There’s a way to stop mass shootings, and you won’t like it.

[BaiHu]

I thought this was an interesting insight. One of the things I teach, to young students in particular, is that relationships create a barrier to entry. Mainly, the more people you know (no, not on FB) and befriend, the less chance you will have to 'go it alone' or be isolated and therefore an easier target.

However, the friendship angle here is quite an interesting PSA that was typically a byproduct of my above thought process, but I never actually considered it as a single directive.

(MODS: I initially thought this could be in the mindset sub-forum, but I wanted to leave it up to you guys after you read it)


That’s right. You’re not going to like it because it’s going to require you to do something personally, as opposed to shouting for the government, or anyone to “do something!”

You ready? Here it is:

“Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.”

If every one of us did this we’d have a culture that was deeply committed to ensuring no one was left lonely. And make no mistake, as I’ve written before loneliness is what causes these shooters to lash out. People with solid connections to other people don’t indiscriminately fire guns at strangers.

http://mystudentapt.com/2015/10/06/theres-a-way-to-stop-mass-shootings-and-you-wont-like-it/

[Trooper224]

I truly feel there's something to this and have long held that opinion. Human beings are communal creatures, pack animals for lack of a better term. Things like our technology and societal construct keep isolating us from each other at an ever increasing level. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these things are happening. It's easy to take a far left stance and claim guns are the problem, or a far right stance and claim it's because we took prayer out of schools or allowed gays to marry, but we need to look deeper into self examination for the root cause.

[BaiHu]

Great truly Trooper224! I can't agree more.

[RJ]

Absolutely.

We, all of us, need to have that human contact. Think what would happen to that troubled youth if someone had been there, just to listen and talk.

I miss my eight years in Scouts. My son is in second year of Engineering School at UCF, and I could not be prouder of him. I hope that part of that was my parenting, and some to the Adult Volunteers who gave of their time in our unit.

Now that I'm retired, I'm thinking of getting back into volunteering with the Scouts again, or through Church.

[Wondering Beard]

I don't disagree with you, BaiHu, (and it's a good idea in general anyway) but what if what this article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence) argues is correct?

[Eyesquared]

I don't disagree with you, BaiHu, (and it's a good idea in general anyway) but what if what this article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence) argues is correct?

Having read this in a bit of a hurry, I honestly don't see where Gladwell is going with this. Is he implying that there are a significant number of autistic school shooters in the making? He writes that "It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts," but keeping John LaDue in mind, this implies that the incidence of autism is increasing, something Gladwell never really discusses.

[guymontag]

Thanks Baihu and WB, interesting articles.

SIRT, I sped-read it myself, I think Gladwell is operating off the rioting theory, and even says that the longer a riot lasts, the more people are involved who are dissimilar to the original rioters. I.e. the process builds upon itself, and although the "super" crazy people started the riot, eventually "lesser" crazy people will join.

[SLG]

I agree with the main premise, but the problem is, I don't want to be around "those"kind of people. I don't want to engage them in my personal life. Most of you wouldn't want to either. There is a reason they are isolated, and witty intelligence isn't it.

[BaiHu]

I agree with the main premise, but the problem is, I don't want to be around "those"kind of people. I don't want to engage them in my personal life. Most of you wouldn't want to either. There is a reason they are isolated, and witty intelligence isn't it.
I agree, but I think there is a lack of community among younger people due to many factors. Just to list a few:

1) everyone 'needs' to go to college makes people not ready for college pursue it. This drives competition and price up artificially.
2) everyone needs to be a straight A student that cured cancer or saved a village in a 3rd world country, etc
3) zero tolerance bullying yields zero peer pressure, self actualization and a group moral compass mentality
4) play dates = over scheduling, over parenting, over analyzing of kids trying to figure out what it means to be kids.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The above strangles free time, free expression and free thought. It opens the doors for any "authority" to guide one through a life unknown and unquestioned. Politicians thrive on this isolated yet hive mentality where everyone is "connected" but disconnected from themselves.

Ergo, my small rebuttal to SLG is that this article really presses home the need for kids to be kids and shuffle through the deck of friends and experiences until they find their nitch.

Instead, we have 3 year olds hitting the soccer traveling team (7 days a week all year long), getting private lessons, being home schooled on the road and looking to be the next Pele simply because he kicked his binky across the room and hit the dog in the ass when he was 10 months old.

TL;DR: Micromanagement leads to the destruction of self actualization and therefore leads to more isolation IMO.

[Eyesquared]

Thanks Baihu and WB, interesting articles.

SIRT, I sped-read it myself, I think Gladwell is operating off the rioting theory, and even says that the longer a riot lasts, the more people are involved who are dissimilar to the original rioters. I.e. the process builds upon itself, and although the "super" crazy people started the riot, eventually "lesser" crazy people will join.

