So, Did the shooter in Santa Fe, Texas use a shotgun?

[haymarket]

Maybe something like our courthouse, airport and state house security. Of course, we use about 50K federal airport nannies to (try to) secure about 450 US airports - using the TSA model to (try to) secure over 26K public secondary schools would take about 3 million school security nannies.

I suspect that formula is not applicable in a school model. There are about 100,000 public schools in America. Even ten per school only gets us to the 1 million level and that would seem excessive given that most are elementary schools of relatively small populations that wounded nowhere near ten per campus.

I would bet half that number or 500,000 would be adequate but that is just a seat of the pants guess estimate.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I suspect that formula is not applicable in a school model. There are about 100,000 public schools in America. Even ten per school only gets us to the 1 million level and that would seem excessive given that most are elementary schools of relatively small populations that wounded nowhere near ten per campus.

I would bet half that number or 500,000 would be adequate but that is just a seat of the pants guess estimate.

I would imagine that 1/3 (1 million) would do the trick since airports are generally open 24 hours per day and schools about 8 houirs per day. The only thing preventing trying this is that state/local taxes would have to be raised and, of course, most schools have not yet and will never experience such an event.

 

[haymarket]

I would imagine that 1/3 (1 million) would do the trick since airports are generally open 24 hours per day and schools about 8 houirs per day. The only thing preventing trying this is that state/local taxes would have to be raised and, of course, most schools have not yet and will never experience such an event.

Yes - and to use your own comparison - the vast vast vast majority of airports never experience any terrorist trying to get on a plane here either. But we protect just the same.

In the end it comes down to what price do we place on the safety of our children?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes - and to use your own comparison - the vast vast vast majority of airports never experience any terrorist trying to get on a plane here either. But we protect just the same.

In the end it comes down to what price do we place on the safety of our children?

Yep, nearly everything comes down to cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Lursa]

From your reply, one could state that you seem to fail to identify the difference between PROFESSIONAL security and police persons and rank amateurs.

You made no such distinction. However I made some clear points on how it doesnt matter with my example of the school resource officers.

Would you like to make the distinction now? Please tell me what I failed to identify regarding the differences?

Remember you were looking for a complete 100% solution that works in all situations.

 

[Lursa]

What you provided was a cherry picked hypothetical. That is NOT reality. It is a cherry picked hypothetical.

So you would want your kid protected by the teacher with the gun.

It's an obvious answer because only a lunatic would want their kid a sitting duck cornered in a classroom when they had the option of having them defended.

You couldnt even answer honestly.

 

[Lursa]

Actually it was you who did that



I merely replied to your justification using cost as a factor.

Ah...doubling down and not addressing the actual aspects of the teacher protecting the classroom.

Again...you are just being dishonest...you cant shoot holes in the idea of the teacher protecting the classroom. (Pun intended)...to lighten up your blatant failure.

You criticize and present no valid reasons AND no *complete solution* while dismissing one that can help in a specific scenario: immediately protecting a classroom.

 

[haymarket]

Ah...doubling down and not addressing the actual aspects of the teacher protecting the classroom.

Again...you are just being dishonest...you cant shoot holes in the idea of the teacher protecting the classroom. (Pun intended)...to lighten up your blatant failure.

You criticize and present no valid reasons AND no *complete solution* while dismissing one that can help in a specific scenario: immediately protecting a classroom.

How does you repeating the same nonsense that has already been directly refuted pass in your brain for an argument?

 

[haymarket]

So you would want your kid protected by the teacher with the gun.

It's an obvious answer because only a lunatic would want their kid a sitting duck cornered in a classroom when they had the option of having them defended.

You couldnt even answer honestly.

My kids are too old for school to be protected. My reality trumps your hypothetical.

 

[haymarket]

You made no such distinction. However I made some clear points on how it doesnt matter with my example of the school resource officers.

Would you like to make the distinction now? Please tell me what I failed to identify regarding the differences?

Remember you were looking for a complete 100% solution that works in all situations.

You do not know the difference between security professionals and nonprofessionals? If you need that spelled out for you then its really too late to teach you anything regarding this issue.

 

[Lursa]

You do not know the difference between security professionals and nonprofessionals? If you need that spelled out for you then its really too late to teach you anything regarding this issue.

Nope, of course I know the difference. I want to know specifically what the distinctions are that make their solutions to emergencies 100% effective (except they're not) and why that's different from solutions from non-professionals that are not 100% effective?

That was your original objection. Please support it. Instead of repeating yourself in order to avoid supporting it.

 

[Lursa]

How does you repeating the same nonsense that has already been directly refuted pass in your brain for an argument?

Oh sorry! Post numbers please.

The ones where you refuted that a teacher committed to defending their classroom couldnt stop a shooter from entering the doorway?

That teachers couldnt safely & confidentially carry/contain firearms in a classrsoom?

Where you refuted that the kids would be out of the line of teacher gunfire?

Where you refuted that someone else from outside the classroom could get there instantaneously and prevent killings in the classroom?

Please let me know where you addressed and refuted those things.


And the ones where you avoided answering if you'd rather, when a shooter enters a doorway, have your kid in a classroom protected by an armed teacher or not.

 

[Lursa]

My kids are too old for school to be protected. My reality trumps your hypothetical.

Ah...well I dont have kids but I can answer.'

