Slashdot Mirror


US School Installs 'Shooter Detection' System

An anonymous reader writes: A school in Methuen, Massachusetts has demonstrated the first installation of an automated detection system for active gunmen. Sensors placed throughout the building are activated by the sounds of gunfire. The sensors relay data on the shooter's real-time location directly to police, who can then track and subdue their target. The system was developed for the military to detect the location of enemy fire. It will cost school districts between $20,000 and $100,000 to equip each school with the gunfire-detecting sensors. Methuen's police chief said, "It's amazing, the short, split-second amount of time from identification of the shot to transmission of the message. It changes the whole game. Without that shot detection system, we wouldn't know what was going on in the school ... Valuable, valuable time can be lost. Unfortunately, with school crisis situations, it's about mitigating loss."

38 of 698 comments (clear)

  1. Wonderful idea. by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just remember, whatever you do, don't ever drop your books in the hallway.

    Trust me. Don't do it.

    1. Re:Wonderful idea. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      22 lr is ~145 db.

      It's sharp enough to stand out from other noise, including dropping a book.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Wonderful idea. by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Informative

      And kids totally won't abuse the system to get out of taking their finals. Why pull the fire alarm when you can make a really great prank!

      I'm not American, so maybe you do things differently, but here in the UK, if there's some disastrous event that means you have to evacuate a school/college during exam time, then we just reschedule the exams for another day.

      I expect it's socialism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:Wonderful idea. by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      there are setups that can bring the muzzle report to a mere whisper. Sometimes you wouldn't hear it if it went off next to your ear.

      (disclosure: I stalk small mammals for food, silence truly is golden. My loudest rifle reports at about the same volume as someone cracking a can of soda).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    4. Re:Wonderful idea. by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that "various gunshots" sound a lot more like one another than "a gunshot" and "a book hitting the floor" sound like one another:

      For instance:
      - dropping a book doesn't cause a supersonic snap as it passes by the sensor - a bullet does.
      - a book hitting the floor is not going to create a sound that is 120 dB to 160 dB - noise levels equivalent to "somewhere between a pnemuatic riveter and a jet engine." The muzzle blast from a gun does create a sound that loud.

      So there's two fairly easy to discriminate characteristics that are pretty unlikely in a school setting. If the system detects and reports on those, it should be pretty easy to eliminate false positives from some douche-canoe in the library dropping a book on the floor.

      I take it you've never fired any guns in your life.
      The sound of a gunshot varies wildly with the type of gun, the type of ammunition, the space you're in, the direction the gun is facing relative to you, and your distance from the gun (distance doesn't just effect the loudness). A rifle shot in an open space can be heard for miles. A handgun shot in a closed room can go unnoticed by people in the adjoining room.

      I can guarantee you 2 things:
      1: This system simply detects and tries to locate the source of a sudden spike.
      2: Students will try to trip it, and they will succeed.

  2. Lol. by waspleg · · Score: 2, Funny

    3 - 2 - 1 .. Some kid brings a speaker plugged in to a cellphone/whatever plays gunfire gets school shut down for the day...

    It'll be the new pulling the fire alarm/calling in bomb threat (taken way too seriously these days) =)

    1. Re:Lol. by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was thinking the same thing. When I was a kid, setting off blackcats (firecrackers) in the bathroom
      was not unheard of. This makes that even more appealing.
      My biggest problem with these type of systems is that the cost/reward is so lopsided. There is
      so much more effective ways of saving lives than trying to protect yourself from a 1 in a million event.
      Children are way way more likely to be injured by their parents at home than they are by a school shooting.
      A tornado or a fire is probably also way more likely to injure a kid at school than a school shooting.
      There have to be better things to spend money on than expensive equipment that based on probabilities
      will likely never be used.

    2. Re:Lol. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could even buy them new books, computers, teacher's salaries, decent heating systems, lunch.

      Why the number of things a student could more likely benefit from is just amazing!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Lol. by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      You are correct.

      Every school shooting is a tragedy. It is a terrible, awful, awful thing. As a parent, I can't even imagine...don't want to. But it's really, really rare. Since 2000 there have been an average of 2 incidents per year of gunfire with injury at a K-12 school. Most of these only involve one victim, sometimes the shooter himself. There are 100,000 public schools in the US (and another 30,000 private schools). There's an average of 180 school days to a year. So at US public schools, 18,999,998 times per year a school bell rings in the morning, and in the afternoon, and in between not a shot is heard. And 2 awful, awful times, there is. But it's a 1 in 9 million chance of it happening on any given day. And even that tragedy injures or kills a very, very small fraction of the students.

