This one looks bad

[Hawkmoon]

Don't we want to step away from the trite CCW discussion and talk about real qualifications and capabilities, to discuss actual standards that exceed the minimum spec for individual armed defense?  Or shall we continue with the gun-as-a-talisman trope?

CCW in the context of these scenarios means the absolute minimum requirements to carry a gun.  We should expect more for those we expect to defend masses of students.  Define the training requirement, fund it, and provide incentives for teachers and staff willing to reach for that goal. 

Where has anyone suggested that armed teachers have only bare minimum CCW qualifications?

[Hawkmoon]

And the media seem to be piling on with the fake news. Update! The Florida school massacre was Trump's fault!

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/02/15/nets-push-fake-news-trump-made-it-easier-mentally-ill-buy

[Ben]

Until it's your kid that gets shot by the teacher.

I specifically want to move beyond the trite statement that CCW will magically prevent this sort of occurrence.  We need to understand that an active shooter scenario in a crowded and chaotic school is not the same as defending yourself against an armed mugger at bad breath ranges.

Most of the training required to qualify for CCW is all but useless in a mass shooting scenario.  So, when someone bloviates about a "teacher with a CCW", I will assume the minimal amount of training and a teacher who is carrying a gun that might see a box of ammo a year, who doesn't do anything more advanced than shoot at static targets from a static position.  Or, we can be a bit more specific and talk about the environment, the scenario, and the skills that will ensure a successful outcome and push for those to be incorporated into the discussion.  CCW is a less than minimal spec to me.  

I'm interested in people and processes, not tools.  

Chris

I would only interject (and those here with LE experience or other relevant involvement can correct me) that the above would apply to cops as well, in that just because someone with a badge is on site, it doesn't mean it's a person with a badge AND qualified to handle such a situation.

In several of the training classes I have taken, some of the instructors were LE. They may have been blowing smoke up our asses, but in the "get off the X" classes, they all pointed out that we were getting better training than the average cop. I will point out that the closest training I had in any of those classes to "mass shooting" was stuff like restaurant scenarios, and they all involved clear targets (i.e., no "hostage" or "innocent bystander" blocking targets, etc.).

That's average cop, not SWAT, etc. Many CCW holders just get a permit and a gun and nothing more than basic safety training (I suppose not even that in constitutional carry states). Many cops get some minimal training, then consider their gun an inconvenience for the remainder of their careers, while others take jobs that require extensive firearms and tactical training.

If a cop happened to be on site at a school shooting, I'm betting there's a higher likelihood that they would be the cop that gives the "don't do drugs" talk (and considers their firearm an inconvenience) than a cop with advanced training. So it could be a cop with little more training than NRA Defensive Pistol I, which many CCW holders take as a required class.

[makattak]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mclaughlin-parkland-shooting-20180215-story.html

An amazingly balanced article in the LA Times of all places.

And it brings up my preferred response on this: We need common sense media control. These maniacs want infamy, and ought to be denied it. There is no reason anyone other than the police and prosecutors (judges, too, I guess) ever need to know his name. Automatic 1 year in prison and a $50,000 fine per instance of any media person publicizing his name.

[makattak]

He's not going to be standing fully clear of people with a clear background and a safe backstop either.  He's going to be moving and firing and kids are going to be screaming and running.  Miss Beadle will have to pull her barely used KelTec 9mm and deal with the threat in that environment. 

Don't we want to step away from the trite CCW discussion and talk about real qualifications and capabilities, to discuss actual standards that exceed the minimum spec for individual armed defense?  Or shall we continue with the gun-as-a-talisman trope?

CCW in the context of these scenarios means the absolute minimum requirements to carry a gun.  We should expect more for those we expect to defend masses of students.  Define the training requirement, fund it, and provide incentives for teachers and staff willing to reach for that goal. 

Chris

From the reporting in this case, he went room to room and just picked off hiding people. Seems to me the teacher would have a pretty easy job: Gun trained on the door, shoot the guy with a rifle that comes through it.

Yes, every scenario would not necessarily be like that, but this one appears to be.

In your scenario, he gets the drop on the first classroom. What happens in the next one he moves on to?

CCW doesn't have to prevent every single instance and every death, but it would clearly mitigate the damage and decrease the potential number of victims.

[T.O.M.]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mclaughlin-parkland-shooting-20180215-story.html

An amazingly balanced article in the LA Times of all places.

And it brings up my preferred response on this: We need common sense media control. These maniacs want infamy, and ought to be denied it. There is no reason anyone other than the police and prosecutors (judges, too, I guess) ever need to know his name. Automatic 1 year in prison and a $50,000 fine per instance of any media person publicizing his name.

That has been tried, to far lesser degree, in Ohio.  Judges were putting gag orders on reporters, prohibiting reporting the names of juvenile offenders.  Newspapers sued and won on 1A grounds.  