Critical thinking: generally needed in debates and that includes understanding the purpose of hypotheticals.

You very helpfully proved why they're good debate tools: it exposed your inability to answer honestly...which is evidence enough that the basic premise is valid.

 

[haymarket]

Nope, of course I know the difference. I want to know specifically what the distinctions are that make their solutions to emergencies 100% effective (except they're not) and why that's different from solutions from non-professionals that are not 100% effective?

That was your original objection. Please support it. Instead of repeating yourself in order to avoid supporting it.

If you had to have a heart transplant - you want a professional to do the job of an enthusiastic hospital cafeteria worker?

 

[haymarket]

Oh sorry! Post numbers please.

Why - you can't read the exchange without a road map?

 

[Lursa]

If you had to have a heart transplant - you want a professional o do the job of an enthusiastic hospital cafeteria worker?

If it was all or nothing (as in the classroom): the trained (as I specified) hospital cafeteria worker.

What would there be to lose?

Now you provide the distinctions I asked for please.

 

[Lursa]

Why - you can't read the exchange without a road map?

So you never refuted my arguments.

Noted.

(No worries...everyone else did see it an note that you failed also)

 

[haymarket]

Ah...well I dont have kids but I can answer.'

Critical thinking: generally needed in debates and that includes understanding the purpose of hypotheticals.

You very helpfully proved why they're good debate tools: it exposed your inability to answer honestly...which is evidence enough that the basic premise is valid.

Screw your hypotheticals. Try dealing with reality for once.

And screw your critical thinking while you are at it.

Deal with reality and save your nonsense for the local meeting of the high school logic club.

 

[Lursa]

Screw your hypotheticals. Try dealing with reality for once.

And screw your critical thinking while you are at it.

Deal with reality and save your nonsense for the local meeting of the high school logic club.

The scenario is real: happens in most school shootings.

As are the shooting parameters and training required to fulfill it.

As are the current school policies to lock doors and have kids hide out of the way in class.

As are the teachers already so committed to protecting their students they use their bodies to do so.

Soooooo....which stuff is not 'reality?' Please, feel free to point out what's not 'reality' in my solution for protecting a classroom?

 

[haymarket]

If it was all or nothing (as in the classroom): the trained (as I specified) hospital cafeteria worker.

What would there be to lose?

Now you provide the distinctions I asked for please.

If you do not know the practical real world differences between a trained professional and a rank amateur - nothing I nor anyone can say will educate you because your problem is not information - it is blind and willful belief.

 

[haymarket]

The scenario is real: happens in most school shootings.

As are the shooting parameters and training required to fulfill it.

As are the current school policies to lock doors and have kids hide out of the way in class.

As are the teachers already so committed to protecting their students they use their bodies to do so.

Soooooo....which stuff is not 'reality?' Please, feel free to point out what's not 'reality' in my solution for protecting a classroom?

Because the teachers which you want to arm are not trained professionals and to pretend that the job of a trained professional can be done by rank amateurs - no matter how enthusiastic - is simply gross diversion from a really solution that has a chance of working.

 

[Lursa]

Because the teachers which you want to arm are not trained professionals and to pretend that the job of a trained professional can be done by rank amateurs - no matter how enthusiastic - is simply gross diversion from a really solution that has a chance of working.

You write from complete ignorance and rigid bias.

Do you know what skills and skill level it takes to shoot 20-25 feet at a doorway sized target? It's taught in a day and proficient in a month or so, depending on training time. There are more details to support that but I doubt you're interested.

And if you dont believe they can achieve that...then I imagine you dont believe ANY citizen should be allowed to walk around armed (concealed carry)...correct? It's the most minimal of skills.

What is the harm? The kids are not in the line of fire. They will be shot and killed anyway. Nobody's pretending anything...and they are not rank amateurs, they would have a level of training specified by professionals and school policy.

You are just making excuses. This is the ONLY immediate protection a classroom could have. You would deny it to children, for the state reasons that the teachers were incompetent to do it (wrong) and it wasnt a complete solution (stupid).

 

[Lursa]

If you do not know the practical real world differences between a trained professional and a rank amateur - nothing I nor anyone can say will educate you because your problem is not information - it is blind and willful belief.

No. You avoid answering the question pretending it's obvious. It is not.

*I* shoot much better than at least 70% of all cops in the US, if not more, at the self-defense distances (30 feet or less). I'm not a professional.

A professional is compensated, it has nothing to do with level of training. A person who voluntarily gets training shows even more commitment.

And the teachers would be in compliance with professionally designed levels of proficiency, mandated by the school.

And I have already demonstrated...no, not me, but the teachers themselves that made the sacrifices...that there are indeed teachers with the commitment to protect their classes.

So your "excuse" is still a complete fail.

 

[haymarket]

You write from complete ignorance and rigid bias.

I write from the position of somebody who taught 34 years in the public schools and whom for several years represented over 1500 high school teachers to the official union.

Tell me about your school practical experience so we can see who is writing and opining from a position of ignorance.

 

[zsu2357]

The word you were searching for but came up empty was REALITY. I want a solution that will work in situation after situation - not one that depends on extraordinary heroism found in novels and movies.

What is extraordinary heroic about covering a door? That IS reality you and the rest that seem to want to do nothing are the ones living in fantasy land.