I think you're right but I don't buy Gladwell's argument. His one "case study" here is of a person who clearly has some diagnosable mental issues, not a true "average joe." Either way the population of supposed spree shooters is not really as big as our availability biases may lead us to think.


I agree with the main premise, but the problem is, I don't want to be around "those"kind of people. I don't want to engage them in my personal life. Most of you wouldn't want to either. There is a reason they are isolated, and witty intelligence isn't it.

To some extent I agree but I do think the issue of social alienation is more prevalent among today's youth. In some sense our age of social media leads relatively ordinary people to be fairly isolated. My experience is that most of these people don't start out being socially repulsive, but that years of being ostracized in school tend to gradually take a toll on their social skills, and then the resultant self-esteem issues combined with the social stigma of being totally alone pretty much finish them off.

[SLG]

I agree, but I think there is a lack of community among younger people due to many factors. Just to list a few:

1) everyone 'needs' to go to college makes people not ready for college pursue it. This drives competition and price up artificially.
2) everyone needs to be a straight A student that cured cancer or saved a village in a 3rd world country, etc
3) zero tolerance bullying yields zero peer pressure, self actualization and a group moral compass mentality
4) play dates = over scheduling, over parenting, over analyzing of kids trying to figure out what it means to be kids.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The above strangles free time, free expression and free thought. It opens the doors for any "authority" to guide one through a life unknown and unquestioned. Politicians thrive on this isolated yet hive mentality where everyone is "connected" but disconnected from themselves.

Ergo, my small rebuttal to SLG is that this article really presses home the need for kids to be kids and shuffle through the deck of friends and experiences until they find their nitch.

Instead, we have 3 year olds hitting the soccer traveling team (7 days a week all year long), getting private lessons, being home schooled on the road and looking to be the next Pele simply because he kicked his binky across the room and hit the dog in the ass when he was 10 months old.

TL;DR: Micromanagement leads to the destruction of self actualization and therefore leads to more isolation IMO.

Completely agree.

[GardoneVT]

No.

People do not have a right to happiness, financial or of the social kind. There is a reason "lonely" mass shooters are not invited to folks' dates and birthdays.

Next: relationships can be just as much a trigger of violence themselves. DV, anybody? Someone who's predisposed to murdering multiple people on camera or at a college is unlikely to become an angel by marrying and popping out kids. A sick case in South Dakota recently involved a father blowing away his own wife and two kids before setting his house on fire . He then saved the last 12 gauge round for himself.

Turned out his education company got rejected for a 4 million dollar contract the day before. Somehow , having a family didn't make him a positive enough person to avoid committing multiple homicide.

We just need to collectively accept that some people are going to be evil mothertruckers and react accordingly. It's not a warm and fuzzy answer, but some problems cannot be solved with plucky attitudes and can-do spirit.

[BaiHu]

No.

People do not have a right to happiness, financial or of the social kind. There is a reason "lonely" mass shooters are not invited to folks' dates and birthdays.

Next: relationships can be just as much a trigger of violence themselves. DV, anybody? Someone who's predisposed to murdering multiple people on camera or at a college is unlikely to become an angel by marrying and popping out kids. A sick case in South Dakota recently involved a father blowing away his own wife and two kids before setting his house on fire . He then saved the last 12 gauge round for himself.

Turned out his education company got rejected for a 4 million dollar contract the day before. Somehow , having a family didn't make him a positive enough person to avoid committing multiple homicide.

We just need to collectively accept that some people are going to be evil mothertruckers and react accordingly. It's not a warm and fuzzy answer, but some problems cannot be solved with plucky attitudes and can-do spirit.
I think we can all agree that there is 1-5% of the population that is unreachable, but it doesn't mean those 1-5% were necessarily born that way.

[GardoneVT]

I think we can all agree that there is 1-5% of the population that is unreachable, but it doesn't mean those 1-5% were necessarily born that way.

How would you know?

What's the most commom refrain of the mass murderer's neighbor?

"Well gosh, so and so was such a nice person ! "

[BaiHu]

How would you know?

What's the most commom refrain of the mass murderer's neighbor?

"Well gosh, so and so was such a nice person ! "
And we've also heard of the saying, "no one likes to speak ill of the dead" and "he was turning his life around." So...

My point was no matter what type of "killer" or "scene" we're talking about, there's only 2 points of contact that can stop, slow or ascertain the problem in a potentially 'timely manner':

1) when they are young enough to still be impressionable, hopefully
2) when they're about to kill someone and someone else is there to put them down

[GardoneVT]

And we've also heard of the saying, "no one likes to speak ill of the dead" and "he was turning his life around." So...

