
My university has active shooter online training AND drills. A member of the U-PD is designated the "shooter" and has a "toy" AK-47 that shoots off pop rounds. You must all work together to barricade the doors, turn of the lights, and escape or hide. It's honestly terrifying.
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2021, 11:37:25 AM
Quote from: mamselle on December 04, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
And your last sentence just resonated in particular--because it is boys, isn't it?
That's not rhetorical, but a question about the factual situation...are there actually any, let alone many, instances of female shooters?
M.
I think the "weapon of choice" for girls is social media; there have been many stories of girls attacking others on social media, including some where victims have committed suicide.
Jordan Peterson has interesting things to say about this. Girls/women are socially aggressive verbally, mostly, and boys/men are socially aggressive physically. Of course, liberals hate him more and more as he gets more and more attention and respect.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 04, 2021, 08:09:16 PM
120 male; 3 female; 1 male & female (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/)
So we should be able to just about eliminate school shootings if we can only require boys to transform themselves into girls. And they'll add a few years to their life expectancy in the process.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 07, 2021, 01:33:41 PM
There really weren't [a significant number of] school shootings until the mid to late 90's, or if there were, they were very isolated in time and generally not mass shootings and not in suburbs. However, there was workplace violence, and I recall a mass shooting/hostage even in the NYC suburbs in the mid to late 1970's. A few, all over, in the 1980's. but, yes, we're at the point where I honestly can't remember some of the events people refer to because there are so many.
Does it sound very liberal of me to wonder what makes parents think that a kid who feels socially isolated will be helped by having a gun? That seems a common theme in many of these cases; the idea that shooting will somehow calm the kid down. It's as if the proposed "cure" to a kid having impulse control issues would be getting them a sports car or a big motorcycle.
My father taught me to shoot a rifle when I was 10 or 11 years old, and then a pistol a year or so later. (He did not teach my sister.) Some of my fondest memories of the man come from the old gravel quarry where we used to shoot bottles and cans. I got to be pretty good too. I have never even shot near a living thing and have no plans to.
I think a great many American parents have very positive ideas about guns.
Guns also make people feel powerful, and I think the appeal of the firearm is that when you carry one you are an important person, or at least a person that other people need to pay heed to.
Quote from: mahagonny on December 07, 2021, 10:16:27 AM
Yes, I do need help. Help me understand what is the utility or significance of dwelling on the fact that boys are statistically more likely to commit murder than girls to people who believe human beings cannot be sorted into two categories of gender? Wouldn't the data consist of only 'boys' and 'girls' who might (an off chance) truly be as identified, or actually something in between? Or are data compiled before the great advancement in knowledge called wokeism interpreted today as they were then when we hapless observers thought there were only two genders? How would that work? Frankly it sounds like some of you are selling yourself a religion that part of you won't buy. And I wouldn't blame it.
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 06, 2021, 07:29:20 PM
As for some of you upthread, consider a dosage increase. You're talking out of your ass and frightening the horses.
Well put.
I bolded what I consider the relevant part of your statement for how I operate. I have said the same in every statistics class I have ever taught. In fact I did this very afternoon. Much of the data regarding male vs female exists because we considered them easily sortable categories and the data is there, not because that is an underlying causal factor. This has always been the case. It's been pointed out almost to the point of a duh that in a similar way much of the research sorted on the basis of race is confounded by almost certainly more relevant underlying SES factors. Nothing about any of that is news to people who work in or teach in this area.
However, regarding shootings (particularly mass school shootings) there is an overwhelming sex difference reflected in the data. Not to consider it when you are thinking about the safety of kids would be criminal negligence. But, we don't have good answers to WHY there is a difference.
As far as this thread, there was a question posed. I provided data in response (so did Wahoo). There was a follow up question, and I replied. That's it. There has been no dwelling on this. The above is the sum of the posts other than yours.
I don't know if the "off chance" part of the comment was serious or just for effect, but the implication seems to be that the "woke" crowd is claiming that cis gender people are so rare that you are highly unlikely to be correct if you identify someone as such. Is that really a common claim?
I don't see how it follows that anyone who argues that gender is not strictly binary must disregard every research study ever that made any comparisons between boys and girls or else they are a hypocrite.
Anyway, I've been on campus during an active shooter situation, but I don't recall any type of drills for such situations before or afterwards. There were mass e-mails during and immediately after the situation, mostly to the effect of locking doors, turning off lights, shutting blinds, and staying quiet until some e-mail announcement/text alert indicated the situation was resolved.
My PI at the time advised everyone to carry on work as usual (against the advice to lock doors and avoid activity that might draw attention) after seeing the email that two people had been found dead of gunshot wounds and police were currently searching the campus for the shooter(s). Their reasoning: this happened two buildings away from us, therefore the precautions were unnecessary because the (known) shootings did not happen in our building. The fact that police were in the process of searching for the shooter is probably a big part of the reason they didn't want people milling around.
PI changed their mind after several more, increasingly vehement emails stressing the importance of following the guidelines.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 07, 2021, 04:15:26 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 07, 2021, 01:33:41 PM
There really weren't [a significant number of] school shootings until the mid to late 90's, or if there were, they were very isolated in time and generally not mass shootings and not in suburbs. However, there was workplace violence, and I recall a mass shooting/hostage even in the NYC suburbs in the mid to late 1970's. A few, all over, in the 1980's. but, yes, we're at the point where I honestly can't remember some of the events people refer to because there are so many.
Does it sound very liberal of me to wonder what makes parents think that a kid who feels socially isolated will be helped by having a gun? That seems a common theme in many of these cases; the idea that shooting will somehow calm the kid down. It's as if the proposed "cure" to a kid having impulse control issues would be getting them a sports car or a big motorcycle.