That said, I agree that to many of these broken individuals, the fame that comes with a mass shooting is far too appealing.  This one seems especially broken, as it appears he not only planned to become a mass shooter, but also wanted to live to enjoy his fame.

Back when Columbine happened, and Klebold and Harris got all of the fame, I was sitting in a bar drinking with a criminal psychologist we worked with (I was a prosecutor then).   We were talking about it, and he finished a shot, and said to me that it was only the beginning.  With the taboo of shooting children broken, and the publicity the shooters got, others would follow in their path.  He then called for more shots, and finished by saying that he didn't think it would ever end.  Time has proven him right.

[Ben]

From the reporting in this case, he went room to room and just picked off hiding people. Seems to me the teacher would have a pretty easy job: Gun trained on the door, shoot the guy with a rifle that comes through it.

Yes, every scenario would not necessarily be like that, but this one appears to be.

In your scenario, he gets the drop on the first classroom. What happens in the next one he moves on to?

CCW doesn't have to prevent every single instance and every death, but it would clearly mitigate the damage and decrease the potential number of victims.

I've sort of been waiting for the wildly swinging reporting to level out, but if the above is accurate, it would certainly be similar to the Texas Luby's shooting, which could have been stopped by a determined individual with basic handgun skills (the resulting legislation seemed to agree).

[T.O.M.]

Holy Hell, I just heard one I had to share.  Legislative aid in the hallway just said that they are looking into the idea of requiring that gun purchases be delayed for a 30 day period for a full background check and (here's the good part), the proposed purchase be published so that the public knows and can provide feedback on whether the buyer has issues that should prevent the purchase from being completed!!!

[makattak]

Holy Hell, I just heard one I had to share.  Legislative aid in the hallway just said that they are looking into the idea of requiring that gun purchases be delayed for a 30 day period for a full background check and (here's the good part), the proposed purchase be published so that the public knows and can provide feedback on whether the buyer has issues that should prevent the purchase from being completed!!!

Wow. The problems arising from that one are myriad. Please congratulate him on quite possibly the worst idea I've ever heard to "solve" this problem. I think he deserves recognition for that monumental failure of an idea.

[Ben]

Holy Hell, I just heard one I had to share.  Legislative aid in the hallway just said that they are looking into the idea of requiring that gun purchases be delayed for a 30 day period for a full background check and (here's the good part), the proposed purchase be published so that the public knows and can provide feedback on whether the buyer has issues that should prevent the purchase from being completed!!!

Lets apply that to alcohol and cars.

[Hawkmoon]

Holy Hell, I just heard one I had to share.  Legislative aid in the hallway just said that they are looking into the idea of requiring that gun purchases be delayed for a 30 day period for a full background check and (here's the good part), the proposed purchase be published so that the public knows and can provide feedback on whether the buyer has issues that should prevent the purchase from being completed!!!

What's thirty days? This shooter bought the AR-15 in February of 2017 -- over a year before the incident. He went through a one-week wait before he could pick it up -- what's another three weeks?

[Fly320s]

Until it's your kid that gets shot by the teacher.

Nonsense.  I would much rather someone try to stop the perp and accidentally kill my child than for everyone to stand around and wait/hope/pray for help.

[Fly320s]

What's thirty days? This shooter bought the AR-15 in February of 2017 -- over a year before the incident. He went through a one-week wait before he could pick it up -- what's another three weeks?

Do you know why there was a one week wait?  I don't think Florida requires a waiting period.

[Hawkmoon]

I would only interject (and those here with LE experience or other relevant involvement can correct me) that the above would apply to cops as well, in that just because someone with a badge is on site, it doesn't mean it's a person with a badge AND qualified to handle such a situation.

In several of the training classes I have taken, some of the instructors were LE. They may have been blowing smoke up our asses, but in the "get off the X" classes, they all pointed out that we were getting better training than the average cop. I will point out that the closest training I had in any of those classes to "mass shooting" was stuff like restaurant scenarios, and they all involved clear targets (i.e., no "hostage" or "innocent bystander" blocking targets, etc.).

Local gun shop (3 miles from my home) is owned and operated by two former police officers. One left the force after ten years and went into another line of work, the second stayed in for 20 or 25 years and then retired. #2 is clear that he fired his duty handgun only when required for qualification, and he retired when the department switched from revolvers to semi-autos.

Current training for most (if not all) departments for active shooter situations is for the first to arrive to go right in. The days of "establishing a perimeter" and waiting for SWAT are behind us. So the first person into a school could well be a cop like my friend at the gun store, who hates handguns and ONLY shoots them when necessary for qualification.

If a cop happened to be on site at a school shooting, I'm betting there's a higher likelihood that they would be the cop that gives the "don't do drugs" talk (and considers their firearm an inconvenience) than a cop with advanced training. So it could be a cop with little more training than NRA Defensive Pistol I, which many CCW holders take as a required class.

