PDA

View Full Version : School shooting



Seibautpau
11-16-2004, 02:15 PM
first off, its my first time asking about a scenario, and id like to tell you that im not 18 yet, so if theres something illegal or not right about me inquiring about this, then tell me and ill completely understand...this question is form complete curiousity

Say there is a school shooting, the situation is htat a several students, 3-4 students, planned to do a sweep of the school, going methodically from classroom to classroom. Your unarmed, and they probably have semi automatic or full auto rifles, and handguns

you manage, somehow, to incapacitate one of hte armed students, and you pick up his gun and all other ammunition.

my first thought would be to call the police, and guide the students that i encounter and that are in my class to safety. Its pretty much common sense to stay with the students in a safe place, but i wouldnt be able to live with myself i i just stood by watching innocent kids get slaughtered.

a problem that would first hit me are hte hallways. The hallways have no cover, and are the only means of transportation. i guess close to the walls, and going from class room to classroom. would be the best idea, but many doors would probably be closed and locked from the classes. and i guess directly engaging the armed students would be stupid, including the fact that the police cannot tell if i am a innocent student or a studnet that is shooting up the school.

well this question sprang form pure curiousity, but thanks for reading!

Steve Camp
11-16-2004, 02:37 PM
Were I a less than eighteen year old student who just came in posession of a rifle and ammo in the midst of a school shooting...

Since I probably do not train on a regular basis, and most probably not with whatever weapon fell into my lap... and since I most probably do not practice clearing buildings, let alone by myself... unless I am really near an exit... I think my best course of action would be to tip over a bunch of desks, book cases etc within the room I find myself... to create concealment (not cover -- desks won't stop bullets)... and then strongpoint that room... if anyone enters the room with a weapon, and that person is not instantly recognizable as a Police Officer, or is otherwise NOT instantly recognizable as a good guy come to save my butt... they get shot... and I'd have to live with myself for the rest of my life with my decision to take another life in this situation.

I would NOT go hunting.

I would try to establish a link (probably via cellphone -- all high school students seem to have them -- for better or for worse) with the authorities to communicate what is happening at the school, to describe myself, where I am located, that I am defending the room with a rifle taken from badguy X who is {dead, incapacitated, not breathing, whatever}. Then hope and pray that SWAT (or whomever) does not shoot me on sight if they see me holding a rifle.

How to defend the room and also shepherd other students into my safe haven? I dunno.

Does the room have windows? Can I/we escape through them? If not on the ground floor, can we somehow construct something to let ourselves down to the ground? Does it appear safe outside?

I am not counseling these actions. Merely musing on what I might do if I found myself unarmed (until the rifle fell in my lap) in the midst of a school takeover/slaughter scenario.

Seibautpau
11-16-2004, 02:58 PM
Thanks for the reply, its just a thing ive been thinking about

I guess going out and getting me some bad guys is a stupid idea...I have shot a gun before at the gun range and i guess i could understnad how scary it is to be at the recieveing end of hte barell... but of course, im just a kid, and id probably be scared crapless...

thanks for hte post!

Steve Camp
11-16-2004, 03:18 PM
David,

I like your response -- that is, not thinking linearly here (gun or no gun), rather thinking in an entirely different direction: use the fire extinguisher!.

However... I question the wisdom of setting off the fire alarm... Will not the hallways suddenly flood with people instantly providing an even easier target rich environment for the bad guys? Or do you figure that it's a crap shoot anyway -- people are gonna die one way or the other, might as well give them a chance... and create lots and lots of unexpected confusion for the BGs... maybe overload their OODA loops?

An intriguing idea. I am interested in some of your reasoning behind this course of action (using the extinguishers).

Steve Camp
11-16-2004, 03:47 PM
Fire alarms make people move and make them think EVAC!,
we need to EVAC which is better IMHO and much preferrable to the alternative of "let me muddle under a desk and see how well they shoot me".

On the one hand, I understand the need to not muddle about under a desk... but if you have several well armed BGs in the hallway... filling the hallway with evac'ing people seems to be a good way to get a whole bunch of them shot real quick. So I like the idea of trying to get everyone to EVAC ASAP... but am not 100% sold on the idea of potentially putting lots and lots of innocents directly in line of fire.

