Elementary school shooting gun control pissing contest

[The Brain]

What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?

Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine.  More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time.  Used to be bombs and fire events.  Now it's active shooters.

My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.

[11B4V]

What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?

Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine.  More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time.  Used to be bombs and fire events.  Now it's active shooters.

I believe LE down it Portland had ran drills at the very mall that had the recent shooting.

[CountDeMoney]

My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.

Security measures are predicated, like everything else, on budget.

And you don't stop a lone gunman.  The operational assumption is that there will be casualties  The objective is to mitigate them.

[11B4V]

What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?

Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine.  More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time.  Used to be bombs and fire events.  Now it's active shooters.

My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.

Around here most have none.

Some schools around here in the cities do. Damn if I can remember what they call them. And no not security guards. Some have been cut because of bugets though.

Damn brain read some posts

Being an LEO, you just cant get to the scene fast enough. Sadly when it starts, people are dying until you do.

[The Brain]

My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.

Security measures are predicated, like everything else, on budget.

And you don't stop a lone gunman.  The operational assumption is that there will be casualties  The objective is to mitigate them.

So it's not in the design basis threat. Should it be?

[11B4V]

And you don't stop a lone gunman.

How many active shooters have been neutralized by a citizen with a CCW? I dont know. Funny how a CCW carrying citizen is never around at active shootings. Guess thereare not as many as people say.

[CountDeMoney]

So it's not in the design basis threat. Should it be?

If you're talking about applying universal standards of compliance, that would bridge more jurisdictions than you can shake a lone gunman at.  Threat and vulnerability assessments and the build out solutions are all going to be localized, based on risk, budget and response, and usually as an afterthought to construction.   Most modern schools (<20 years old) are designed for visitor management, where all visitors are funneled to the administrative offices, but that's not always the case. 

Should it be?  It should be considered, but we're talking about risk:  and the primary, existential threat to children in modern schools aren't lone gunman, it's their parents.

[11B4V]

What's the typical design basis threat of American schools? Should it include a lone gunman?

Active shooter scenarios have been part of school threat analysis for a few years already, really took off since Columbine.  More colleges have really taken to it since Virginia Tech, although more progressive schools have had mass casualty drills of all sorts for a long time.  Used to be bombs and fire events.  Now it's active shooters.

My impression is that few schools in America have security measures that stop a lone gunman.

Options

[Neil]

If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution. 

IMO this is the only way.

Not really.  You just need enough years of Democratic dominance to fix the Supreme Court.  Why go through all that trouble of amending the Constitution when you can just use a more modern interpretation?

[sbr]

I tried to get the ball rolling on reform of gun laws before, but no one really bit.  Second times a charm.

As I said before, we all think nutters should not have guns.  Not terribly hard in practice when it comes to people who have already been diagnosed.  Just a question of collecting and sharing information.  The idea breaks down however when talking about people who are nutters but not yet diagnosed.  Do we require everyone who wants to buy a gun a psychiatric evaluation?  That seems awfully invasive.  Do we use "warning flags?"

It might be invasive but gunmen shooting up schools/shopping malls is rather invasive to me.  I think this is a Good of the Many/Good of the Few to me.

Limitations on gun sales to the general population run into the Constitution.  If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution.  You can't count on selecting only justices who think the wording of the Constitution is just a suggestion.

It shouldn't run into the Constitution, too bad activist judges had to get that ball rolling.

[The Brain]

So it's not in the design basis threat. Should it be?

If you're talking about applying universal standards of compliance, that would bridge more jurisdictions than you can shake a lone gunman at.  Threat and vulnerability assessments and the build out solutions are all going to be localized, based on risk, budget and response, and usually as an afterthought to construction.   Most modern schools (<20 years old) are designed for visitor management, where all visitors are funneled to the administrative offices, but that's not always the case. 

Should it be?  It should be considered, but we're talking about risk:  and the primary, existential threat to children in modern schools aren't lone gunman, it's their parents.

Indeed. It would be crazy expensive and the resources should (were they available which they are not) be spent on rational stuff. One of the reasons I would love to see governments do risk analysis before deciding on security/safety issues. Not gonna happen though. Today we spend insane amounts on some risks while virtually ignoring others.

[sbr]

off the top of the head. A start only; 

Close gunshow loop holes or ban them all together.
Require all firearm transaction to go through a licensed FFL.
Require a permit to own.
Expand the disqualifications for gun ownership.

One of your problems with banning weapons is enforcement.  How do you propose you stop me from buying a gun from my dad or next door neighbour?

Ban actions based on military assault rifles. Both auto and semi auto. i.e. AK series, M16 series, G-3 series etc.

I don't understand what you mean by action in this context.  The action of shooting, or action as in part of the rifle?

Cash for firearm turn in or tax deduction.

Agreed.  It won't get guns from the "gun nuts"* but those guns that would be turned by these programs are the more likely to be stolen and/or sold to undesirables, IMO.

*As defined by Otto a few pages ago.

[11B4V]

One of your problems with banning weapons is enforcement.  How do you propose you stop me from buying a gun from my dad or next door neighbour?

Require all firearm transaction to go through a licensed FFL.

I listed it.

I don't understand what you mean by action in this context.  The action of shooting, or action as in part of the rifle?

Example of a action/receiver

Cash for firearm turn in or tax deduction.

It won't get guns from the "gun nuts"* but those guns that would be turned by these programs are the more likely to be stolen and/or sold to undesirables, IMO.

Wittleing away at what's in circulation by feeding greed.

[sbr]

One of your problems with banning weapons is enforcement.  How do you propose you stop me from buying a gun from my dad or next door neighbour?

Require all firearm transaction to go through a licensed FFL.

I listed it.

Right but doesn't touch on the enforcement side.  I could make a list that says Require all handguns to be turned into local sheriff's office, but that doesn't do any good because it is unenforceable and would never happen.

It is a start, and something needs to be done but I don't think your ideas prevent any of the shopping mall/school shooting sprees we have seen in the last decade.

I don't understand what you mean by action in this context.  The action of shooting, or action as in part of the rifle?

Example of a action/receiver

Ok makes sense now.  I'm not sure why that sentence confused me when I first read it; I understood all of the words individually but together they looked like a foreign language to me. 

[Admiral Yi]

I tried to get the ball rolling on reform of gun laws before, but no one really bit.  Second times a charm.

As I said before, we all think nutters should not have guns.  Not terribly hard in practice when it comes to people who have already been diagnosed.  Just a question of collecting and sharing information.  The idea breaks down however when talking about people who are nutters but not yet diagnosed.  Do we require everyone who wants to buy a gun a psychiatric evaluation?  That seems awfully invasive.  Do we use "warning flags?"

It might be invasive but gunmen shooting up schools/shopping malls is rather invasive to me.  I think this is a Good of the Many/Good of the Few to me.

Limitations on gun sales to the general population run into the Constitution.  If people are really serious about gun regulation, then you need to start a debate on amending the Constitution.  You can't count on selecting only justices who think the wording of the Constitution is just a suggestion.

It shouldn't run into the Constitution, too bad activist judges had to get that ball rolling.

Frankly, these sound like the arguments of someone who is uninterested in convincing enough of the American public to enact change.