The SRO at my town's grammar school for a number of years was an older officer who must have weighed close to 300 pounds. When he wasn't being the SRO (and, yes, the D.A.R.E. officer) he was the department's photographer. He might have had some specialized firearms/tactical training, but I very much doubt it.

[Hawkmoon]

Do you know why there was a one week wait?  I don't think Florida requires a waiting period.

Article didn't say. Maybe because he was under 21?

Link: https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/suspected-school-shooter-says-attack-was-instructed-by-demons/

[Edit to add]Apparently some counties in Florida have waiting periods in excess of state law. Mannlicher -- true?

[Perd Hapley]

I specifically want to move beyond the trite statement that CCW will magically prevent this sort of occurrence.  We need to understand that an active shooter scenario in a crowded and chaotic school is not the same as defending yourself against an armed mugger at bad breath ranges.

Most of the training required to qualify for CCW is all but useless in a mass shooting scenario.  So, when someone bloviates about a "teacher with a CCW", I will assume the minimal amount of training and a teacher who is carrying a gun that might see a box of ammo a year, who doesn't do anything more advanced than shoot at static targets from a static position.  Or, we can be a bit more specific and talk about the environment, the scenario, and the skills that will ensure a successful outcome and push for those to be incorporated into the discussion.  CCW is a less than minimal spec to me.  

I'm interested in people and processes, not tools.  

Chris

You might have stopped with "most of the training required to qualify for CCW is all but useless." Saying "arm the teachers" may be trite, but pointing out that guns aren't magical talismans is equally trite, isn't it? I don't think anyone here is unwilling to have a discussion about what, realistically, can be done. Well, maybe Ben, but ya know how he is. Kinda old and senile these days.

[Hawkmoon]

Here it comes: https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/store-owners-are-scared-after-selling-rifle-to-alleged-gunman/

Another lawyer, Stuart Kaplan, who is representing the corporate entity of Sunrise Tactical Supply [the gun store that sold the AR-15], noted that Cruz filled out a firearms transaction form issued by the Department of Justice and included a copy of his Florida driver’s license.

Regarding form questions about whether he had ever been adjudicated for mental illness or whether he had ever been institutionalized related to mental health illness, Cruz answered “no,” Kaplan said.

“I think the bigger question is: We know that he suffered from some sort of mental health illness. I guess we need to decide or find out whether or not he was being treated … and I think that loophole is whether or not a mental health professional who is treating an individual should have some sort of reporting requirement or is there some sort of database that would collect this information so that in an event that a particular person would go to purchase a weapon, we could at least screen them?” said Kaplan.

You're a lawyer, *expletive deleted*tard. There was no "loophole." The law is crystal clear (unless you're the Social Security Administration or the Veterans Administration): a person is prohibited if they have been "adjudicated" mentally defective. I hate it when people (or the media) try to portray compliance with the law as "exploiting a loophole." By that standard, I exploit a loophole every day, when I drive at or below the posted speed limit in order to avoid getting a speeding ticket.

As for treatment -- we already know that he was not being treated. He had been treated in the past, and he stopped going for treatment when his mother died.

Now we get into some really deep kimchee. If the therapist who was treating him had any inklings about his propensity for violence and/or the voices he now claims he was hearing since age 12, did the mental health practitioner have any legal or moral responsibility/duty to try to follow up when the shooter stopped coming for sessions? Where do you draw the line between trying to be proactively helpful vs. being an ambulance chaser to maintain your cash flow vs. butting into a patient's personal life without justification?

[dogmush]

Do you know why there was a one week wait?  I don't think Florida requires a waiting period.

[Edit to add]Apparently some counties in Florida have waiting periods in excess of state law. Mannlicher -- true?

FL has a state mandated min. waiting period.  3 days I think.  It's waived if you have a CCW (which is why I'm not 100% sure of it's length)

Counties can add to it, and some do.

[TechMan]

Wrong place. It was a large, multi-story building. If he was on the other end, on a different floor, the shooter could have easily fired 100 rounds before the cop even got near the area of operations.

Worse than that it was a large muti-story, multi-building campus.  https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1YAM8uxWYwqJR1Lgd5HZVzKKVwUX5J0X0&hl=en-US&gl=us&ll=26.304197629983225%2C-80.26902516434859&z=18

[Ben]

 Well, maybe Ben, but ya know how he is. Kinda old and senile these days.

Eh? What's that sonny? Pipe down and go fetch me my Vicks Vaporub and a bottle of whiskey!

[MillCreek]

Now we get into some really deep kimchee. If the therapist who was treating him had any inklings about his propensity for violence and/or the voices he now claims he was hearing since age 12, did the mental health practitioner have any legal or moral responsibility/duty to try to follow up when the shooter stopped coming for sessions? Where do you draw the line between trying to be proactively helpful vs. being an ambulance chaser to maintain your cash flow vs. butting into a patient's personal life without justification?