My father taught me to shoot a rifle when I was 10 or 11 years old, and then a pistol a year or so later. (He did not teach my sister.) Some of my fondest memories of the man come from the old gravel quarry where we used to shoot bottles and cans. I got to be pretty good too. I have never even shot near a living thing and have no plans to.
I think a great many American parents have very positive ideas about guns.
Guns also make people feel powerful, and I think the appeal of the firearm is that when you carry one you are an important person, or at least a person that other people need to pay heed to.
I can see some of the logic. Learning that guns are not toys, for example, in a visceral way. Shooting at a target as a way of stress relief. Shooting well is also a form of meditation. I particularly enjoy shooting my muzzleloader: powder, bullet, tamp, primer, aim, shoot, wet swab, dry swab, powder, ....
I would be curious how many of the worst perpetrators were hunters, rather than just shooters. Again, hunting teaches that guns are dangerous in a visceral way. I can't imagine doing to a human what a rifle does to a deer.
I don't think the people who set out to shoot humans care whether the result is messy or neat. They can easily imagine doing to a human what a gun does to a deer — in fact that's precisely their goal. Seeing the carnage up close does not deter them.
Quote
However, regarding shootings (particularly mass school shootings) there is an overwhelming sex difference reflected in the data. Not to consider it when you are thinking about the safety of kids would be criminal negligence. But, we don't have good answers to WHY there is a difference.
We agree that that data are important. How could you not? But, I'll warn you: I am strange. I also believe if the governor of Maine sees a sudden spike in the numbers of young black men living in certain towns, and he simultaneously sees a spike in the amount of street drug arrests and overdoses in hospitals, then he can also expect to be making some arrests of young black men from out of state for drug dealing. And not only can he expect it to happen, he can even talk about it, and if people hearing about it have a problem, it should be their problem, and not the community's. And if he's pissed off about what's happening, that's a sign that he's doing his job.
But - back to the data we were discussing: I don't understand how that data would not make one conclude that boys and girls are inherently different. So if you were one of those who believes a boy can change himself into a girl or vice versa, my reaction is, why am I listening to you at all?
Random thoughts and questions:
1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there? Why do we think that this is so?
2) More or less everything that has been said upthread wrt the history of these matters in the USA is correct, and one of the things that certainly has changed here, relative to pre-1990s, say, would be the vast increase in right-wing propaganda and social media self-propagandizing, both of which have greatly increased the paranoia felt in certain subsections of this country, even as the actual number of households possessing a firearm has noticeably decreased.
A quick look at this page https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/timeline-of-worldwide-school-and-mass-shootings
suggests that school shootings worldwide are overwhelmingly done by boys or young men. So, though it may be worse in the USA, the conclusion that the two genders are just plain different seems unavoidable.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 07, 2021, 09:34:26 PM
Random thoughts and questions:
1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there? Why do we think that this is so?
2) More or less everything that has been said upthread wrt the history of these matters in the USA is correct, and one of the things that certainly has changed here, relative to pre-1990s, say, would be the vast increase in right-wing propaganda and social media self-propagandizing, both of which have greatly increased the paranoia felt in certain subsections of this country, even as the actual number of households possessing a firearm has noticeably decreased.
How about the more recent trend that fewer males want to attend college? Doesn't that suggest the possibility that some young men feel excluded or isolated?
QuoteI don't know if the "off chance" part of the comment was serious or just for effect, but the implication seems to be that the "woke" crowd is claiming that cis gender people are so rare that you are highly unlikely to be correct if you identify someone as such. Is that really a common claim?
As for the future if choosing your gender is as easy as checking a box who will want to be male if they think maleness is associated with non admirable qualities.
Also, as for the future, t's a political win for today's liberal social justice warrior to help a young person realize they need to change their gender identity. And these folks are
everywhere in our education system.
Quote
I don't see how it follows that anyone who argues that gender is not strictly binary must disregard every research study ever that made any comparisons between boys and girls or else they are a hypocrite.
Not that they're a hypocrite but that they are referring to studies they have already repudiated, since some of the male shooters in the study from year 2000 were really meant to be female, but society pressured them into believing they were male.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 07, 2021, 04:15:26 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 07, 2021, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 07, 2021, 01:33:41 PM
There really weren't [a significant number of] school shootings until the mid to late 90's, or if there were, they were very isolated in time and generally not mass shootings and not in suburbs. However, there was workplace violence, and I recall a mass shooting/hostage even in the NYC suburbs in the mid to late 1970's. A few, all over, in the 1980's. but, yes, we're at the point where I honestly can't remember some of the events people refer to because there are so many.
Does it sound very liberal of me to wonder what makes parents think that a kid who feels socially isolated will be helped by having a gun? That seems a common theme in many of these cases; the idea that shooting will somehow calm the kid down. It's as if the proposed "cure" to a kid having impulse control issues would be getting them a sports car or a big motorcycle.
My father taught me to shoot a rifle when I was 10 or 11 years old, and then a pistol a year or so later. (He did not teach my sister.) Some of my fondest memories of the man come from the old gravel quarry where we used to shoot bottles and cans. I got to be pretty good too. I have never even shot near a living thing and have no plans to.
I think a great many American parents have very positive ideas about guns.
Guns also make people feel powerful, and I think the appeal of the firearm is that when you carry one you are an important person, or at least a person that other people need to pay heed to.
This is the relevant point. When you teach people
who feel socially isolated that having a gun
makes them feel powerful you basically set up the conditions for gun violence. You could teach the same people how to interact socially, or how to do calming exercises, which could actually help them in social situations. But teaching them to shoot is only going to make them feel better in social situations when they
have a gun.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 07, 2021, 09:34:26 PM
Random thoughts and questions:
1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there? Why do we think that this is so?