My point was no matter what type of "killer" or "scene" we're talking about, there's only 2 points of contact that can stop, slow or ascertain the problem in a potentially 'timely manner':

1) when they are young enough to still be impressionable, hopefully
2) when they're about to kill someone and someone else is there to put them down

Unfortunately this reasoning falls apart on a couple of levels.

One, the "neighbors like the killer" meme is so honest because they , for the most part, had no idea the person they lived next to was capable of such violence. To use the community college shooting as an example , thousands of kids shared classroom space and group projects with the guy and didn't read him as a threat .

Whereas the "he's turning his life around" meme is a public denial of responsibility. Rest assured behind private doors every minority mom to a scumbag knows her sons a thug. She won't love him less necessarily, but if he meets his end ballistically she'll never admit on camera her child had it coming.

Insofar as preventing evil goes, good luck. I've known preachers who broke bad despite growing up in two parent, churchgoing households. I also know people who emigrated to the US after growing up in countries where "Roadside Rape" and AK-wielding death squads are just regular parts of everyday life , and they're well adjusted members of society . Origin does not foretell the future.

[45dotACP]

I agree, but I think there is a lack of community among younger people due to many factors. Just to list a few:

1) everyone 'needs' to go to college makes people not ready for college pursue it. This drives competition and price up artificially.
2) everyone needs to be a straight A student that cured cancer or saved a village in a 3rd world country, etc
3) zero tolerance bullying yields zero peer pressure, self actualization and a group moral compass mentality
4) play dates = over scheduling, over parenting, over analyzing of kids trying to figure out what it means to be kids.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The above strangles free time, free expression and free thought. It opens the doors for any "authority" to guide one through a life unknown and unquestioned. Politicians thrive on this isolated yet hive mentality where everyone is "connected" but disconnected from themselves.

Ergo, my small rebuttal to SLG is that this article really presses home the need for kids to be kids and shuffle through the deck of friends and experiences until they find their nitch.

Instead, we have 3 year olds hitting the soccer traveling team (7 days a week all year long), getting private lessons, being home schooled on the road and looking to be the next Pele simply because he kicked his binky across the room and hit the dog in the ass when he was 10 months old.

TL;DR: Micromanagement leads to the destruction of self actualization and therefore leads to more isolation IMO.

I agree with a good deal of what you wrote but would you expound on this? Zero tolerance of bullies is bad?

[Eyesquared]

Unfortunately this reasoning falls apart on a couple of levels.

One, the "neighbors like the killer" meme is so honest because they , for the most part, had no idea the person they lived next to was capable of such violence. To use the community college shooting as an example , thousands of kids shared classroom space and group projects with the guy and didn't read him as a threat .

Whereas the "he's turning his life around" meme is a public denial of responsibility. Rest assured behind private doors every minority mom to a scumbag knows her sons a thug. She won't love him less necessarily, but if he meets his end ballistically she'll never admit on camera her child had it coming.

Insofar as preventing evil goes, good luck. I've known preachers who broke bad despite growing up in two parent, churchgoing households. I also know people who emigrated to the US after growing up in countries where "Roadside Rape" and AK-wielding death squads are just regular parts of everyday life , and they're well adjusted members of society . Origin does not foretell the future.

I don't buy it. When people say "XXX was so nice! I can't believe they would kill anybody!" they're really telling you "It's not my fault, I didn't know this would happen." They are denying their responsibility. Of course, it's not reasonable to expect everyone who ever shared a classroom with a mass shooter to know about his impending massacre, but I don't buy that a close friend or even an acquaintance wouldn't be able to pick up on some things that feel "off."

Also, what you're essentially saying is that there is no way to "prevent evil" which doesn't seem right to me. The statistics imply that there are lot of factors that affect how violent a society is. Obviously humans are wired for violence but I don't think that it's some kind of supernatural force that can't even be opposed.

[GardoneVT]

Obviously humans are wired for violence but I don't think that it's some kind of supernatural force that can't even be opposed.

Neither do I. Accurately directed gunfire is an effective form of opposition.

Utopian statements and laws based on predicting evil ,not so much.

[Trooper224]

I agree, but I think there is a lack of community among younger people due to many factors. Just to list a few:

1) everyone 'needs' to go to college makes people not ready for college pursue it. This drives competition and price up artificially.
2) everyone needs to be a straight A student that cured cancer or saved a village in a 3rd world country, etc
3) zero tolerance bullying yields zero peer pressure, self actualization and a group moral compass mentality
4) play dates = over scheduling, over parenting, over analyzing of kids trying to figure out what it means to be kids.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The above strangles free time, free expression and free thought. It opens the doors for any "authority" to guide one through a life unknown and unquestioned. Politicians thrive on this isolated yet hive mentality where everyone is "connected" but disconnected from themselves.

