"New Invention To Save Lives During School Shootings" by People who "think"

[BFD389RET 112]

I'm posting this because You folks May be "seeing" these in the near future, a group of school teachers have formulated This to be They're "saving grace"....

GIVE the below URL a minute To load, video takes a moment

http://www.kwqc.com/story/25744354/new-invention-to-save-lives-during-school-shootings

Edited June 12, 2014 by BFD389RET

[v85 212]

Right, because doors can't be breached. , And in this case, that window next to it renders the device pointless.

How about teachers leave the emergency response to the professionals

[firecapt32 282]

I just saw a article about bullet proof blankets that children can buy to protect them selves. We shouldn't have to invent theses things for our school children---they should be safe in schools.

there should never be another Newtown again but sadly there have been a lot of school shootings since that tragic day.

[thebreeze 194]

Right, because doors can't be breached. , And in this case, that window next to it renders the device pointless.

How about teachers leave the emergency response to the professionals

Honestly I don't see the problem with this, it's not like they are trying to mitigate the situation or take down the gunman. Sure doors can be breached, but most gunman aren't carrying around forcible entry tools with them just multiple weapons and ammo. These sickos are trying to inflict maximum damage in minimal time because they know sooner than later there will be armed response, something like this that slows them down could make them move on to try and find another target or buy precious time while law enforcement is en route in order to save lives. It's not like these people think they have found a solution to school shootings. Plenty of times in these instances you hear about teachers and students barricading themselves inside classrooms, this is just another method to accomplish just that. Why bash it if it could save lives? If your child was stuck in that room would you prefer if the teacher was just trying to hold the door shut from the inside or if they actually had a device like this to better accomplish the same task?

On top of all this, when is the national news media going to stop plastering these killers faces all over the place granting them their fifteen minutes of fame? It only further emboldens others to commit similar acts. Knowing they will achieve some infamy and exposure as they escape their own perceived notions of insignificance is a lot of what drives these lunatics. The media is more concerned with selling papers than they are with common sense and the safety of the public.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Children SHOULD be safe in school, but that's not the world we live in. You know what stops a shooter really effectively? .40cal hollow points to center mass coming from those guys in the blue suits wearing the shiny metal thing on their chest.

We keep coming up with more and more excuses NOT to have cops (or at the VERY least, well-trained armed guards) in every single school in America.

"On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs" -LTC (Ret.) David Grossman, US Army

(This is an excerpt)

"Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours..."

Edited June 13, 2014 by SageVigiles

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) Right, because doors can't be breached. , And in this case, that window next to it renders the device pointless.

2) How about teachers leave the emergency response to the professionals

1) When the shooter is running down the hallway and the cops are trying to find him, he will not have the time to breech a class to slip into. Besides, they are looking for easy victims.

2) This response makes no sense.

If a kid has a laceration...don't stop the bleeding, leave it to EMS?

If the building is on fire...don't evacuate, wait for the FD to do it?

If the building has an active shooter, law enforcement has already instructed the schools to lock down and if the door does not have a lock, this is the next best thing.

[38ff 250]

I have talked to several LEO's on active school shooters. Members of the NYSP MRT's I have talked to say the best thing to do if possible is GET OUT. Empty classrooms contain no targets. If your on a ground floor, open the window (they say RESCUE WINDOW or the like on them), jump out, and run. Obviously this doesn't work on 2nd floors and higher, but it will at least clear out the 1st floor of sitting duck targets (kids and teachers),

[Ga-Lin 86]

I must agree with both of you. There are two things that increase your chances of survival in these circumstances time and mobility. The more time it takes for an active shooter to either find you or get to you is to your advantage, so anything you can do to delay or otherwise fustrate the shooter works to your advantage. Most of these punks are not marksman plus they are, as said in another post, looking to do maximum damage in the shortest period of time. My wife, who is a teacher, use to worry about me, back in the day when I worked in NYC, now I'm the one who worry's about her. We've spoken about this many times. She's told me her administration favors sheltering in place. I've told her that's BS pure and simple. Her classroom is on on the ground floor with a door that can be kicked in by most middle schoolers (besides, have you seen the size of some of these "kids") her window exits to the employee parking lot with a parocial school across the street (not much traffic if any). Most of these manics are not going to take the time to aim and fire at two dozen kids running and ducking between cars, and they certainly aren't going to follow them outside. If caught inside they are just going to herd you into a corner and finish off as many as they can in the time they have. I also gave her a bottle of clear liquid (not colored) dish soap to spill on the floor inside her room in an effort to delay. I've also suggested she have a wide mouth bottle of acid to use as a last resort. She worried about securing it in her room and what might be said if she ever had to use it. I would have no such problem, as a matter of fact, law or not school rules or not if I was a teacher now adays I'd be packing. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, if it ever came down to that. It's also interesting to note that after the shooting in Ct. that when the head of the NRA suggested armed LEO in the schools and was meet by a firestorm of critiziem. Interestingly enough, I'm reading how many schools are now requesting and in some cases the parents are demanding "service officers" from their local departments be stationed in the schools.

Honestly I don't see the problem with this, it's not like they are trying to mitigate the situation or take down the gunman. Sure doors can be breached, but most gunman aren't carrying around forcible entry tools with them just multiple weapons and ammo. These sickos are trying to inflict maximum damage in minimal time because they know sooner than later there will be armed response, something like this that slows them down could make them move on to try and find another target or buy precious time while law enforcement is en route in order to save lives. It's not like these people think they have found a solution to school shootings. Plenty of times in these instances you hear about teachers and students barricading themselves inside classrooms, this is just another method to accomplish just that. Why bash it if it could save lives? If your child was stuck in that room would you prefer if the teacher was just trying to hold the door shut from the inside or if they actually had a device like this to better accomplish the same task?

On top of all this, when is the national news media going to stop plastering these killers faces all over the place granting them their fifteen minutes of fame? It only further emboldens others to commit similar acts. Knowing they will achieve some infamy and exposure as they escape their own perceived notions of insignificance is a lot of what drives these lunatics. The media is more concerned with selling papers than they are with common sense and the safety of the public.

I have talked to several LEO's on active school shooters. Members of the NYSP MRT's I have talked to say the best thing to do if possible is GET OUT. Empty classrooms contain no targets. If your on a ground floor, open the window (they say RESCUE WINDOW or the like on them), jump out, and run. Obviously this doesn't work on 2nd floors and higher, but it will at least clear out the 1st floor of sitting duck targets (kids and teachers),

[Officer Ed 59]

How about we just make schools "GUN FREE ZONES"?

Oh, wait............

[Officer Ed 59]

On top of all this, when is the national news media going to stop plastering these killers faces all over the place granting them their fifteen minutes of fame? It only further emboldens others to commit similar acts.

You just hit the nail squarely on the head. These psychos want to BE somebody. They want to be known, remembered, to go down in history. So, when they see the media making household names out of other mass murderers, they see their chance to finally be famous.

If the media would stop making these guys famous, the shootings would stop.

[Bnechis 3,961]

How about we just make schools "GUN FREE ZONES"?

Oh, wait............

Well it worked with reducing drugs and prohibition stopped alcohol....

Oh, wait....those did not work either

[Bnechis 3,961]

You just hit the nail squarely on the head. These psychos want to BE somebody. They want to be known, remembered, to go down in history. So, when they see the media making household names out of other mass murderers, they see their chance to finally be famous.

If the media would stop making these guys famous, the shootings would stop.

Everyone who claims gun control will stop this, is really looking for a single answer to the problem.

I think you are half correct, if the media would stop, it would be reduced, but we also have a massive problem with the mentally ill. We closed almost every physch hospital and threw them out into the public.

[BFD389RET 112]

My intent By posting this was to show you something That You may honestly Come in contact with in the future as 1st responders, while the intent is singular behind it, how much future potential of a hostage situation inside a room like this, use of the device allows ALOT of flex ability In the door, Maybe too much To force with Our compliment of typical tools The Irons Might work well with a few 4x4's to crib and Tighten up a Bite on the door, even the Jaws Might need to be cribbed to get a bite... posting this wasnt a political statement, These teachers see this as a Potential Life safety device Just like your Pass Device is Yours, on one hand this Seems Like it Could help, as long as you realize while some wont defeat the device, it May be a LOT easier to defeat then they believe...Depending on various factors ... Thats all

[v85 212]

I agree that lockdowns/shelter in place in schools is not the best solution. In every other type of building from college campuses to government buildings the options are 1. Evacuate, 2. Lock down; in that order.

Personally I think schools like locking down better then evacuating because it gives them more control. Sometimes, hearing the justifications for lockdowns rather than evacuations, it seems like they are more concerned about the liability if a student would to run away during an evacuation and get hit by a car or otherwise hurt; then they are about what would save the most lives in an active shooter incident. Same reason why schools lock down for bomb threats, while other buildings evacuate

[38ff 250]

Schools like the accountability of lockdowns. It makes it much easier to account for the living and the dead after an active shooter incident. As a 1st responder and father of 2 kids, I'd much rather "beat the bushes" looking for scared kids for hours afterwards that made it outside and are hiding than help remove the dead from a closet after an active shooter incident.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Evacuation makes some sense when on the 1st floor, but all of our schools are 2, 3 or even 4 stories. 75% of the classrooms in the majority of our buildings are to high to go out the windows without a ladder.

[38ff 250]

It all depends on the physical plant. In my town, the Elementary school is 1 story, the Middle school is 3, and the High school is 2. If you are on the first floor or can safely make it to a first floor and get out, I'd do so.

I see no sense in waiting to die huddled up in a closet, unless that is the only option.

Edited June 15, 2014 by 38ff

[thebreeze 194]

I completely agree with the concept of getting out and away from the building, as pointed out though this isn't always a possibility, so why not have a device like this? Also, even if the classroom is on the first floor, it's not a simple fast task to get twenty or so small frightened children, some who may need considerable help, out of a window. A device like this could buy you the extra time needed to accomplish this task.

[38ff 250]

I have no problems with the device. Use the device AND get out if possible!

[M' Ave 1,466]

Gun control is certainly is certainly a "one solution" answer to a complex problem......but data certainly points to it being the most effective component. It shouldn't be the only answer to this issue, but it should at least be part of the solution. Anyone who suggests that restrictions on gun ownership would have no impact is lying to themselves and everyone they speak to.

From 2000-2010 there were 26 shooting incidents with multiple casualties in the U.S.. Population approx. 310,000,000

Stacked against countries, with stricter gun laws, that comprise half the worlds population (England, China, India, France, Denmark, Israel and 30 more) there were only 27 equivelant events. In half of those countries there were no mass shooting events. Total population approx. 3,900,000,000

So, in the United States: 1/10th the population + lax gun laws (and a few things of minor significance) = 26 mass shootings in a decade.

But let's not discuss gun laws.....because the 2nd amendment guarantees organized militia members may own them. How many militias are left in the U.S.? Oh, that's right......ZERO.

[Officer Ed 59]

But let's not discuss gun laws.....because the 2nd amendment guarantees organized militia members may own them. How many militias are left in the U.S.? Oh, that's right......ZERO.

But let's not discuss gun laws.....because the 2nd amendment guarantees organized militia members may own them. How many militias are left in the U.S.? Oh, that's right......ZERO.

No offense, but you're demonstrating a woeful misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms. It does not require membership in any sort of militia, organized or otherwise.

I have been a Constitutional scholar for decades. Luckily, the authors of the Constitution were prolific writers and their letters are available for study and research to determine their intent.

During the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, a militia was nothing more than ordinary citizens deciding to band together for some purpose, There WERE NO "organized" militias. However, this is a moot point because the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that to keep and bear arms citizens must be in a militia, it says citizens can keep and bear arms IN CASE they might wish to join a militia.

Probably the 2nd most misunderstood term in the 2nd Amendment is "well regulated." The American left wants to claim that this means legal regulations. It doesn't. In the vernacular of the times, "well regulated" meant "well TRAINED."

[Officer Ed 59]

Everyone who claims gun control will stop this, is really looking for a single answer to the problem.

I think you are half correct, if the media would stop, it would be reduced, but we also have a massive problem with the mentally ill. We closed almost every physch hospital and threw them out into the public.

You're correct. The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in the 80s on behalf of the mentally ill, alleging that the government had no right to institutionalize them against their will...even if it was to protect them. The SCOTUS agreed, and the doors to the institutions were thrown open. That was when the "homeless" problem began.

Now, there must be proof that the person is a threat to themselves or to others for them to be institutionalized....and even then it's a revolving door.

Clearly, more gun laws are not the answer. Every mass shooter was already breaking numerous gun laws, and almost all of them were already legally prohibited from possessing firearms. All of the shootings occurred in "Gun Free Zones." The fact is that gun laws merely serve to disarm the law-abiding and make it harder for them to defend themselves from the nutcases.

[M' Ave 1,466]

But let's not discuss gun laws.....because the 2nd amendment guarantees organized militia members may own them. How many militias are left in the U.S.? Oh, that's right......ZERO.

No offense, but you're demonstrating a woeful misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of every law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms. It does not require membership in any sort of militia, organized or otherwise.

I have been a Constitutional scholar for decades. Luckily, the authors of the Constitution were prolific writers and their letters are available for study and research to determine their intent

Well....seeing as it's hotly debated, I don't see my understanding as misinformed at all. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say, "every law-abiding" or "In case you want to join a militia".

I'm more than certain that people who are more than self-proclaimed constitutional scholars could refute your statements thoroughly.

#2' the whole thing:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In U.S. vs. Cruikshank, the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd didn't give the right to bear arms. In U.S. vs. Miller SCOTUS gave authorities the right to govern and restrict firearms not associated with a functioning regulated militia. In Miller vs. Chicago the court gave more latitude to the 2nd by applying the 14th and equal protections to citizens.

And the debate rages on........but don't presume to take a position that I'm illinformed.

[Officer Ed 59]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of WHOM shall not be abridged? "THE PEOPLE." What "people"? Law-abiding U.S. citizens.

I think the words as written are clear enough, but for added emphasis:

In the fairly recent SCOTUS decision in Washington, D.C. v. Heller:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes

2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

3. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

4. None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

So, no "Consttitutional scholars" can legitimately "refute my statements thoroughly." Facts are facts and truth is truth. Neither are subject to "opinion.".

[M' Ave 1,466]

The right of WHOM shall not be abridged? "THE PEOPLE." What "people"? Law-abiding U.S. citizens.

I think the words as written are clear enough, but for added emphasis:

In the fairly recent SCOTUS decision in Washington, D.C. v. Heller:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes

2. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

3. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

4. None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

So, no "Constitutional scholars" can legitimately "refute my statements thoroughly." Facts are facts and truth is truth. Neither are subject to "opinion.".

Where does it say, "The People" are Law-abiding U.S. citizens? Is there a hidden glossary? You, and others interpreted it to mean that.

How about, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."? We no longer have militia because they are no longer necessary to the security of a free state. Does that invalidate the whole amendment? Again....room for interpretation.

As for, "no constitutional scholars can legitimately refute my statements", I beg to differ. One third of the federal Gov't, a body of nine people, is solely responsible for doing just that. You might say that we have 9 constitutional scholars who interpret that document and it's impact on today's society. You yourself say so in stating that, "non of the court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation".

Again that word.....interpret.

Perhaps we interpret the word arms to refer simply to the arms that existed in 1776....huh, who knows...

You're opinions are not wrong, your views simply run contrary to mine. Your absolution-ist stance is where you lose. There is a great deal of gray, very little black and white.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

FTFY:

I have been a (self-professed) Constitutional scholar for decades.

[PFDRes47cue 653]

Right, because doors can't be breached. , And in this case, that window next to it renders the device pointless.

How about teachers leave the emergency response to the professionals

What if the school teacher is an emergency response professional? Remember how quickly non-teachers are to tell educators how to do there job or to recommend ways to improve their teaching or performance. Edited June 16, 2014 by PFDRes47cue

[thebreeze 194]

Saying that gun control alone will solve any of this is fairly nearsighted. It ignores all of the other factors at play, such as mental illness and social media providing these loons with notoriety. Guns have been in the hands of ordinary citizens since the inception of this country, we need to examine what in the last twenty years has led to the proliferation of these types of incidents, the guns aren't a new factor, so we must examine these other new factors that have come into the picture. Sure I believe there should be gun controls, background checks, psychological tests, registering of certain weapons, but that's not going to stop these people. They are already willing to break the law and MURDER people, more laws aren't going to stop people already breaking the number one rule to not kill others! They will find a way to carry out their attacks, whether it be illegal guns, homemade bombs, or as we have seen in some instances a knife. We need to address the ever hushed problem of mental illness in this country, and the pandering of the media to these psychopaths. Why not pass a bill that you may not print pictures of the victims of such crimes nor the perpetrator, take away their spotlight. It will take away some of their sick motivation.

[velcroMedic1987 330]

Right, because doors can't be breached. , And in this case, that window next to it renders the device pointless.

How about teachers leave the emergency response to the professionals

Historically, doors haven't been breached during these kinds of incidents so securing the door so it simply can't be "pulled open" may in fact save lives.

Not a really big deal. Teachers have them in their rooms and if a lockdown is called or they hear shots they can secure the room from inside.

Hardly them trying to do emergency response.

[recoiloperated 16]

How about, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."? We no longer have militia because they are no longer necessary to the security of a free state. Does that invalidate the whole amendment? Again....room for interpretation.

You keep saying this but it's not accurate. Currently 21 states operate a State Guard or State Defense Force which are independent from the National Guard and classified by the federal government as State Militias. They are administered by their state's AG and cannot be called upon to serve as federal troops. These units are volunteer and require you to purchase your own uniforms and equipment and take training on your own time; if that isn't a militia I don't know what is.

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/