If all rooms had a door directly to the outside, and when the fire alarm goes off, everyone evacuates their room directly to the outside... that's one thing... but filling a central corridor with lots of targets is not appealing to me at the moment.

Gabriel Suarez
11-16-2004, 03:52 PM
with or without the teachers help or permission

THAT is so important, yet not discussed much. Thanks David for bringing it up. Teach your kids to think for themselves. The tactical guidance of a teacher may or may not be worth following.

If it sounds like a stupid thing to do, it probably is.

Ankeny
11-16-2004, 06:23 PM
I have been lurking here for a while, but this is my first post. I teach in a secondary school. I am also a long time volunteer fire fighter and I currently hold the rank of Battalion Chief in a rather large county wide department encompassing nine school districts. Prior to coming into education I was in law enforcement. I am very familiar with the typical emergency plan found in many schools today.

FWIW, one of the most discussed "probable scenarios" in the emergency services is a shooter tripping the fire alarm and shooting people as they exit the building. If there is an active shooter in the building, the school will go into "lock down" before you ever pull the alarm. Tripping the alarm will only complicate the issue by adding confusion. The assumption will be (right or wrong) the bad guys pulled the alarm.

I ride back and forth to pistol matches with several of the guys from the regional tactical team. One of them is the coordinator. I have spent a lot of time discussing the protocols that have been put in place as a result of the Columbine incident. The day and age of waiting for an entire team to show up are gone. The day of "negotiations" is history. Under our/their plan, the first responding officers are going to enter the building with an attitude, go to the sound of gunfire and commotion, with the sole purpose of neutralizing the threat. They won't stop to give first aid, they won't stop to give comfort to the crying cheerleader. Their goal is hunt the shooter/s down and kill them as quickly as possible. If they can't hack it, the first "team" formed will give it thier best shot. Their goal is to neutralize the shooters, period. The tac team is trained to literally step over the bleeding bodies and proceed. OK, you tell me. Do you want to be running around in the halls with a gun?

Under the scenario you present, you could indeed barricade yourself in a room and wait for trouble to come to you. Lock the door. Stay away from the windows, etc. No worries, a couple of armed punks will never make it through the doorway.

I can tell you, I will not cower under a desk while some snot nosed kid with a screwed up life uses my behind for target practice. OTOH, I have no desire to fullfill a hero fantasy by doing something equally stupid on the other end of the spectrum. Read whatever you like into that.

Brit
11-17-2004, 03:12 AM
Good Post, the reason you go in and kill the killers is basic common sense, like turning the tap off before you start to clean the flooded basement!

The reason you need accurate pistol shots in the rank and file Police Officers is that this scenario calls for it.

And not waiting for the swat team is also common sense, when you think how long it takes to empty a 15 round, 10 round magazine in a pistol, or even load and fire a double barreled shotgun, and then equate that to an extra half hour of freedom for some bent biscuit of a student(s) to continue to kill and maim children, first responders have to form up and respond!

Al Lipscomb
11-17-2004, 09:17 AM
If I recall there was one case in Arkansas where the shooters used the fire alarm to bring the students out of the building to become targets.

To me this says that the idea of an exit involving nice lines and everyone standing out in the open is just a bad idea. It even seems wrong from escaping a fire as an explosion near the evacuation area could result in a large number of injuries.

David, once again I am impressed. Any information you can pass along would be helpful. My kids' school is using a lockdown approach and would welcome any information that would help identify improvements.

I do wish we had a private forum as I understand the need to not give a clueless nut case a clue.

tb1911
11-17-2004, 09:22 AM
The Columbine shooters in particular could have been easily overwhelmed and defeated within mere seconds as shown at multiple points of the school security CCTV videos by teachers let alone students. Even 20 let alone 30-40+ high school students and adult teachers have a disparity of force over two shooters armed with handguns and carbines at close range that it is not possible for them to fire enough rounds let alone accurately fire them before being disarmed and stopped.

So very true, but that requires warriors, not cowards. Society is breeding cowards - hide, lock yourself away, someone else will help you....

My son's elementary school has a lock-down policy. Of course, young children could not be expected to fight, however, I am teaching him how to think like a fighter, not a coward and as he matures, I will teach him more.

Given this policy in high school, as a father, I will be teaching my child to think "attack!" not hide. If he is locked in a classroom, expect the door to be breached soon. What weapons are at hand? Anyone around to help? What is a good location to attack the attackers as they enter? Certainly, do not simply hope they pass you by. Expect them to target you and be ready to take them out. I faced aggressors with a handgun once and a shotgun on another occasion - both times I was unarmed and both times I prevailed uninjured. It can be done. My thinking was certainly not "Please don't hurt me..." but more like "I gonna take this guy out the second I can...".

I am disturbed by the victim mentality I see in such policies. Our state passed a law prohibiting carrying of firearms on school grounds even by legal permit holders. How ignorant - our most precious resources made unprotected by our own will.

Ankeny
11-17-2004, 11:38 AM
David:

I agree with every word of what you said. Unfortunately, history is full of cases where superior numbers of unarmed folks became victims of one or two armed assailants. In a make believe world, it would be nice to think a bunch of kids would drop their milk and over power an armed shooter. We all know that isn't likely to happen so it's best not to put your eggs in that basket. Notice I said I am not going to cower under a desk awaiting execution.

As for lock downs, it depends on the building. I would be comfortable staying in my class room long enough to determine the proximity of the shots and the route to safety for the students under my control. In fact, I would stay put if necessary. All of the walls in my room are concrete because they support the addition above. The fire door is set in a steel jamb. It would take my fire department truckies a long time to breech that door with tools. I guess I am lucky.

Now if a shooter let it rip in an open area like the cafeteria, the only decent outcome would be if someone had enough fortitude to latch onto the shooter. I would hope, others would follow.

Seibautpau
11-17-2004, 12:23 PM
My school uses a lockdown system as well. If you think about it, it would take a lot longer for the armed student to kill more people if the doors are locked, becuase it takes a lot longer to either shoot the lock out and kick the door down efficiently. Sometimes, buildings may have many windows in one room, giving the exterior viewer a view of the whole room,which is similar to my school... and if the shooter was outside, he could take out the whole classroom, and the students are sitting ducks.

Tb1911, i agree with you wholly, but think about the parents. Im not sure about the rest of the USA, but in NY, the paretns would go nuts and 99% of the teachers dont even have permits anyway. But it would prevent any school shootings from occuring if a teacher or a security guard had a hand gun.
And also, i agree with you in whole about the fact that very few studnets would have hte courage to stop the assailent head on. Im not even sure if i could summon up the courage to do that.

thanks for the posts!

Ankeny
11-17-2004, 01:02 PM
I wonder how many kids will get killed before schools follow the lead of the airlines. If a pilot can pack heat...

Steve Camp
11-17-2004, 01:17 PM
I wonder how many kids will get killed before schools follow the lead of the airlines. If a pilot can pack heat...

Since airlines were dead set against pilots carrying firearms in the cockpit... I do not think your premise is the best. Pilots only began to carry sidearms when Congress, after considerable prodding from the citizenry, passed new legislation forcing the TSA to implement the Federal Flight Deck Officer program.

Also... since each pilot is in command of one aircraft, and each teacher is in charge of one classroom... I would rephrase your muse thusly:

I wonder how many children must die before parents force their legislators to mandate that all teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in their schools/classrooms if they pass a background check and a training course.

Ankeny
11-17-2004, 02:01 PM
Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks.

Al Lipscomb
11-17-2004, 02:55 PM
The role of the active shooter may just be to get the kids locked into their classrooms. The Columbine shooters had propane bombs that failed to work. If they had, the numbers would have been far worse.

Ankeny
11-17-2004, 07:44 PM
David:

When I look at a door in our school, a local business, or any public building, I often look at it through the eyes of a fire fighter doing forceable entry. I am with you 100 per cent on this deal. I have seen security/fire doors in steel frames that I won't even mess with. It's faster to pierce the wall to gain entry. I have also seen doors (some of them in our school) that I can pop open without a tool. It's pathetic.

Glenn E. Meyer
11-18-2004, 07:49 PM
As an educator - I am almost amused (to tears) when folks suggest armed teachers - like the Israeli model.