Ergo, my small rebuttal to SLG is that this article really presses home the need for kids to be kids and shuffle through the deck of friends and experiences until they find their nitch.

Instead, we have 3 year olds hitting the soccer traveling team (7 days a week all year long), getting private lessons, being home schooled on the road and looking to be the next Pele simply because he kicked his binky across the room and hit the dog in the ass when he was 10 months old.

TL;DR: Micromanagement leads to the destruction of self actualization and therefore leads to more isolation IMO.

So much truth here.

[olstyn]

I don't disagree with you, BaiHu, (and it's a good idea in general anyway) but what if what this article (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence) argues is correct?

If that article is correct, does it not stand as an argument the mass shooter "phenomenon" is in fact the fault of the mass media? After all, the riot theory it proposes would be impossible without widespread knowledge of prior incidents, and in our modern, connected society, any incident becomes national news immediately. Whether it's copycats or riot-joiners, either way, preventing adolescent males from gaining access to information about current or previous mass attacks would seem to be the solution to the problem, and the media does exactly the opposite.

[SamAdams]

I sympathsize with the good intentions expressed in the article and in this thread.

But, I wonder about the entire premise.

Your odds of being killed by deer (hitting your windshield), soap (slipping in the bathtub), or bee stings is greater than that of being a victim in a mass shooting. You're even more likely to be struck (though not neccessarily killed) by lightning, than be a victim in a mass shooting. (Websearch various odds & causes of fatalities and you'll come up with numerous interesting stats like this.)

So why all the attention on this 'problem' which may not be such an issue at all ? Well, a lot of media and public attention also attends commercial airliner crashes. Your odds of dying in such a crash are extremely low. Much less than dying in a car crash. Perhaps the death of so many at one time grabs media (and thus our) attention. Many of have flown on a plane, so we can imagine ourselves in such a horrific situation. The media knows that and " if it bleeds, it leads " is an old newspaper saying. - So perhaps the attention given by the media to mass shootings is based on this aspect of human psychology and/or media financial interests.

Of course, there are also those with a political/social agenda. They use these rare occurances to move that agenda forward. The media never mentions the millions of times each year that average innocent citizens use their own guns to prevent themselves from being the victim of a bad guy, do they ? In the vast majority of those situations, the gun is never even fired. - - If the public were informed on this and rational, it would make absolutely no sense to give up guns which actually prevent so many from being victimized.

Are we dealing with reality, - or are we dealing with a media fabrication presented to us ?

[BaiHu]

I agree with a good deal of what you wrote but would you expound on this? Zero tolerance of bullies is bad?

In short, zero tolerance bullying is essentially precog/minority report crap for kids to stress about in their social interactions. At this point, it's almost universally panned/shunned by schools around my area in NJ. If you're unfamiliar with it, it pigeon holes kids into 1 of 3 categories: bully, victim and bystander. One quickly learns that being a bystander or the bully is the best. One quickly learns that being the victim is the worst-doubly so, b/c the victim is typically punished along with the victim for 'fighting'. Subjectivity was (I think it's coming back slowly) going out the window. Victim accounts were treated like courtrooms across America-what did the victim do to cause this? I'm sure we've heard of examples.

It was a Kobayashi Maru of being punished for being in a 'fight' even if you were the one that got punched first and only. If you tattled prematurely, you were labeled a tattle tale and 'spreading lies' and if you fought back/defended yourself, you were essentially just as bad as the bully. So what does that teach kids? Never stand up for yourself or someone else and just be a good bystander and cross your fingers someone doesn't kill you if you're the victim.

What this does is remove positive peer pressure. The only 'authorities' in the room are the bully (we all know bullies thrive in the natural world) or the 'adult' in the room. However, all of us know that even being on top of someone doesn't mean we can stop an act fast enough to 'remove' consequences.

All self-actualization of children goes out the window, all leadership goes out the window (if you weren't already appropriately 'labeled') and all 'fungible' movement between bystander, victim and bully go out the window. Ergo you have the YT phenomenon and the Riot Theory go awry.

Meaning the bystander grabs a phone and videos the situation, b/c everyone is 'into the event'. We all thrive in 'watching' violence, b/c we get the same kind of adrenaline high with none of the drawbacks. The victim is forever victimized on the internet, the bully is immortalized as the biggest bad ass (in his/her mind), b/c essentially a 'media outlet' like YT is now a place douchebags go to seek fame for their deeds.

This is why more and more kids look around for someone else to stop what is happening, but in the meantime, Riot Theory jumps in and they 'join in' vicariously by letting the event go on beyond its moral compass date. Ever heard of Steubenville, OH rape case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case)?