There are vastly fewer guns in Canada, and most are owned by hunters. Also, you don't have the kind of open-carry nonsense that is common in the US. If a person were walking down the street in Canada, and wasn't obviously a police officer, lots of people would call the police, who would probably arrive pretty quickly.
From wikipedia:
Estimate of civilian firearms per
100 people:
Canada 34.7
.
.
USA
120.5 There are more guns than people in the USA!!!!!!!!
Enough said.
School shooters and their parents in no way constitute a "well-regulated militia" by any sane definition of the term.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 07, 2021, 09:34:26 PM
Random thoughts and questions:
1) There are a lot of guns in Canada, right, but the school shootings (and likely also the active shooter drills?) do not really occur there? Why do we think that this is so?
2) More or less everything that has been said upthread wrt the history of these matters in the USA is correct, and one of the things that certainly has changed here, relative to pre-1990s, say, would be the vast increase in right-wing propaganda and social media self-propagandizing, both of which have greatly increased the paranoia felt in certain subsections of this country, even as the actual number of households possessing a firearm has noticeably decreased.
We have also witnessed an enormous increase in mental illnesses of all sorts, and massive increases in drug use and exposure to pop-culture media violence through increasingly violent movies, video games, etc. etc. The former is probably not unrelated to the latter. Widespread mental illness combined with easy access to firearms creates a dangerous situation.
The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 08, 2021, 07:04:58 AM
The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.
The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control) It is worth pointing out that indiscriminate mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of murders and it doesn't really make sense to consider them outside the larger context of homicide and violence.
Violent movies and video games are concerning enough, particularly where video games allow you to increase skill and score, so they may be addictive. But the business of elevating criminals who make recordings that trumpet their criminal lives and impulses, to the stature of artists who contribute to our our cultural value, is an American phenomenon that has spread.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/waukesha-darrell-brooks-milwaukee-rap-scene
Quote from: apl68 on December 08, 2021, 06:25:06 AM
Widespread mental illness combined with easy access to firearms creates a dangerous situation.
SUV's too.
ETA: If y'all are linking Guardian articles, I'm going to go ahead and use FOX here and there. CNN certainly isn't much interested in this.
Quote from: mythbuster on December 07, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when. Chilling.
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 07:26:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 08, 2021, 07:04:58 AM
The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.
The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)
One thing to note is the
massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the
*accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)
*Arguably, these shouldn't be called "accidental" when there is so much disregard for safety and basic common sense. See all of the discussion about the shooting on the set of "Rust", where all kinds of people in the industry point out how this should never have been remotely possible if the accepted safety protocols had been followed.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2021, 07:43:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 07:26:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 08, 2021, 07:04:58 AM
The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.
The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)
One thing to note is the massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the *accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)
*Arguably, these shouldn't be called "accidental" when there is so much disregard for safety and basic common sense. See all of the discussion about the shooting on the set of "Rust", where all kinds of people in the industry point out how this should never have been remotely possible if the accepted safety protocols had been followed.)
Right. Given the huge quantity of guns, and the huge number of people who own them, it is unsurprising that a few are in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, simply from the law of large numbers.
I'm not surprised that there are more guns than people in the US. I doubt that there are many people who own one gun. Either none, or a bunch. A friend of mine once said that there are two things that can never be full enough: jewelry boxes and gun safes. (I think I own 12 guns, and I'm certainly on the low end among my hunting friends.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2021, 07:43:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 07:26:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 08, 2021, 07:04:58 AM
The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.
The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)
One thing to note is the massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the *accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)
*Arguably, these shouldn't be called "accidental" when there is so much disregard for safety and basic common sense. See all of the discussion about the shooting on the set of "Rust", where all kinds of people in the industry point out how this should never have been remotely possible if the accepted safety protocols had been followed.)
By far the most likely person to get shot with a gun is that gun's owner, either by suicide or accident.
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 07:29:33 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 07, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when. Chilling.
A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.
I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.
Does anyone know the stats on the effectiveness of school drills in general (vs. merely distributing info on recommended action) reducing injury or fatality?
I'm thinking there must be a good body of data related to drills for fire or natural disasters, even if mass shootings (and drills for active shooter situations) are relatively rare or recent.
I don't know if there's an "official" definition of active shooter, but I'm guessing there's some threshold level of suspicion that gets crossed regarding 1) someone on campus has a gun and 2) has recently shot people or has threatened to shoot people.
With the situation I experienced, all that was known was that two people had been shot. Who or where the shooter or shooters were was as yet unknown. So the instructions were to hunker down and stay out of the way so the police could search and assess the situation.
Based on the flurry of emails that came out over the next several days, many people failed to follow these instructions. I'm not sure if a drill would have changed this or not.
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 07:29:33 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 07, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when. Chilling.
A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.
I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.
I agree that the risk is low, certainly lower than the risks involved in my daily commute. In our security officer's defense, he meant our university would have an active shooter, not a given classroom. Given the size of our place, the odds are quite small that an active shooter would show up in my classroom. I still find it chilling that a campus that has always seemed a safe haven could have an active shooter shatter that illusion and kill and maim here, and that the experts predict it will happen. I don't carry that thought into the classroom with me on a daily basis, but I am glad that someone is thinking about the probability of such an event and has made plans to address it when it arises.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 08, 2021, 07:43:06 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 07:26:35 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 08, 2021, 07:04:58 AM
The rest of the world watches the same movies and plays the same video games but doesn't have anywhere near the same proportion of school or mass shooters. So I very much doubt there's a causal link there.