Yes. Most states follow a version of the Tarasoff doctrine in which you are either allowed or required to report a patient who is threatening bodily harm against someone.  The sticky wicket, having dealt with many of these cases, is the patient who says they were 'just kidding' or are making vague, non-specific threats; the therapist then has to decide if the patient's statements are actionable and should be reported to LE.  It is a big thing for a therapist to violate confidentiality, so most of them ponder this long and hard before deciding to do so.

[RoadKingLarry]

Brits in my facebook feed are going absolutely *expletive deleted*ing nuts.

Seems that everyone of them is going on about how no massacres since handguns were banned at Dunblane 20 years ago.

Why don't you worry about your vaunted, failing, health system and let us not give a *expletive deleted*ck about you?

Wasn't there a terrorist attack in London recently on some bridge?
How about regular acid attacks?
Manchester arena...
Subway bombings...
Knife attacks routine enough that "pointy" knives are now "evil".
Yeah, I don't give a crap for the opinions of "enlightened Europeans" about how we ought to do things here.

[makattak]

Wasn't there a terrorist attack in London recently on some bridge?
How about regular acid attacks?
Manchester arena...
Subway bombings...
Knife attacks routine enough that "pointy" knives are now "evil".
Yeah, I don't give a crap for the opinions of "enlightened Europeans" about how we ought to do things here.

Well, they are right, England does have a lower rate of mass shooting (and fewer deaths!) than the U.S. does. It's also an island with (at least theoretically) an easier time controlling borders than the U.S. would.

France, on the other hand, is not an island. And has the type of gun restrictions the gun grabbers here in the U.S. dream about:

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/


Oh, look at that. Both in number of incidents (per capita) and deaths (per capita) France is worse than the U.S. in mass shootings. (As noted in the article, this doesn't include bombings which they have FAR more of.)

I wonder what that says about the usefulness of said gun control measures.

[cordex]

Current training for most (if not all) departments for active shooter situations is for the first to arrive to go right in. The days of "establishing a perimeter" and waiting for SWAT are behind us. So the first person into a school could well be a cop like my friend at the gun store, who hates handguns and ONLY shoots them when necessary for qualification.

As I think I've said before, active shooter doctrine in my county is that the first three units on the scene go in together.  Never one.  The SWAT guys also train to never enter a room with just one guy.  Of course, the situation is different for an SRO who is already in the school and probably alone - they have to do what they can with what they have.  But yeah, some cops are shooters and some are not and the initial responders will not wait for the SWAT callout.

The SRO at my town's grammar school for a number of years was an older officer who must have weighed close to 300 pounds. When he wasn't being the SRO (and, yes, the D.A.R.E. officer) he was the department's photographer. He might have had some specialized firearms/tactical training, but I very much doubt it.

Another good point.  The cops that I know who put in for SRO are not usually the same kinds of guys who put in for SWAT duty.  Other than the periodic active shooter training the department gives all cops, I don't think the SROs get any particular enhanced training.

He's not going to be standing fully clear of people with a clear background and a safe backstop either.  He's going to be moving and firing and kids are going to be screaming and running.  Miss Beadle will have to pull her barely used KelTec 9mm and deal with the threat in that environment. 

As others have pointed out, most cops won't make a clean shot in that scenario either.  Doesn't mean it wouldn't be better to have one there.

Don't we want to step away from the trite CCW discussion and talk about real qualifications and capabilities, to discuss actual standards that exceed the minimum spec for individual armed defense?  Or shall we continue with the gun-as-a-talisman trope?

CCW in the context of these scenarios means the absolute minimum requirements to carry a gun.  We should expect more for those we expect to defend masses of students.  Define the training requirement, fund it, and provide incentives for teachers and staff willing to reach for that goal. 

Of course guns are not a magical talisman.  But neither do we have to expect everyone who carries one in a school (or anywhere else) to all be elite marksmen to see a potential value to it.

To realistically train people (teachers, cops, whomever) to the point they could make the kinds of high-stress shots in the scenarios you're talking about with would take lots and lots and lots of training.   Then you have to keep them sharp.  I'm thinking significant monthly training at minimum with both force-on-force and range components.  Good luck finding a budget or volunteers for that kind of commitment at all 100,000ish public schools we've got in the US.

[TechMan]

Holy Hell, I just heard one I had to share.  Legislative aid in the hallway just said that they are looking into the idea of requiring that gun purchases be delayed for a 30 day period for a full background check and (here's the good part), the proposed purchase be published so that the public knows and can provide feedback on whether the buyer has issues that should prevent the purchase from being completed!!!

I bet BFA will kill that quickly.