Hope that helps explain why I think kids are being more isolated into roles that are given to them rather than earned or sought after by their own desire/will. And it's done ALL FOR THEIR OWN GOOD! The worst kind of benevolent dictatorship.

CS Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience."


I sympathsize with the good intentions expressed in the article and in this thread.

But, I wonder about the entire premise.

Your odds of being killed by deer (hitting your windshield), soap (slipping in the bathtub), or bee stings is greater than that of being a victim in a mass shooting. You're even more likely to be struck (though not neccessarily killed) by lightning, than be a victim in a mass shooting. (Websearch various odds & causes of fatalities and you'll come up with numerous interesting stats like this.)

So why all the attention on this 'problem' which may not be such an issue at all ? Well, a lot of media and public attention also attends commercial airliner crashes. Your odds of dying in such a crash are extremely low. Much less than dying in a car crash. Perhaps the death of so many at one time grabs media (and thus our) attention. Many of have flown on a plane, so we can imagine ourselves in such a horrific situation. The media knows that and " if it bleeds, it leads " is an old newspaper saying. - So perhaps the attention given by the media to mass shootings is based on this aspect of human psychology and/or media financial interests.

Of course, there are also those with a political/social agenda. They use these rare occurances to move that agenda forward. The media never mentions the millions of times each year that average innocent citizens use their own guns to prevent themselves from being the victim of a bad guy, do they ? In the vast majority of those situations, the gun is never even fired. - - If the public were informed on this and rational, it would make absolutely no sense to give up guns which actually prevent so many from being victimized.

Are we dealing with reality, - or are we dealing with a media fabrication presented to us ?

I think the above is a relevant fly in the ointment. I see this article/thread as a launch pad for other ways to solve the 'problem' of depression/isolation/bullying and the seeming common thread the aforementioned have with the modern mass murder. I don't think there's a coincidence here. Is it an infinitesimally small perception of murders in our country/world? Yes, but since it really effects us as gun owners, I'd rather be ahead of this thing with a big road block saying, "Nope, road's closed here. You need not venture down this road. We know this road is a dead end."

This particular method is a good method to share with non-gun owning individuals. For us gun owning individuals, you know we'll continue to support active involvement and stopping the threat early and often rather than waiting to be lined up, labeled and shipped to the morgue or the purgatory of the 'good bystander'.

[GardoneVT]

I sympathsize with the good intentions expressed in the article and in this thread.

But, I wonder about the entire premise.

<snip>

I think it comes back to a premise of collective fear combined with powerlessness.
Unlike driving a car (thousands killed a month driving ) or eating an order with extra sour cream (thousands killed by heart disease ) , you can't control your fate much if an airplane takes off with a failed part that dooms the flight.
Thus greater fear and thus public interest in the rare air disaster, since all you can do as a passenger is kiss your behind goodbye should Things Go Wrong.

For most people this is the category where mass shootings reside. We are the outliers: most folks would be just as screwed as the TWA800 passengers if some jerk walked into their office shooting . We see those anti gun mass shooting stories and think "Let someone try to shoot up my office. Lolz back to reality".

Case in point. Back in college I was at my apartment making food for my guests, armed unbeknownst to them.
A campus alert went out about an armed fugitive who stole a car and crashed it on college grounds.I kept making my food as the guests went into a tizzy. Both males and females commiserated and gnashed their teeth about " what would we do if said scumbag hid out in our building OMG we'd be in trouble this world is SO unsafe yadda yadda."

I just chuckled. Being prepared for life's risks is much cheaper then anxiety meds.

[Robinson]

Some good and thoughtful posts in this thread.

I think another consideration is that these acts are always sensationalized. The media feels a need to expose the background of the shooter, what led to such a horrible outcome in that person's life. Oh, and guns. And all of this blathering on takes place when it's the community where it happened that should be dealing with the aftermath without all the external attention. You can bet that pretty much any mass shooter has seen and paid attention to the highly publicized cases that came before.

Plus young people like the victims in the school shooting are in no way prepared to act in the face of any type of violence, and it's not their fault. The media and school environment they grew up in have taught them that all violence is bad even in defense of one's own life or others.


Edit: I just noticed others have already said pretty much the same things only better.