The US has had a much higher murder rate than countries with similar income profiles and demographics since at least the Civil War. Weirdly Canada is kind of right between the US and Europe. I've read enough to get the sense that there isn't a single easy answer for why this is true. Easy access to guns does and has certainly played a role, but the data doesn't really suggest that guns are the whole story. (That isn't an argument against gun control)
One thing to note is the massive chasm between responsible gun owners and the wackjobs. So the people who argue that responsible gun owners aren't really the problem have a point. However, the easy access to guns for the wackjobs, (often without background checks, etc.) makes for lots of carnage. (This includes all of the *accidental shootings where children, even toddlers, have wound up shooting other people because of criminal negligence, which seems to be rarely prosecuted as such.)
We seem to fall between two stools in terms of firearms regulations. The U.S. is not like borderline anarchic places like Pakistan--we
do have firearms regulations, more extensive in some ways than they were in decades when there was significantly less gun crime than there is now. The regulations are extensive enough to vex law-abiding gun owners (of which I personally know many, though I'm not one--with my eyesight you don't want me handling a gun!), while still containing abundant loopholes for criminals and others who shouldn't have access. I don't have all the answers about how to regulate firearms, but there's a long gap between where we are now and the prohibitions or near-prohibitions on firearms that so many fear and a few advocate. We could do better.
There's certainly no question that in the U.S. today there is a pervasive fear of sudden, unpredictable violence against random people by mentally unstable individuals. We had a minor scare along those lines only this morning at our library. The circulation desk received an anonymous phone call describing a certain vehicle in our parking lot. The caller said that the driver was undergoing a psychotic episode, was doing drugs, and hadn't slept in days, and was a threat to those around him.
Well, you can't be a supervisor at a public place and not have to address a report like that, not in today's climate of fear. First I walked along the road past the corner of the parking lot where the vehicle sat, to determine whether there was anybody in it. I couldn't see through the tinted windows from a few yards away, but did hear loud music playing within. I called the police and let them know about the situation, and asked if they could check it out. Shortly afterward a staff member observed an officer pulling up, speaking with the occupant or occupants of the vehicle, and then driving away. Then the vehicle drove away. End of story, as far as we can tell.
I have no idea what the driver was doing, sitting there in the parking lot just playing music. Maybe he was downloading it with our wi-fi? I'm glad for the sake of the staff's peace of mind that he chose to leave, but it's pretty obvious that the officer saw no signs for serious concern. Either the caller's concerns were way overblown, or the whole thing was a rather unfunny prank.
Nobody uses the term "psychotic episode" in a prank phone call. They may have not accurately assessed the situation, though it was likely an honest guess, or it was accurate, but the police decided that they couldn't do much other than to ask the person to no loiter and cause a disturbance.
Quote from: Ruralguy on December 08, 2021, 02:15:04 PM
Nobody uses the term "psychotic episode" in a prank phone call. They may have not accurately assessed the situation, though it was likely an honest guess, or it was accurate, but the police decided that they couldn't do much other than to ask the person to no loiter and cause a disturbance.
???
This blogger is a firearms expert and gun owner. He is fed up (on the blog you'll find a 14(!) part series on the crazy US gun culture. The linked piece describes his anger without needing to read the previous 14, and about half way down he has a proposal to address the wack jobs described by marshwiggle.
https://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html
School shootings actually contribute very little to US firearms deaths, most of which are suicides, though not overwhelmingly so.
Firearms deaths in the US are at a rate near the bottom of the rate of Third World countries. I've always thought that we are the world's most advanced Third World country.
My take on the 2nd Amendment has always been that a gun in 1789 is not the same thing as a gun in 2021. It's a whole world's difference in firepower. [Those muskets didn't aim well, were a pain to reload, and didn't work when it rained! Scalia should have picked this up with his 18th century dictionary.]
There is nothing in 2nd amendment jurisprudence that forbids safety rules for weapons. Scalia explicitly said that in Heller.
It's like with cars -- one drives cars, but they can kill. One hunts game with a rifle, but the rifle bullet can kill a person.
Handle guns the same way: Force liability insurance by law! And lot's of it depending on firepower. I don't like high capacity magazines on semi auto weapons, but of course the insurance premium on this stuff would be much higher than for the type of rifle a hunter, could use, or a self defender with a low capacity handgun. Gun ownership would decline.
In addition to having pre-purchase background checks, one could then have post-purchase insurance checks, just as with cars.
This would also solve the problem of having a large stock of weapons in our hands but only controlling the new flow of weapons.
I am publishing this phenomenally efficient solution here because it will be ignored wherever I published it. :-( No smiley on account too many deaths from this source.
Jesse Jackson gets into the act. A lot about racism, and a lot of stated concern for the victims in Oxford Michigan, but not a word about about the flagrantly racist slaughter in Waukesha, killing fifty per cent more than the Oxford murders, and injuring dozens, some seriously. I like the way he slips in some bits about Kyle Rittenhouse, inviting you to be outraged at the verdict without stating it directly.
True to form.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/12/7/22822270/parents-responsible-for-their-childrens-gun-violence-jesse-jackson-column
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 07:29:33 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 07, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when. Chilling.
A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.
I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.
I agree that the risk is low, certainly lower than the risks involved in my daily commute. In our security officer's defense, he meant our university would have an active shooter, not a given classroom. Given the size of our place, the odds are quite small that an active shooter would show up in my classroom. I still find it chilling that a campus that has always seemed a safe haven could have an active shooter shatter that illusion and kill and maim here, and that the experts predict it will happen. I don't carry that thought into the classroom with me on a daily basis, but I am glad that someone is thinking about the probability of such an event and has made plans to address it when it arises.
We also have fire drills, earthquake drills and similar emergency preparation activities. We hope they aren't necessary but are glad when there is an emergency we know what to do.