It will never happen here. Israel is a country at war. To get armed teachers we would have to be under seige like the Israelis. The vast majority of administrators and government officials would strongly oppose the armed teacher. I know these folks. Interestingly, I heard John Lott talk today and he points out that 30% of the recent school shootings had successful interventions that probably saved lives by armed folks. But that will make no difference.

Fundamentally, the issue is of course an antigun bias and the financial analyses of the risk folk.

Their logic is this (I've heard it personally from them) and Kleck has too.

1. If you are killed, your family might sue for neglience and might have a case. Gun folks argue that one might sue as you were deprived the right to have a gun to defend yourself. Makes sense to the gun world.

2. However, the risk folks calculate that they have more financial risk from lawsuits that would ensue if they let folks carry and that person went nuts or accidentally shot a good guy. That's their calculation.

About what to do - I'm for barricading the door as I teach on a fourth floor. The two stairwells are fatal funnels.

If I have a group of charges and through the grace of God get a gun - I will arrange to protect them and sit tight. We have an active first responder strategy and I don't need to run into them. Given I played active shooter for them, they might just think I went nuts if I run down the hall with a gun.

One has to be flexible and if fleeing is a good strategy, we will. But my quick take is not to run to the sounds of guns.

Nakhshon
11-18-2004, 11:22 PM
As an educator - I am almost amused (to tears) when folks suggest armed teachers - like the Israeli model.

It will never happen here. Israel is a country at war. To get armed teachers we would have to be under seige like the Israelis.

Well, my friends, the clock has already started the countdown, but an interesting point is that besides 9/11, the only 'school massacres' [so far] in the US have been by certain 'inmates' of the schools in question.

Obviously the only solution to this problem is to have armed adults (teachers and all other staff personnel, even the janitor[s] and cafeteria workers) on site at all times. The question becomes, how to achieve these results given the 'PC' types in charge of the policy decisions.

Funding well-schooled 'doomsday' scenarios/reactions such as presented by Mr. DiFabio seem to be a tool utilised by the political echelon to 'liability proof' themselves, which may indeed minimise casualties under the right circumstances, rather than mitigating the risk of it even happening in the first place (by 'hardening' such a 'soft' target).

The impossibility of implementing an 'armed personnel' policy may or may not be an actual reality, depending on just how truly dedicated people are to protecting their children/students. The stance on this matter of elected/apointed leadership of PD's and such (especially in states like CA and NY, not to mention DC) is well known: 'let the pros handle it'.

So, parents/teachers, how long would it take a school district to respond if no one showed up for school until the school was made as safe as possible by allowing armed staff (which I take it is an objectively effective measure)? If the mass of parents/teachers aren't willing to take such a 'drastic' (yet costless in terms of lives) and simple step to protect the lives of their children, what has become of the people of the US? What kind of country have you allowed it to become? Perhaps I am 'preaching to the choir', but this bears careful consideration.


Respectfully,


---Nakhshon

Brit
11-19-2004, 01:34 AM
A 9mm pistol is not a toxic or even an explosive device! And as the only danger, historically in the US of A in schools, seems to be the students of that school, so instant response has to be in the school at the time of the attack i.e. armed teachers.
Since 911 it is plain to see that attacks here can be assured, in the future, planes swooping down all around can be ruled out to some extent, all wars gear up from the lessons of the last one! The security now in place at the nationís airports is proof of that.
Two or more intruders, armed appropriately! (No pointers please!)
Could cause massive damage to students and faculty memberís right this minute! And no one is gearing up to block this highly possible threat, because it has not happened yet! (Last war mentality)
Arm the volunteer teacherís, change the dress of all teachers, vests, shirts that hang outside the pants, policy changes can be made in a matter of weeks. The mechanics is easy; the will to face this threat is not.

Al Lipscomb
11-19-2004, 06:08 AM
One of the reasons I have my children in a private school is that they are open to what works and what is needed. The mantra of "it will never happen here" needs to stop. The tactics of terror have been proven to work far too well. It does not take a Middle-Eastern nut case to kill six or seven kids, just a local nut with a knife.

While we may not get to the place where the Israeli is used, that is not the only way to do things. A handful of responders can secure the largest school.

Shottist1911
11-19-2004, 06:42 AM
While I like the idea of armed teachers and even allowing parents/visitors with valid CCW free access to the school I doubt it is a really good idea.

First: what is the hit ratio of the average cop?

Second: what is the hit ratio of the average rookie fresh out of the academy?

Third: why should we assume that a (possibly anti-gun) non-gun person such as a teacher would have a hit ratio of greater than zero?

Now, for someone who already dryfires 30 minutes a week and livefires at least monthly and probably shoots IDPA or something and spends about $500 annually on high-speed low-drag training it makes sense. But your average teacher ain't gonna go there. Probably won't see many parents there either unless they're already "gun people."

Now...giving "gun people" (either teachers, parents, maintenance workers, etc.) permission to carry on school grounds is fine - provided they maintain their skill levels at advanced SWAT/HRT/FAM levels and prove it with pass/fail monthly quals. ($$$)
:D

Steve Camp
11-19-2004, 07:16 AM
While I like the idea of armed teachers and even allowing parents/visitors with valid CCW free access to the school I doubt it is a really good idea.

First: what is the hit ratio of the average cop?

Second: what is the hit ratio of the average rookie fresh out of the academy?

Third: why should we assume that a (possibly anti-gun) non-gun person such as a teacher would have a hit ratio of greater than zero?

Now, for someone who already dryfires 30 minutes a week and livefires at least monthly and probably shoots IDPA or something and spends about $500 annually on high-speed low-drag training it makes sense. But your average teacher ain't gonna go there. Probably won't see many parents there either unless they're already "gun people."

Now...giving "gun people" (either teachers, parents, maintenance workers, etc.) permission to carry on school grounds is fine - provided they maintain their skill levels at advanced SWAT/HRT/FAM levels and prove it with pass/fail monthly quals. ($$$)
:D

By your own elitist, pro-gun-people-only-who-train-all-the-time arguments... no one should be permitted to carry a concealed handgun. After all, what is their hit ratio? I mean, to expect a non-gun person, who rarely trains, to carry a concealed handgun... heaven forbid! they should ever have to use it! Why should I expect someone that doesn't dryfire 30 minutes a day, shoot 500 rounds a month, compete in at least one IDPA/IPSC game per month to be able to hit better than a 0% hit ration? Think of all those bullets going down range looking for some innocent to hit! Horrors!

I disagree with your logic.

People (esp. teachers and (grumble) administrators, as well as parents -- any adult citizen IMO) who pass a background check, demonstrate competency with a sidearm should be allowed to carry concealed within a school. Especially primary and middle schools. We should then encourage them to practice daily/weekly/monthly. Local IDPA/IPSC clubs should offer free training, free matches to educators.

But I vehemently disagree the right should be restricted to pro-gun people who practice all the time.

Al Lipscomb
11-19-2004, 09:29 AM
The "Hit Ratio" stuff is mainly a misuse of statistics. While there are a lot of LEO and CCW folks who would do the general public a big favor by not clearing leather, the statistics can be misused.

The criminal often gets to select when and where the gunfight starts. Officers and CCW defenders often are taking their first shots under bad conditions. Targeting a muzzle flash in a dark alley can yield some poor statistics.

Ankeny
11-19-2004, 11:15 AM
I was only thinking outloud, but I knew I might spark a discussion and I am curious what you folks think. There are pro's and con's. In general, I doubt more than a fraction of one percent of teachers would stuff a gun in their pocket even if they were allowed.

Steve Camp
11-19-2004, 11:25 AM
I was only thinking outloud, but I knew I might spark a discussion and I am curious what you folks think. There are pro's and con's. In general, I doubt more than a fraction of one percent of teachers would stuff a gun in their pocket even if they were allowed.


Maybe mandatory carrying a concealed handgun and weekly practice as a condition of continued employment as a teacher / school administrator would result in

more polite schools
a great lessening of the influence on education and educators by the leftist / communist leanings of the National Education union(s)
a more balanced political cross section of educators: that is, the cross section of educator's beliefs would more nearly mimic the cross section of this nation's political beliefs (citizenwide)
far less school violence
far better discipline amongst students (and staff)
more learning


For example, many flaming liberals might quit in disgust, only to be replaced by duty-conscious conservatives interested in truly educating our children (teaching them to think for themselves rather than be brainwashed by the PC crap de jour) as well as protecting them at the same time.

Al Lipscomb
11-19-2004, 11:27 AM
I was only thinking outloud, but I knew I might spark a discussion and I am curious what you folks think. There are pro's and con's. In general, I doubt more than a fraction of one percent of teachers would stuff a gun in their pocket even if they were allowed.

Today I think the percentage is low. Depending on how things develop over the next few years this may change. This may be a situation where thinking outside of the box may bring out an idea that would work. Everyone laughed at Jesse Ventura (sp?) when he suggested janitors with ankle holsters but at least he was putting out ideas.

Shottist1911
11-19-2004, 11:44 AM
...background check, demonstrate competency with a sidearm should be allowed to carry concealed within a school.
...
But I vehemently disagree the right should be restricted to pro-gun people who practice all the time.

"Demonstrate competency." We're not that far apart, then.

"...the right should..." What right? To carry concealed? No problem. To carry on school grounds with lots of kids running to and fro? Only if they can demonstrate competency in not hitting innocents. :D

Shottist1911
11-19-2004, 11:53 AM
OTOH getting teachers with guns, like pilots with guns, is gonna be a lot of hard work.

I prefer the LAW principle. (Least Amount of Work.)

Attack our children...okay...now see Mecca glow in the dark-visible to the unaided eye at high noon from the surface of the moon.
:eek:

Glenn E. Meyer
11-19-2004, 01:16 PM
I feel the best solution is a simple law that forbids the banning of CCW on school property. I'm not that fond of being the official armed teacher as that starts to imply training standards and starts to give me pseudo LEO responsibilities that are not appropriate without a great deal of further training (not just gun handling).

I might hope that our president might urge Congress to pass this simple law that under the 2nd Amend. forbids states, the feds or localities from banning CCW at schools.

Al Lipscomb
11-19-2004, 02:23 PM
I think we are looking for a gun solution to a fight problem.

Seibautpau
11-19-2004, 02:54 PM
Well I would think that the teacher shooting back at the armed assailent (who is probably a studnet) will do a lot more then just miss.

If there are innocents around, the teacher should be trained to not shoot. But like in basketball, if you just wave at the guy shooting the ball, you'll lower his chances of making it in. In comparison, if you shoot, and miss, at the armed assailent, you will probably scare the crap out of him because they are students with no experience what so ever. And like in war, the unseasoned soldier will probably hide, and it'll make the job for the proffesionals a lot easier.

But i agree with you Shootist, if there are innocnets around, the teacher shouldnt shoot at all.

Glenn E. Meyer
11-19-2004, 06:31 PM
I fail to understand this last response. If there is an active shooter, the teacher should not shoot as he or she may hit innocents. That implies that the shooter continues unimpeded. I would suggest that one shoots if one must with appreciation of the appropriate contingencies.

I would trust a teacher, who made the decision to be armed, more than most folks who carry to have some discretion in a tight situation.

Are most CHL types truely tactically trained and they might be called on in the mall to fight?

Seibautpau
11-19-2004, 06:42 PM
What i meant was...

If the teacher was shooting back at the assailant in an empty hallway, with out any innocents around...then thats alright

If the teacher was shooting back in a hallway occupied with innocents, then thats no good.

Steve Camp
11-19-2004, 06:49 PM
What i meant was...

If the teacher was shooting back at the assailant in an empty hallway, with out any innocents around...then thats alright

If the teacher was shooting back in a hallway occupied with innocents, then thats no good.

Ummmm.... what's the logic here?

In a hallway occupied with innocents, and an active shooter... what the hell do you think the the active shooter might be doing? Slaughtering innocents? Gee... ya think?

No matter which way you slice it... if an active shooter is busy shooting innocents, especially children... what choice does an armed adult, teacher or otherwise, who has made a choice -- or accepted the responsibility to go armed -- have, but to engage the shooter, innocents all around or not?

To not shoot is to allow the terrorist to slay more innocents.

Al Lipscomb
11-19-2004, 06:58 PM
What do you do if you have a student lugging a propane tank rigged to explode into the building?

Life is full of choices, not all of them have nice options.