[BaiHu]

This video was linked through the original post in the thread and I thought it might be worth having some 'in the know' guys review it. Looked like good stuff to me on first glance.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tIeRUbRHw

[RoyGBiv]

Looked like good stuff to me on first glance.
I'm no SME, but that makes good sense to me.
Seeing it is more impactful than reading it. Thanks.!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Great thread. I'll comment on the video in a sec. Here's a take by a prof who is against such training.

http://chronicle.com/article/Don-t-Make-Me-Part-of-Your/233783?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&elq=87a32d4c41a4443ebd3d4998b311ef1a&elqCampaignId=1624&elqaid=6592&elqat=1&elqTrackId=15c0fdfa7f8045bcbc82dd1420b30287

I do agree with the OP, that outreach for disturbed people is very important and just gun training because people have evil is insufficient and short cited.

About the video:

1. Working the university and having a modicum of training/exercises gives me some thoughts.

2. The video is excellent as it moves away from passive hunkering down.

3. The techniques are very useful in a small room with a clear entrance.

4. It assume the shooter comes through the door with little awareness. That might be case for the average rampager. However, some have shot through the wall and the sides of doors.

5. A student who decides to go this route and as gone through the training might well be aware of the countermeasures.

6. Many lecture halls are bigger and the spaces are such that you can't get to the shooter so quickly if you have no warning. The 3 seconds in the demo was based on a IDPA match beep and not just sitting there in disbelief if a person walks in and opens fire. A person who walks into the large room and just starts to shoot the first row and up the sides of the aisles will have more time to hit targets. Jumping over multiple chair rows is not fast.


I tried a simulation in a larger classroom with farther away chairs. While it was just air gunning, no one in the first charge avoided a 'round'. Another simulation I did at the range with an officer found that he could get off 3 to 8 shots at targets while someone got up and threw a lap top.

7. You can't throw stuff that far - so in the large lecture hall, good luck with that. You will just concuss the first row.

8. Modern buildings are moving away from the classroom with opaque doors and walls. Now we have sheets of glass for walls. This is to further interaction and niceness. However, you can't ambush anyone and they can shoot through the glass easily with modern ammo. I asked about this and was told it was good as you could see the shooter and take measures (what measures - never mind).

Thus, the training is really good for that small room situation. It does not cover the totality of risk and the training itself suggests how to circumvent it. Remind how some folks discussed how hiding behind a hail of bullets was cover? A killer on surprise might come in that way. Not to say one shouldn't fight but the fight at the beep demo was a touch disingenuous.

9. One problem I have is that such demos (and I do like them for training) is that the seeming success in the small room scenario set piece is that is gives a boost to the anticampus carry folks. See you can win the day with the charge and thrown crap.

So, the training is a good thing but it isn't a substitute for campus carry or carry anywhere.

Now, one problem with carry is that responding in that critical incident might (ya think) be better served if carriers had a modicum of training. We know that the average concealed carrier is resistant to such (it's the Constitution!). So students I had like an ex-LEO, Sniper back from Afghanistan tours, Force Recon Marine, AF survival trainer probably can handle themselves, folks fear the Taurus 85 crowd. I have friends in the former and the latter. Getting the latter to train is impossible but they are steely eyed dealers of death who shoot the bottom of a B-27 (using a grip Daddy taught them) or firing shotgun at a distance wide patterns with a handgun.

I've had folks tell me when I was working that they would trust me to carry but not Prof. X or Frat boy Y because of the training issue.

Some things on the video, why not just barricade the door - they had plenty of heavy tables? I guess drawing him in looked good.

Hope shooters don't learn to pie doors. Great OP for to start this.

[GardoneVT]

Great thread. I'll comment on the video in a sec. Here's a take by a prof who is against such training.

http://chronicle.com/article/Don-t-Make-Me-Part-of-Your/233783?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&elq=87a32d4c41a4443ebd3d4998b311ef1a&elqCampaignId=1624&elqaid=6592&elqat=1&elqTrackId=15c0fdfa7f8045bcbc82dd1420b30287

I do agree with the OP, that outreach for disturbed people is very important and just gun training because people have evil is insufficient and short cited.

About the video:

1. Working the university and having a modicum of training/exercises gives me some thoughts.

2. The video is excellent as it moves away from passive hunkering down.

3. The techniques are very useful in a small room with a clear entrance.

4. It assume the shooter comes through the door with little awareness. That might be case for the average rampager. However, some have shot through the wall and the sides of doors.

5. A student who decides to go this route and as gone through the training might well be aware of the countermeasures.

6. Many lecture halls are bigger and the spaces are such that you can't get to the shooter so quickly if you have no warning. The 3 seconds in the demo was based on a IDPA match beep and not just sitting there in disbelief if a person walks in and opens fire. A person who walks into the large room and just starts to shoot the first row and up the sides of the aisles will have more time to hit targets. Jumping over multiple chair rows is not fast.


I tried a simulation in a larger classroom with farther away chairs. While it was just air gunning, no one in the first charge avoided a 'round'. Another simulation I did at the range with an officer found that he could get off 3 to 8 shots at targets while someone got up and threw a lap top.

