Slashdot Mirror
How the Lessons of Columbine Saved Lives At Arapahoe High School
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Ray Sanchez reports at CNN that the handling of Friday's shooting at Arapahoe High School, just 10 miles from the scene of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, drew important lessons from the earlier bloodshed. At Arapahoe High School, where senior Claire Davis, 17, was critically injured before the shooter turned the gun on himself, law enforcement officers responded within minutes and immediately entered the school to confront the gunman rather than surrounding the building. As the sound of shots reverberated through the corridors, teachers immediately followed procedures put in place after Columbine, locking the doors and moving students to the rear of classrooms. "That's straight out of Columbine," says Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services. "The goal is to proceed and neutralize the shooter. Columbine really revolutionized the way law enforcement responds to active shooters." Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson credits the quick police response time for the fact that student Karl Pierson, the gunman, stopped firing on others and turned his weapon on himself less than 1 minute, 20 seconds after entering the school. Authorities knew from research and contact with forensic psychologists that school shooters typically continue firing until confronted by law enforcement. "It's very unfortunate that we have to say that there's a textbook response on the way to respond to these," says Trump, "because that textbook was written based on all of the incidents that we've had and the lessons learned (PDF).""
That doesn't mean you should stop trying,
I don't think the united states even tries. Or maybe they haven't been willing to increase the funding for mental health care. Or maybe it never reaches the news. Either way, I don't think you can say that USA has been trying hard at it, specially after these kind of events. It always seems to be the guns fault. And I always seem to think: there are a lot of ways to kill a lot of people without needing to fire a bullet (some include projectiles, some don't; some require time, some are more immediate).
Did you know that with some kind of explosive (preferably one that you can remotely detonate) and some coins (easily available) you probably can kill or severely injure a lot more people than you can with a firearm? The ensuring explosion is like a frag grenade, except you can make it a lot bigger and lethal. Bonus points for triggering it in a cafeteria o some other kind of eating place with lots of people.
OTOH I wonder what would the effects be if somebody grabbed some Uranium (apparently you can order some from Amazon for testing and calibrating devices) and slipped it into the food. Or some other kind of chemical.
But hey, you are right. Imposing more restrictions on firearms will surely reduce casualties. Unless you happen to stumble on somebody with a lot of determination and nothing to lose.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
Give ALL kids weapons. That way, they can all police themselves! After all, it's what George Washington wanted!
I don't respond to AC's.
correction, the first rule should be to allow mature adults to carry their weapons on them.
That American experiment isn't working too well. When you are in a hole, stop digging.
In other words, to take a play from the liberal handbook
So you're a right wing gun-nut. And semi-illiterate. Did you really have to confirm the stereotype?
The UK is one of the least free countries that has ever existed, in the same league as North Korea. They can keep their lower gun murder rates, the population is already 100% dead as human beings
NRA didn't have any more to do with that than NOW had to do with your menstrual rant.
Perhaps an education in what you are talking about could eventually replace the embarrassment you would feel at your emo regurgitation of cliche' estrogen whining popularized in dumb blonde jokes.
Arm the teachers. No different than arming a cop. Train the teachers( hey, if this is a problem, it's time to adapt to it, Liberal whining is as good as a UN decision any day. Let's try pro-active approaches instead of the same old shit.) Deploy the teachers. ESPECIALLY in bad neighborhoods in liberal cities with massive urban decay.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Newtown took place in the heart of gun-nut country, not the inner cities.
The number of gun deaths in rural America are way higher than in Europe.
The typical gun murder is of a family member. Those happen just as often in rural America, in fact they are rather more frequent because guns are easier to come by.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Lets look at it another way. I dont care how many "gun deaths " or "gun crimes" there are, Icare about ALL deaths and ALL crime. Get back to me when you have those numbers and see how much better off we are. After the gun ban in the UK for instance crime sky rocketed
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
> Ok, I'll call your bullshit. Do you realize the data you're pointing to does NOT validate your argument?
You're a moron if you think you are any less safe in a comparable place in the US than anywhere else in the world. We don't have a gun problem. We have a poverty problem masked as a gun problem.
Your likeliehood of being a victim of violence is related to poverty, not the availibility of guns. In those areas where violence is likely, no one needs a gun to do you harm.
You're just a sheltered idiot.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.