The other day I was in a shopping center when an emergency alarm went off. Everyone was quickly and calmly walking towards the exit. It was clear that all the shoppers were used to this sort of thing even if we had never been in an emergency in this particular shopping center.
I was at work the day a major earthquake hit, and had the presence of mind to stand in a doorway, then duck under a desk.
Soon after this earthquake I was at a company dinner with bunch of out-of-town executives. The room started shaking and we locals all jumped under the tables. The waiters tried to explain to us it was the dishwasher in the basement that had thrown a wrench or something... but dinner was over. We were all ready to go home after that scare. I suspect the visitors are still scratching their heads wondering why we were so skittish about a noisy dishwasher.
Like most of you, I've had the "run, hide, fight" training. And if I ever come to need it and run my fat arse out of a classroom leaving 3 dozen kids to their own fates, the morning news will be "Cowardly overpaid professor leaves students to die".
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 08, 2021, 05:01:17 PM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 07:29:33 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 07, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when. Chilling.
A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.
I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.
I agree that the risk is low, certainly lower than the risks involved in my daily commute. In our security officer's defense, he meant our university would have an active shooter, not a given classroom. Given the size of our place, the odds are quite small that an active shooter would show up in my classroom. I still find it chilling that a campus that has always seemed a safe haven could have an active shooter shatter that illusion and kill and maim here, and that the experts predict it will happen. I don't carry that thought into the classroom with me on a daily basis, but I am glad that someone is thinking about the probability of such an event and has made plans to address it when it arises.
We also have fire drills, earthquake drills and similar emergency preparation activities. We hope they aren't necessary but are glad when there is an emergency we know what to do.
I wonder how effective any of those drills are. I would suspect it depends on the place and the situation. I don't think I've ever participated in a fire drill where I personally felt better prepared to deal with a real fire afterwards. In most buildings, there isn't really much mystery about how to get out quickly. Is a drill really more effective than just giving people the information in those cases? Of course, fire drills are presumably also about testing the systems and there are buildings that are more complicated.
Obviously, the people in charge of campus safety should be thinking about active shooting scenarios and have plans in place. That's their job, but that doesn't mean I should be involved. Is a drill really going to help anyone know what to do? I'm not completely convinced there's anything particularly helpful about the "run, hide, flight" advice, but even if its useful, it isn't really stuff you can simulate with drills. There is training that can help people evaluate the circumstances, make good choices and act decisively, but that's tactical training. It isn't appropriate for students and teachers.
Quote from: Caracal on December 09, 2021, 07:26:22 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 08, 2021, 05:01:17 PM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 07:29:33 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 07, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when. Chilling.
A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.
I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.
I agree that the risk is low, certainly lower than the risks involved in my daily commute. In our security officer's defense, he meant our university would have an active shooter, not a given classroom. Given the size of our place, the odds are quite small that an active shooter would show up in my classroom. I still find it chilling that a campus that has always seemed a safe haven could have an active shooter shatter that illusion and kill and maim here, and that the experts predict it will happen. I don't carry that thought into the classroom with me on a daily basis, but I am glad that someone is thinking about the probability of such an event and has made plans to address it when it arises.
We also have fire drills, earthquake drills and similar emergency preparation activities. We hope they aren't necessary but are glad when there is an emergency we know what to do.
I wonder how effective any of those drills are. I would suspect it depends on the place and the situation. I don't think I've ever participated in a fire drill where I personally felt better prepared to deal with a real fire afterwards. In most buildings, there isn't really much mystery about how to get out quickly. Is a drill really more effective than just giving people the information in those cases? Of course, fire drills are presumably also about testing the systems and there are buildings that are more complicated.
Obviously, the people in charge of campus safety should be thinking about active shooting scenarios and have plans in place. That's their job, but that doesn't mean I should be involved. Is a drill really going to help anyone know what to do? I'm not completely convinced there's anything particularly helpful about the "run, hide, flight" advice, but even if its useful, it isn't really stuff you can simulate with drills. There is training that can help people evaluate the circumstances, make good choices and act decisively, but that's tactical training. It isn't appropriate for students and teachers.
These drills are effective because people immediately know what to do - quickly and calmly walk to the nearest exit. They have done it enough times with the sound of the alarm going off that they can remain calm and do their thing. It might even keep them calmer knowing "it's probably just a drill, but may as well be on the safe side."
Quote from: Caracal on December 09, 2021, 07:26:22 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 08, 2021, 05:01:17 PM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: Caracal on December 08, 2021, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: aside on December 08, 2021, 07:29:33 AM
Quote from: mythbuster on December 07, 2021, 03:28:04 PM
I'm surprised that the rest of you are surprised- we are usually the LAST place to get any sort of safety training. But we are also in Florida, and Parkland really rattled many of our U-PD, based on the talk they give us before the drill occurs.
In our online training video, our chief security officer says that given our size and situation, it's not a matter of if we will have an active shooter, but when. Chilling.
A number of years ago, there was a shooting in a classroom at the school where I was teaching. The shooter was a student I had taught the previous semester.
I still think this kind of statement isn't helpful and we need to be careful to keep the actual risk in perspective. I can't really assess the veracity of the statement because the term active shooter is is pretty vague. However, the actual risk of someone with a gun coming into my classroom is very, very low and it is important that I not start acting like its higher than it is. I can't teach effectively if I overestimate the risks and spend lots of time worrying about how to protect myself from a remote personal threat.
I agree that the risk is low, certainly lower than the risks involved in my daily commute. In our security officer's defense, he meant our university would have an active shooter, not a given classroom. Given the size of our place, the odds are quite small that an active shooter would show up in my classroom. I still find it chilling that a campus that has always seemed a safe haven could have an active shooter shatter that illusion and kill and maim here, and that the experts predict it will happen. I don't carry that thought into the classroom with me on a daily basis, but I am glad that someone is thinking about the probability of such an event and has made plans to address it when it arises.
We also have fire drills, earthquake drills and similar emergency preparation activities. We hope they aren't necessary but are glad when there is an emergency we know what to do.
I wonder how effective any of those drills are. I would suspect it depends on the place and the situation. I don't think I've ever participated in a fire drill where I personally felt better prepared to deal with a real fire afterwards. In most buildings, there isn't really much mystery about how to get out quickly. Is a drill really more effective than just giving people the information in those cases? Of course, fire drills are presumably also about testing the systems and there are buildings that are more complicated.
Obviously, the people in charge of campus safety should be thinking about active shooting scenarios and have plans in place. That's their job, but that doesn't mean I should be involved. Is a drill really going to help anyone know what to do? I'm not completely convinced there's anything particularly helpful about the "run, hide, flight" advice, but even if its useful, it isn't really stuff you can simulate with drills. There is training that can help people evaluate the circumstances, make good choices and act decisively, but that's tactical training. It isn't appropriate for students and teachers.
1. It is important to teach people to take fire alarms seriously and evacuate calmly and quickly. My mother, as a young woman, was tutoring a student after school when the fire alarm went off. They didn't take it seriously, just started packing up their things while talking. Then someone came running down the hall yelling to get out-- the fire was very real and the school burned to the ground before it could be put out. Luckily everyone got out in time, but the ceiling was coming down as they did. So yes, you want the habit of immediately leaving to be be just that-- a practiced habit.
2. The "run, hide, fight" training is there for a reason-- because it is not what most untrained people do in these situations. The first impulse is to hide, and that used to be the advice as well. But analysis of these situations revealed that the first choice should be to run-- get as far away from the situation as quickly as possible. Only when that is impossible (e.g., you can see the shooter nearby) should you hide, and before hiding you should grab anything nearby that can be used as a weapon (e.g., fire extinguisher, other heavy objects) and take it with you.
People don't think clearly in crisis situations--it may feel like you would know what to do without drills and training, but that goes out the window when there is immediate danger. You want the appropriate behaviors to be as automatic as possible.
Quote from: apl68 on December 08, 2021, 01:44:55 PM
There's certainly no question that in the U.S. today there is a pervasive fear of sudden, unpredictable violence against random people by mentally unstable individuals. We had a minor scare along those lines only this morning at our library. The circulation desk received an anonymous phone call describing a certain vehicle in our parking lot. The caller said that the driver was undergoing a psychotic episode, was doing drugs, and hadn't slept in days, and was a threat to those around him.
Well, you can't be a supervisor at a public place and not have to address a report like that, not in today's climate of fear. First I walked along the road past the corner of the parking lot where the vehicle sat, to determine whether there was anybody in it. I couldn't see through the tinted windows from a few yards away, but did hear loud music playing within. I called the police and let them know about the situation, and asked if they could check it out. Shortly afterward a staff member observed an officer pulling up, speaking with the occupant or occupants of the vehicle, and then driving away. Then the vehicle drove away. End of story, as far as we can tell.
I have no idea what the driver was doing, sitting there in the parking lot just playing music. Maybe he was downloading it with our wi-fi? I'm glad for the sake of the staff's peace of mind that he chose to leave, but it's pretty obvious that the officer saw no signs for serious concern. Either the caller's concerns were way overblown, or the whole thing was a rather unfunny prank.
Probably not worth speculating, but after I finish I'll have to go back to grading so...
1. It could be someone just walked by a couple times and thought there was something strange and called. The drugs and psychotic episode stuff could just have been speculation on their part.
2. The person who called knows the guy and has some issue with him. Maybe they live or work near there and don't want him hanging around. The other stuff could be true or not in that scenario.
3. Its sort of a low key swatting type situation and someone is trying to get this guy in trouble.
Sometimes when somebody is doing work in our house or cleaning it, I take the dog. Often I just go park my car over where I can get onto the college wifi and try to get some grading done. If you walked by me as I was grading some particularly terrible student paper or reading a maddening email, you might wander if I was okay...
In addition to what others note about drills, they also help detect bottlenecks and other logistical issues - that emergency exit whose alarm didn't go off when it was opened, or that office where it took ages to evacuate because of its layout. But yes, most importantly, people often can't think straight in an actual emergency, so having a well-rehearsed response is helpful. I say this as someone who has had to flee a building under threat of imminent collapse - I've lived through multiple earthquakes.
In the case of earthquakes, you must figure out if you're close enough to the exit to make it out on time, know the nearest open space to head to, and if you're not close enough to evacuate then you must know where to take shelter quickly. You don't want to have to figure this out in the middle of an actual earthquake.
I've never had drills or any kind of active-shooter training, but I did look guidance up myself because it seems a far more realistic threat than a fire in a concrete building.
Quote from: Caracal on December 09, 2021, 08:24:30 AM
Quote from: apl68 on December 08, 2021, 01:44:55 PM
There's certainly no question that in the U.S. today there is a pervasive fear of sudden, unpredictable violence against random people by mentally unstable individuals. We had a minor scare along those lines only this morning at our library. The circulation desk received an anonymous phone call describing a certain vehicle in our parking lot. The caller said that the driver was undergoing a psychotic episode, was doing drugs, and hadn't slept in days, and was a threat to those around him.
Well, you can't be a supervisor at a public place and not have to address a report like that, not in today's climate of fear. First I walked along the road past the corner of the parking lot where the vehicle sat, to determine whether there was anybody in it. I couldn't see through the tinted windows from a few yards away, but did hear loud music playing within. I called the police and let them know about the situation, and asked if they could check it out. Shortly afterward a staff member observed an officer pulling up, speaking with the occupant or occupants of the vehicle, and then driving away. Then the vehicle drove away. End of story, as far as we can tell.
I have no idea what the driver was doing, sitting there in the parking lot just playing music. Maybe he was downloading it with our wi-fi? I'm glad for the sake of the staff's peace of mind that he chose to leave, but it's pretty obvious that the officer saw no signs for serious concern. Either the caller's concerns were way overblown, or the whole thing was a rather unfunny prank.
Probably not worth speculating, but after I finish I'll have to go back to grading so...
1. It could be someone just walked by a couple times and thought there was something strange and called. The drugs and psychotic episode stuff could just have been speculation on their part.
2. The person who called knows the guy and has some issue with him. Maybe they live or work near there and don't want him hanging around. The other stuff could be true or not in that scenario.
3. Its sort of a low key swatting type situation and someone is trying to get this guy in trouble.
I'm most inclined to suspect 2 or 3 in this case.
Quote from: Stockmann on December 09, 2021, 09:08:48 AM
I've never had drills or any kind of active-shooter training, but I did look guidance up myself because it seems a far more realistic threat than a fire in a concrete building.
You're still probably statistically more at risk from fire in ANY kind of building--even supposedly "fireproof" modern construction--than from an active shooter. Not that you might not find it worth your while to have guidance on the active shooter threat anyway.
I was in Camp Fire, but the basic Scout motto, "Be prepared" seems to cover it all, for me.
But then, my dad was his company's safety director, and we were raised as the pre-view audience for all the safety films he showed his teams on electrocution, fire, first aid basics, etc.
They never haunted my dreams, but they certainly helped concentrate the mind in an emergency or two.
When the camper in the next cabin over fell off her bunk and broke her arm, the other assistant counselor and I were commended for knowing to stabilize it on a pillow, not move her otherwise, and go get help from the camp director within 10 min.
We were 15 at the time.
M.
Quote from: Stockmann on December 09, 2021, 09:08:48 AM
In addition to what others note about drills, they also help detect bottlenecks and other logistical issues - that emergency exit whose alarm didn't go off when it was opened, or that office where it took ages to evacuate because of its layout. But yes, most importantly, people often can't think straight in an actual emergency, so having a well-rehearsed response is helpful. I say this as someone who has had to flee a building under threat of imminent collapse - I've lived through multiple earthquakes.
In the case of earthquakes, you must figure out if you're close enough to the exit to make it out on time, know the nearest open space to head to, and if you're not close enough to evacuate then you must know where to take shelter quickly. You don't want to have to figure this out in the middle of an actual earthquake.
I've never had drills or any kind of active-shooter training, but I did look guidance up myself because it seems a far more realistic threat than a fire in a concrete building.
Two things.
1. The kind of drills you are describing might be useful, but that's because they just involve a rote series of actions. In fire drills, everyone exits the building. In a tornado drill, you go a basement, or an interior hallway. Nobody tries to have drills that account for everything that might happen. We don't have fire drills where you pretend the nearest exit is blocked and you have to go to another one, or that the fire is right outside the room, you can't get out and you have to stuff wet rags under the door or jump out the window. We don't do that kind of stuff because it wouldn't help in the actual situation, and it would just frighten people.
2. Drills are only reassuring and useful if they are part of a larger set of safety measures. If you were in a building that you knew didn't have a working sprinkler system, or you knew that someone usually locked the fire exit doors, would a fire drill make you feel like things were under control?
Physical enactment of a series of actions is important in stimulating thought about how to carry out those actions and what is required to complete them.
In dance, repetition helps build a repertoire of movements that don't have to be re-learned from the ground up (so to speak) that other movements can then be built upon.
I have never seen how it hurt to take a few moments to learn some of the basic actions, even when variations on them might be necessary.
Also, to the topic of the thread, this event just played out, fortunately without serious results:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWirapiq3QU
And this one, just yesterday, in Florida:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMwneJ1GRV0
Perhaps there is learning in some primates...
M.
Quote from: Caracal on December 10, 2021, 07:39:06 AM
. Nobody tries to have drills that account for everything that might happen. We don't have fire drills where you pretend the nearest exit is blocked and you have to go to another one, or that the fire is right outside the room, you can't get out and you have to stuff wet rags under the door or jump out the window. We don't do that kind of stuff because it wouldn't help in the actual situation, and it would just frighten people.
I don't understand-- why do you think these kind of drills wouldn't help? We actually really should have drills that involve contingency planning. You DO want to know where an alternative exit is, and you SHOULD practice (or at the very least talk about) what to do if fire is right outside the door. Everyone should know, for example, to drop to the floor and crawl if there is smoke (smoke rises). At least when I was a kid, we were taught these things, and I did indeed practice climbing out my (ground floor) bedroom window. You do not want an actual emergency to be the first time you think about or practice these things.
Quote from: Puget on December 10, 2021, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: Caracal on December 10, 2021, 07:39:06 AM
. Nobody tries to have drills that account for everything that might happen. We don't have fire drills where you pretend the nearest exit is blocked and you have to go to another one, or that the fire is right outside the room, you can't get out and you have to stuff wet rags under the door or jump out the window. We don't do that kind of stuff because it wouldn't help in the actual situation, and it would just frighten people.
I don't understand-- why do you think these kind of drills wouldn't help? We actually really should have drills that involve contingency planning. You DO want to know where an alternative exit is, and you SHOULD practice (or at the very least talk about) what to do if fire is right outside the door. Everyone should know, for example, to drop to the floor and crawl if there is smoke (smoke rises). At least when I was a kid, we were taught these things, and I did indeed practice climbing out my (ground floor) bedroom window. You do not want an actual emergency to be the first time you think about or practice these things.