7. You can't throw stuff that far - so in the large lecture hall, good luck with that. You will just concuss the first row.

8. Modern buildings are moving away from the classroom with opaque doors and walls. Now we have sheets of glass for walls. This is to further interaction and niceness. However, you can't ambush anyone and they can shoot through the glass easily with modern ammo. I asked about this and was told it was good as you could see the shooter and take measures (what measures - never mind).

Thus, the training is really good for that small room situation. It does not cover the totality of risk and the training itself suggests how to circumvent it. Remind how some folks discussed how hiding behind a hail of bullets was cover? A killer on surprise might come in that way. Not to say one shouldn't fight but the fight at the beep demo was a touch disingenuous.

9. One problem I have is that such demos (and I do like them for training) is that the seeming success in the small room scenario set piece is that is gives a boost to the anticampus carry folks. See you can win the day with the charge and thrown crap.

So, the training is a good thing but it isn't a substitute for campus carry or carry anywhere.

Now, one problem with carry is that responding in that critical incident might (ya think) be better served if carriers had a modicum of training. We know that the average concealed carrier is resistant to such (it's the Constitution!). So students I had like an ex-LEO, Sniper back from Afghanistan tours, Force Recon Marine, AF survival trainer probably can handle themselves, folks fear the Taurus 85 crowd. I have friends in the former and the latter. Getting the latter to train is impossible but they are steely eyed dealers of death who shoot the bottom of a B-27 (using a grip Daddy taught them) or firing shotgun at a distance wide patterns with a handgun.

I've had folks tell me when I was working that they would trust me to carry but not Prof. X or Frat boy Y because of the training issue.

Some things on the video, why not just barricade the door - they had plenty of heavy tables? I guess drawing him in looked good.

Hope shooters don't learn to pie doors. Great OP for to start this.

Some other thoughts, as just a mere former student.

Bad guys don't need to come in through the class entry doors. Many lecture halls, especially common halls with multiple large lecture rooms in one building, have maintenance spaces the students nominally don't have access to. At my college a bad guy could enter the podium from the maintenance door behind the stage, and engage every single person in the lecture hall from that position. The professor would be shot dead from behind without a clue. Use of a suppressor would mean multiple victims would be down before anyone could realize what that loud staple gun sound REALLY was.

Further, even single room classes have their issues. Like Glenn said above the bad guy doesn't need to enter the room. He need only shoot into it through the wall, and he'd get his casualties that way.

The distances involved between rows in college lecture halls mean precise training is MANDATORY. Cleetus with his Ruger LCP won't cut it. I realize the following helps the antis, but there's no getting around this. I counted the steps between the last row of the aforementioned college lecture halls and the front of the podium.

Came out to 50 steps. Further its a stadium style arrangement , so the actual linear distance between someone from the back rows and the podium is longer then that. From what I've seen at the public range , the typical gun owner wouldn't be able to make an effective hit from that distance. The hall has a pie shape with two exits, so if one sits close to the podium they're betting they can engage a shooter coming in from the back entrances over the heads of hundreds of fellow students.

Granted this isn't as much of a problem the later the semester gets (attendance being what it is ) ,but from what I've seen even squared away shooters would find it a major challenge to engage a spree shooter at a college campus, to say nothing about a "B27er" with a pocket pistol. The notion laptops and thrown objects can deter a bad guy with a firearm would probably get an F in a Hollywood screenwriting class.

[Peally]

Great thread. I'll comment on the video in a sec. Here's a take by a prof who is against such training.

http://chronicle.com/article/Don-t-Make-Me-Part-of-Your/233783?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&elq=87a32d4c41a4443ebd3d4998b311ef1a&elqCampaignId=1624&elqaid=6592&elqat=1&elqTrackId=15c0fdfa7f8045bcbc82dd1420b30287


I sincerely, honest to God hope that person never had children and never will as long as they walk this earth.

[Alpha Sierra]

I sincerely, honest to God hope that person never had children and never will as long as they walk this earth.

It's because of people like her why my plan is always to say F IT and simply go about my business as long as I'm not the intended victim.

[Kyle Reese]

I sincerely, honest to God hope that person never had children and never will as long as they walk this earth.

This (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2015/10/09/obamas-legacy-guns-ban/73682284/) one takes the cake.

[SamAdams]

Those statements by airheads illustrate the fact that human beings are the only creatures on the planet who can live in La-La Land. Imagine a lioness who would give up the tools she needs - tooth & claw - to protect her cubs. Impossible.

They believe their baloney deeply. Its emotional and is part of their fabricated personal identity. So, they are completely immune to facts or reason. -- Only a stronger felt emotion - the risk of their own imminent physical harm or that of a loved one, may change their views. And even that is probably a long shot.