      There's just nothing you can do to prevent an event that rare that will not have unintended consequences, and those unintended consequences may be worse than what you were trying to prevent.

      Ban all guns? First, good luck. There are something like 300 million guns in the US. Who's going to collect them all? And there's the unintended consequence, that the criminals who don't turn in their guns will now know their law-abiding victims are unarmed. More people are going to die because they can't defend themselves. And we already have background checks and laws against selling guns to criminals, the mentally ill and minors. The shooters get their guns from people who wouldn't be on a list denying them purchase anyway.

      Arm teachers? First, teachers are not cops or soldiers. The Kindergarten teachers are not going to suddenly morph into SEAL Team 6 and take out the bad guy. More likely, a student will get his hands on a teacher's improperly secured gun, or the teacher him/herself might be the one to go nuts and start shooting. Now you've got a shooting where there never would have been one otherwise.

      You can spend millions turning every school into a fortress, but it's still not going to stop a determined attacker. It's the defender's dilemma. Plus the opportunity cost...you could have actually spent that money on teachers and books instead.

      There is this fetish for control in America, where people seem to think you can make it so nothing bad will ever happen. But you can't. The world is messy. There's nothing you can do to stop events that rare. Mourn the dead, hug your kids, watch out for troubled youngsters who need help, and move on.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  3. One problem solved, now the other... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One problem was solved. Now the other problem needs to be solved. Namely, what causes students to snap and to do that in the first place.

  4. Re:This is so stupid. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

    Yep, when is the last time the police actually confronted and stopped the shooter?

    Yea, it happens... but just as often, if not more often, some teacher tackles the kid, or as you say, he runs out of bullets, or he shoots himself so he doesn't have to live with what he just did...

    Something worth considering... When is the last time a school shooter was a girl? Why is that? No one wants to talk about gender roles anymore, we're all the "same".

    That is silly, we CLEARLY aren't the same, yet we keep saying, "no, no, everyone can do everything and both genders are equal".

  5. Re:Benefits, but still misses the point... by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Informative
    I mostly disagreed with you until you got to

    Of course, the REAL issue isn't even guns, it is mental health. We have kids who are unstable, unbalanced, and unloved, and the system does nothing for them. There is no way to identify problem or challenged kids and get them some help before they go off the deep end.

    This isn't limited to kids, we have the same problem with adults. The mental health care system in this county is sad, we don't offer help early enough to those who need it and as a result, we have people who go crazy and do stupid stuff.

    Because indeed we are dealing with a mental health issue. In particular we are dealing with two mental health issues that are widespread in our country:

    • People don't have access to good mental health treatment options
    • People who seek mental health treatment are still stigmatized for doing so

    Until we address those issues we will still have these problems. It doesn't matter where you put guns, detectors, or anything else. All you can do is move the problem around. To make matters worse the 2010 health care bill was more about rewarding terrible insurance companies than it was actually about helping people get access to care that they need.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  6. Re:meanwhile in the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    spree shooters are also rare. this is an over reaction to a small problem

  7. Is it worth it? by djchristensen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That equates to something like $2B to $10B to equip all the public schools in the US to stop a very small number of deaths. Such a system would have done nothing for the kids in the school in Washington State a few weeks back. I think very few of these school shootings last long enough for a system like this to make a real difference. But it makes people feel safer to think their kids are protected. I just wonder how much more effective that money could be at helping the potential perpetrators and preventing the shootings in the first place. It's amazing to me how stupid we are in this country that $20K+ per school to react faster to a catastrophe is so much more palatable than helping distressed kids and preventing the catastrophe in the first place.

  8. Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by pollarda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The big assumption is that the gunman is continually firing shots that will allow the system to work. Alternatively, off the shelf wi-fi enabled cameras could be purchased that would provide real-time video feeds throughout the school allowing law enforcement to not only "hear" where the gunman is but to be able to actually see the gunman and potential victims as they move (or hide). Estimated cost: $5,000 - $10,000 depending on how many cameras are installed. (The prices are retail so I bet the schools can get an additional 30% off as they would probably be considered a wholesale customer.)

    Sure the technology is cool but it doesn't make it the best choice for taxpayer dollars especially given the relative rarity of school shootings. During the 2009 - 2010 school year there were 98,817 public schools. Let's say they were all equipped with this system at $50,000 / school it would cost $4,940,850,000 to retrofit all the schools. I wonder what else can be done with 5 billion dollars... Perhaps some significant development work in vaccines? Perhaps cancer? Heck, I bet more lives would be saved simply choosing random people that need medical care and making sure they get the very best treatment possible.

    1. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by squidflakes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is also this crazy idea about sensible gun legislation that would help to prevent stuff like this. You know, if we're talking crazy things that will never happen in the U.S.

    2. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Alternatively, off the shelf wi-fi enabled cameras could be purchased that would provide real-time video feeds throughout the school allowing law enforcement to not only "hear" where the gunman is but to be able to actually see the gunman and potential victims as they move

      At which point you're saying your kids have zero right to privacy, and are expected to be monitored the entire time they're in school.

      Awesome idea, get them used to it while they're young! That way they'll be nice and compliant when they're adults.

      I'm sure Google and Facebook (and the government) will love to have the facial recognition cameras trained on everyone before they're old enough to understand.

      And, of course, the perverts will want to hack your cameras because of all of the pictures of kids.

      Oh, and of course the schools will sell the data to an analytics company. Because, you gotta pay for that somehow.

      I really don't see your solution being anything other than a terrible idea. Neither for society, nor for the kids you think it will protect.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a completely unabashed gun control proponent, nothing billed under the term "common sense" actually addresses this kind of shooting(which also shouldn't be the main target of gun control legislation, lives lost in mass shootings aren't more important than those lost one at time).

      Most mental disorders are undiagnosed, many school shooters use firearms belonging to family members who don't share their disorders, and as long as the identities of gun owners is somehow considered sacrosanct and unrecorded, purchases under false pretenses will happen.

    4. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Or they could even spend that 5 billion on the schools themselves, given how many schools have had their budgets cut lately. Textbooks, computers, etc. :P

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      Purchases are not the real problem. Many shooters use stolen wepons. But we should have mental health testing in schools and in the work places and a good treatment system to help those who need help. Most of America has a joke for a mental health system and the way we structure our economy assures that we will not have good mental health care. For example many convicts have severe mental issues. But how do we provide seriously skilled physicians who command huge salaries to treat convictcs?

    6. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
      Barriers to firearm access(which isn't the same as ownership) would curtail these kinds of shootings.

      It would turn them into stabbings instead. And once the perpetrators read up a bit on how to stab people properly (so they have no chance of survival), death counts will be indistinguishable from your average school shooting.

    7. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or, even better, we could just take all the damned SSRIs off the market; because, if you look at the history, these "school shootings" were virtually unknown until SSRIs came on the scene, then there has been a steady drip, drip, drip of these incidents, and particularly in the U.S.A., where SSRIs are hideously over-prescribed.

      I am so tired of hearing this.

      As a doctor I once had said; "Co-relation is not causation, I'm pretty sure all those shooters also regularly drank milk yet I don't see people blaming milk for suicides or homicides."

      A part of the problem is some people are just prone to violence and they're given these drugs without any real support because their councilor/parent/doctor expects the drug to do all the work but in reality it doesn't work that way; taking mood stabilizing drugs without support and encouragement is like taking diet pills and expecting to lose weight without changing your lifestyle to accommodate healthy food and exercise.

      I was once on an SSRI; Sertraline Hydrochloride, for a couple years and it really helped me get stable, and at the time the county provided a not-for-profit support network, complete with doctors and councilors, for those suffering from mental anguish and with their help I learned how to deal with negative feelings and life's problems, had people to talk to, I made friends and they helped me reach the goal of being stable enough to get off my medicine. Fast forward a few years I'm happy guy no longer on SSRIs contributing to society with a well paying job and good friends. Ultimately the medicine did it's job to help my mind to heal like a splint helps a limb to heal, and I'll be ever grateful to those who supported me in my time of need.

      Something else to take into consideration is that a drug that works 100% of the time in all cases is a fantasy because everyone's body chemistry is different so any drug can have adverse effects including but not limited to behavior, so healthcare workers and the patient alike need to work together to find a drug that works.

      Long story short; SSRIs are the product of half a century of careful research and not the evil scapegoat you and your preferred cable news channel ignorantly make them out to be.

    8. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I certainly hope you're not implying that US police are in a position to justly determine who qualifies, considering recent history.

      Seriously, I figured after the government's reaction to the Occupy and Ferguson protests, the left-wingers would have realized that maybe Big Brother isn't the trustworthy soul they always believed in.

      Also, per the Constitution, self defense is a legitimate reason to own guns... hell, "I like guns" is a legitimate reason. Don't like it, move to Amend. Its your only legal avenue.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Easy: If the person wishing to own a gun can demonstrate they have a good reason (work, sport, hunting, collecting, etc.) and not "I'm scared!", and can demonstrate that their guns will be stored securely, then they can have a gun. That's what more sane countries do, and they're reaping the benefits. Blaming this because the US is so big is a pathetic attempt to hand-waive away the issue. It's the same nonsensical argument people put up when discussing why internet access and health insurance are so terrible in the US as well, and as long as people make such stupid arguments, the US will continue to suffer.

    10. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's a great thought exercise for you.

      2 men, both same age, same general physique, etc.

      In scenario 1, man #1 has a gun, how much good will running away do man #2?

      In scenario 2, man #1 has a knife, how much good will running away do man #2?

      Come back when you realize how dumb your argument sounds to anyone with a functioning brain stem.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    11. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Curtailing access to them means that some people cannot get them. That may be a problem...

      People talk about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Great in theory, but is MUCH more problematic in practice. Mental illness is not binary -- it comes in various degrees and kinds.

      Should a person who hears voices telling him to kill people be denied a gun? Probably.
      Should a person who compulsively washes his hands be denied a gun? Probably not.

      If a person is on anti-depressants be denied a gun? What if they stopped taking them (this could be good or bad)? What if they stopped taking them last week against their doctor's orders? What if they stopped taking them 20 years ago?

      Suppose a person is dangerous enough to require having their rights to arms removed... Who makes that determination? Does it just take one psychologist? Should it take a board of 3 or 7 doctors? Should a judge be involved?

      If the person gets better, how are their rights restored? Once again, who makes this determination? What are the criteria?

      And suppose a person already HAS guns. Maybe they are a hunter, and love hunting. Because they are afraid of loosing their favorite recreation, they AVOID seeking mental help. Is that a great idea?

      Suppose a woman has some mental health issues and is denied a gun. However, her ex has a criminal record for violent offenses and has threatened death against the woman. Should the then be allowed to own a gun to protect herself? If so, who makes this decision? How long would it take for this issue to go through the courts? Would she even live that long?

      Seriously. just focusing on the guns is ignorant. Just saying "don't give them to lunatics" is easy to say, but much harder to do in practice. When there IS a school shooting, what is the first thing to happen? People show up to help, with guns.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    12. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to know you're lying.

      You have to be aware that stabbing people to death isn't easy. That it's intimate, requires physical struggle, requires proximity, strength, and swiftness, a good knowledge how to deliver deadly blows. People can run away, and then you can't hurt them, unless you chase.

      Honestly, how can you live with yourself, when you are so intentionally duplicitous? Are you okay with doing that? I mean... really? Do you believe the things you're saying? Honestly? Is "winning" random-ass internet gun debates so important to you that your honesty is worth it?

    13. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by firewrought · · Score: 2

      To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be satisfied that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms certificates are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.

      Not even remotely similar to anything proposed in the US as common sense.

      In the US, protection from the state itself is a valid reason to own a firearm. The founders believed that the government must always be afraid of the people, not the other way around, and the second amendment was seen (rightly or wrongly) as a means of securing this.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    14. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by Art+Challenor · · Score: 2

      The Constitution specifies "bear Arms" and yet I'm precluded from owning small atomic weapons, dirty bombs, SAMs, etc. So we're clear that some restrictions are acceptable. Sane restrictions would include keeping guns safe from school shooters.

    15. Re:Dumb idea ... Lots of assumptions .... by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      Alternatively we could spend money on mental health and outreach programs for troubled children. But spending all the money on a reactive system is probably better than a proactive approach...

      I agree completely. But that doesn't go anywhere close to making sure our precious babies are safe!

      We need hourly strip searches with body cavity probes of all students starting in kindergarten. There's no other way to stop the epidemic of school violence that has taken the lives of dozens of our most precious snowflakes.

      No, that doesn't really go far enough. An hour is a long time, anything can happen. We need permanent body cavity probes implanted in our kids, with miniature cameras implanted on their retinas monitored 24 hours a day by those with the same high-level, compassionate training as the tough, smart, patriotic members of the TSA!

      That will also make things much easier as the kids get older, as we won't have to spend so much money on wiretaps, surveillance cameras and the like as that capability will already be implanted on every one. It's a win/win!

      No more school shootings. Reduced spending on stopping the filthy terrorists who hate us because we're so awesome, and much better tools for law enforcement to keep us safe!

      Yes, it costs money, but you need to think of the children! We can't let anything get in the way of that. Privacy, liberty and human dignity are nothing in comparison with making sure our special snowflakes don't skin their knees or, gasp!, smoke pot.

      We're Americans! We do whatever is necessary to make sure we have the best. That's why there are only ~30,000+ automobile deaths per year. We knew we had a problem and we put massive amounts of resources into stopping automobile deaths.

      That's why only 70 Million Americans have medical debt and why the most common cause of personal bankruptcy is medical debt. Because we know healthcare is so important to our productivity and the living standards of our citizens, so we created the most effective healthcare system ever devised! But there are some who are trying (with communist ObamaCare) to take that away from us. They are the enemy and should be summarily executed for killing the American dream.

      We always focus on the most important issues and make sure that our limited resources are used to address the biggest problems. Because we're American. Because we're smart. Because we're better than everyone else. We don't need any of that scientific stuff like data and statistics to tell us what poses the most risk.

      What we need (and have) are smart, tough businessmen who will step up and sell us exactly what we need when we're panicked, supply-chain permitting, of course.

      Those are the most important members of society and should be treated as such.

      We need constitutional amendments protecting your betters from all legal action, civil and criminal, and exemption from all taxes, because without those folks we can't protect our children.

      They work hard to make sure that profits are up, and that only helps everyone who matters. So go out and thank a corporate CEO today. Insist that he fuck your wife and daughters -- their genes are better than yours anyway. Again, it's a win/win!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  9. population control through fear mogering and intim by real+gumby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Suzanne Kennan, a resident who lives across from the school...supported the investment anyway.

    ‘‘Unfortunately we’re at a point where we have to do something like this,’’

    Yes, we're at a point where the level of violent crime is at its lowest in 40 years but apparently a crazy response is needed regardless.

    Needless to say, there's no discussion in this article. Simply a visit to the school for the demonstration, a quick chat with the cops, and a thoughtless quote from the neighbor.

    I have a kid in school and frankly I think all this pseudo "security" is more dangerous for shaping future civic involvement than the anhistorical gibberish in the history books.

  10. Re:Benefits, but still misses the point... by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem with schools is that they are a factory for mental illness. The schools put up a front of being "zero tolerance" for bullies, but what it comes down to is that the bullies are protected by the system and the people they bully are punished for standing up to them or fighting back. My best friend and I both have "snapped" at some point and attacked our bullies back and we were both punished for it. I received corporal punishment and he was expelled. I can cite dozens of examples from among my peers where they eventually got fed up and fought back, and were punished for it. The only difference between me and Columbine is the scale. But the message is the same. The people that get picked on year after year and finally stand up to the bullys are the bad guys and the bullys are the martyrs.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  11. 20-100 computers worth of cost. by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    20-100k? You got to be kidding.

    Amazing how much the pro-gun lobby wants to waste on expensive crap like this, rather than simply allowing for effective laws. Hell, for most of what we need, we don't even need to create new laws, just start enforcing the current ones - in part by firing idiotic state government employees that refuse to comply with with federal reporting requirments

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  12. Re:Benefits, but still misses the point... by jandersen · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are so right - it is LACK OF WEAPONS that is causing all these shootings. So, instead of installing security systems, let's install automatic rocket launchers in all schools, and while we're at it, why not put something like VX gas or anthrax in the little perfume dispensers in the toilets?

  13. Re:100k per school? by qbast · · Score: 2

    But ... but ... if even *one* live is saved, it is totally worth it! Why won't you think of the children?

  14. Expensive and will be unused by bobjr94 · · Score: 2

    What are there, maybe 4 school shootings per year in the US ? And 98,000 public schools. What does that make the odds of a school actually having a shooting, about 1 in 25,000 ?

  15. Re:Lock-em down by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Call me when they tied the detectors into a system that mag-locks the doors and windows shut to confine the shooter in one location.

    Call me when a system like that is allowed by the local fire safety code.

  16. Re:Benefits, but still misses the point... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    No, you didn't get to take your gun INTO the school. You left it in the truck or it was locked up. Even in Texas, we weren't allowed to bring guns inside the building without supervision (bringing them into metal shop for example). Besides, what you are talking about is teenagers with pistols of various flavors wandering around a building full of teenaged angst and hormones. It might work in place like Israel where kids aged 14 start getting military training (firearm control, discipline, discipline, discipline) but in LA? Not so much.

    And, as you point out, the real issue isn't guns. It's better mental health. The problem is something of this magnitude is going to cost much more than the four billion dollars estimated by pollarda. And even access to mental health isn't going to solve the issue of teenage nervous breakdown.

    You're still better off fixing school and church buses so they don't kill the dozen or so people every year.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!