At my institution, we have one (1) campus-wide fire drill each fall. It just checks normal evacuation of each building. It messes up one class or lab period. It would be totally impractical to have more than one to handle different scenarios. (And each classroom or lab has a sign by the door indicating the primary and secondary exit, so that's probably as much information as is necessary.)
Quote from: Puget on December 10, 2021, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: Caracal on December 10, 2021, 07:39:06 AM
. Nobody tries to have drills that account for everything that might happen. We don't have fire drills where you pretend the nearest exit is blocked and you have to go to another one, or that the fire is right outside the room, you can't get out and you have to stuff wet rags under the door or jump out the window. We don't do that kind of stuff because it wouldn't help in the actual situation, and it would just frighten people.
I don't understand-- why do you think these kind of drills wouldn't help? We actually really should have drills that involve contingency planning. You DO want to know where an alternative exit is, and you SHOULD practice (or at the very least talk about) what to do if fire is right outside the door. Everyone should know, for example, to drop to the floor and crawl if there is smoke (smoke rises). At least when I was a kid, we were taught these things, and I did indeed practice climbing out my (ground floor) bedroom window. You do not want an actual emergency to be the first time you think about or practice these things.
1. As Marshwiggle points out, you can't ignore the tradeoffs, in time, possible injury, damage to property and increased anxiety. I don't really want to practice kicking screens out of my windows. I've never done it before, but I'm just going to assume that if I needed to, I could. There's obviously no safe way to practice jumping out the window
2. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't learn these things, but there's no way to do the kind of practicing that would actually help for people who aren't fire fighters. Crawling in the hallway once a year is probably not going to make any difference. I'm still not really convinced fire/evacuation drills really help individuals (as opposed to testing the systems) that much, but to the extent it is useful, it is because what is being practiced is very simple and doesn't require any adaptation to circumstances.
If there's a fire in a building you mostly want people to not think too much. Don't try to decide if you really need to leave, don't worry about what stuff you need to gather, don't try to figure out if you could just use the elevator, don't worry about the windows, just walk quickly and calmly to the nearest exit sign and walk out. That's really about the limit of the sort of useful training that you can give to non-professionals. You can and should make sure people are aware of basic principles (smoke goes up, stop drop and roll, wet rag under door) but a few simulations aren't going to make any difference in how well people apply these ideas in stressful situations.
3. The drills also only make sense within the context of the larger systems. Leaving quickly via the nearest exit will almost always work in a safe building because the alarm should be triggered when a fire is still localized. Proper barriers and materials should slow spread enough to give everyone time to leave. As long as firearms are easily obtainable by anyone who wants to hurt people, this stuff is all just window dressing.
At our college, our Campus Police Chief had bolts installed so that in case of an active shooter, faculty could lock themselves and students inside the classroom.
Then the Fire Marshall came along and ordered them removed. Because they would prevent exiting in case of a fire.
Not sure who won that war.
Caracel, we're just going to have to disagree on this. No one is talking about practicing things that are unsafe or cause property damage (at least I certainly wasn't), but there is a whole enormous body of research showing that it is precisely the things that aren't simple and automatic that benefit from practice and thinking through in advance, so you are completely backward on that. Nor should it scare reasonable adults to consider contingency plans
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 11, 2021, 08:58:42 AM
At our college, our Campus Police Chief had bolts installed so that in case of an active shooter, faculty could lock themselves and students inside the classroom.
Then the Fire Marshall came along and ordered them removed. Because they would prevent exiting in case of a fire.
Not sure who won that war.
Proper safety locks allow the door to be pushed open from the inside but not pulled open from the outside. We have these on all classroom doors, with a label right on the door with an arrow showing to turn it if there is a shelter in place order.
Quote from: Caracal on December 11, 2021, 08:45:24 AM
1. As Marshwiggle points out, you can't ignore the tradeoffs, in time, possible injury, damage to property and increased anxiety. I don't really want to practice kicking screens out of my windows. I've never done it before, but I'm just going to assume that if I needed to, I could. There's obviously no safe way to practice jumping out the window
2. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't learn these things, but there's no way to do the kind of practicing that would actually help for people who aren't fire fighters. Crawling in the hallway once a year is probably not going to make any difference. I'm still not really convinced fire/evacuation drills really help individuals (as opposed to testing the systems) that much, but to the extent it is useful, it is because what is being practiced is very simple and doesn't require any adaptation to circumstances.
If there's a fire in a building you mostly want people to not think too much. Don't try to decide if you really need to leave, don't worry about what stuff you need to gather, don't try to figure out if you could just use the elevator, don't worry about the windows, just walk quickly and calmly to the nearest exit sign and walk out. That's really about the limit of the sort of useful training that you can give to non-professionals. You can and should make sure people are aware of basic principles (smoke goes up, stop drop and roll, wet rag under door) but a few simulations aren't going to make any difference in how well people apply these ideas in stressful situations.
Yes to all this. I give
one piece of advice to students at our annual fire drill. TAKE YOUR KEYS! About 30 years ago, we had a bomb scare. The fire alarm was used to get people out of the building; we didn't know it was a bomb scare. They locked the buildings so they could search the campus. I had my keys, but a colleague *didn't, so she came and hung out at our place for a couple of hours until she could get back into the building. (It was mid-afternoon, so the rest of the day's classes, labs, etc. were cancelled.)
I explain that situation, like I just did, so students are prepared in case they're NOT allowed back in soon. (Same thing for putting on your coat if it's winter.)
Only the most basic contingencies are worth even
considering, because the possibilities are endless. (As Caracal pointed out, for the
professionals, it's a different story. )
(*Her house keys were in her office; she was teaching when the alarm went off so she couldn't go get them.)