[Alpha Sierra]

This (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2015/10/09/obamas-legacy-guns-ban/73682284/) one takes the cake.

She's so f-ing ugly she could be a modern art masterpiece

[GardoneVT]

She's so f-ing ugly she could be a modern art masterpiece

She looks pre-columbian to me.

[Drang]

It was a Kobayashi Maru of being punished for being in a 'fight' even if you were the one that got punched first and only. If you tattled prematurely, you were labeled a tattle tale and 'spreading lies' and if you fought back/defended yourself, you were essentially just as bad as the bully.
"You must have done something to have made them angry with you.":mad:

[Drang]

This (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2015/10/09/obamas-legacy-guns-ban/73682284/) one takes the cake.

Barbara LeSavoy is director of Women and Gender Studies at The College at Brockport.
This is my shocked face.

[olstyn]

This (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/opinion/guest-column/2015/10/09/obamas-legacy-guns-ban/73682284/) one takes the cake.

She's not even making an argument as to how or why, let alone addressing the practicalities of her desire in terms of political possibilities *or* enforcement realities, she just wants Obama to magically repeal the 2nd amendment *and* enact a federal ban. That is an impressive level of idealism, even for someone so obviously on the far fringe of their end of the political spectrum.

[Alpha Sierra]

She's not even making an argument as to how or why, let alone addressing the practicalities of her desire in terms of political possibilities *or* enforcement realities, she just wants Obama to magically repeal the 2nd amendment *and* enact a federal ban. That is an impressive level of idealism, even for someone so obviously on the far fringe of their end of the political spectrum.


This is his legacy. To establish gun control laws in America that will reduce high levels of male violence and usher in a culture of peace and civility.

She's beyond stupid. People like her deserve contempt and pain......

[olstyn]

She's beyond stupid. People like her deserve contempt and pain......

It's not like her impassioned plea will have any real-world effect, so she hasn't hurt me any, and therefore I don't wish her any pain, but her lack of understanding of the political process sure does inspire some contempt. :)

[45dotACP]

In short, zero tolerance bullying is essentially precog/minority report crap for kids to stress about in their social interactions. At this point, it's almost universally panned/shunned by schools around my area in NJ. If you're unfamiliar with it, it pigeon holes kids into 1 of 3 categories: bully, victim and bystander. One quickly learns that being a bystander or the bully is the best. One quickly learns that being the victim is the worst-doubly so, b/c the victim is typically punished along with the victim for 'fighting'. Subjectivity was (I think it's coming back slowly) going out the window. Victim accounts were treated like courtrooms across America-what did the victim do to cause this? I'm sure we've heard of examples.


Gotcha, Thanks for the explanation.

[RoyGBiv]

In short, zero tolerance bullying is essentially precog/minority report crap for kids to stress about in their social interactions. At this point, it's almost universally panned/shunned by schools around my area in NJ. If you're unfamiliar with it, it pigeon holes kids into 1 of 3 categories: bully, victim and bystander. One quickly learns that being a bystander or the bully is the best. One quickly learns that being the victim is the worst-doubly so, b/c the victim is typically punished along with the victim for 'fighting'. Subjectivity was (I think it's coming back slowly) going out the window. Victim accounts were treated like courtrooms across America-what did the victim do to cause this? I'm sure we've heard of examples.
A few years ago I found myself leaning across a vice principals desk explaining that if my kid got a black mark on their record for an act of self defense I would pursue justice until I ran out of funds. The vice principal responded "I realize your child may not suffer any repercussions at home for this." I nearly lost it. On the spot I told my kid they were going to have to take the next punch without retaliation and rather than tell the school they were to call 911 immediately and have the kid arrested... And then I would sue the school and the vice principal personally for failing to protect my child from a documented bully.

So far, so good.

[BaiHu]

A few years ago I found myself leaning across a vice principals desk explaining that if my kid got a black mark on their record for an act of self defense I would pursue justice until I ran out of funds. The vice principal responded "I realize your child may not suffer any repercussions at home for this." I nearly lost it. On the spot I told my kid they were going to have to take the next punch without retaliation and rather than tell the school they were to call 911 immediately and have the kid arrested... And then I would sue the school and the vice principal personally for failing to protect my child from a documented bully.

So far, so good.
Awesome work!

[olstyn]

Awesome work!

Indeed. I wish I could see a video of that, or even just a still of the VP's face upon realizing that s/he'd been beaten. :)

[RJ]

Indeed. I wish I could see a video of that, or even just a still of the VP's face upon realizing that s/he'd been beaten. :)

It was actually secretly filmed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H-cWXr-n5I

:cool: