
90% of American public schools now hold mass shooting drills for students - gumby
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17016382/school-shooting-drills-training
======
rubicon33
We have such a strange culture of guns in this country.

This point became poignantly clear to me once when I was a potential juror on
a gun-murder case. I remember they were screening the potential jurors for
biases and they asked the large group of us:

"How many of you personally own a gun"

I looked around the room and and figured out of the 30 or so people maybe 5
would raise their hand.

It was more like 25.

It was on that day that America's gun obsession became real, quantifiable for
me. Here was a cross section of my community, and I was a significant minority
when it came to firepower. Almost everyone in that group, young and old, black
and white, you name it, had a gun. People I was sure wouldn't raise their
hand, raised their hands.

~~~
brightball
I never owned one until I was about 31 and my daughter was born.

I live in a rural area and there was a break in less than a mile from my
house, in the middle of the day, while the mom was inside. Some guy strung out
on something decided to break in and attacked her. Somehow she managed to hit
him hard enough that she got away, locked herself in a room and called the
police while the guy ran away.

Police arrived about 10 minutes later and luckily she wasn't permanently
harmed.

When something like that happens and you start running through scenarios in
your head of what you would do if somebody had broken into your house while
your family was inside?

The amount of time it would take to get the kids safely into a room so that we
could call the police and wait things out, especially once somebody is
potentially already in your house...is very high.

At the same time, as soon as somebody realizes you can shoot back...they run
away. That's one of the reasons why 12 gauge shotguns that make the extremely
loud cocking sound are so popular for home defense. People take for granted
the value of an unfired gun because the _threat_ is generally enough of a
deterrent.

I have never considered myself to be a "gun nut" or "gun obsessed" in any way
shape or form. I've spent some time at ranges to make sure I was accurate and
I've taken classes in responsible handling because I wanted to make sure I
knew what I was doing.

At the same time, because I 100% view it as a home defense mechanism, the idea
of not having it makes me very uncomfortable. Knowing that it is there and it
will work in the unlikely event that I need it to work...that I won't have to
wonder if batteries have run out or a pepper spray has expired...that is
reassuring.

Schools are a unique situation in the firearm world because in most locations
where firearms are not allowed, government buildings, etc there is some type
of security in place. Usually at the doors with armed guards and metal
detectors.

Schools are the place where that isn't the case, which makes them a prime
target for things like this.

The part where it's frustrating to have this conversation is that I fully
understand the concerns of both teachers and parents about the idea of having
armed guards, etc in a school. The problem is that the amount of people who
die is directly related to the response time of somebody stopping the shooter.
Lock-down procedures that have been implemented are a great step in that
direction to buy time for police to arrive. Maybe the solution is metal doors
with bullet proof glass to allow classrooms to be secure in the event of an
emergency?

Beyond that, I can't think of many other ways to cut down response time other
than having somebody on site, who is trained by police, authorized to do so.

The problem solver in me wants to solve the problem, but there's not an easy
answer unfortunately. What I do know is that when police are called, they are
arriving at the school to stop the shooter with guns.

In my mind it's increasingly difficult in the face of tragedies like this to
ignore that fact and insist that the only people able to respond must be
people who have to drive to the location to do so.

But it's more difficult when the conversation centers on two groups of people
who feel threatened. One group is threatened by people who have guns. The
other is threatened by not having guns themselves.

~~~
jotm
You're right about the home defense thinking. There's been a break in at night
at a neighbor 2 houses away from me. Nobody called the police, they arrived
the next day with questions. No one was home, but what if they were?

But take away the legality of guns and all I have is the phone, the police, a
few kitchen knives and me. A gun would be a huuuge advantage. However, since
few have guns, any potential assailant is also likely to not have one.

It's really different for the US right now, because even if a ban was
implemented, anyone with criminal intent can have one fast, while the rest can
just hope the police arrive fast enough...

It would take decades, a generation even, to completely remove guns from most
people's lives.

~~~
throwaway5752
I think to have a totally honest discussion you have to look at the full path
of outcomes:

1) the odds of successful prevention given whether the assailants are armed
with a gun or not (and the probability they are, based on policy/availability)
2) are the actually assailants or a family member sneaking in/a drunk 3) what
is the probability that the weapon will be used for self harm (intentional or
accidental) 4) what is the odds (to avoid presuming moral perfection of gun
owners) that the gun will be used in a different crime?

I don't think anyone would argue that some crime has not been prevented
because of armed homeowners. The most simple reduction is that if you add
together all the negative outcomes, are they balanced out by the positive and
that is the sweet spot for policy. However, that ignores the positive utility
that people have for the right to own firearms. Some people effectively
effectively confer infinite utility to that ("Molon labe" folks) and how
should society deal with such people in attempting to reach some sort of
balance?

ps - preemptively, "1) the odds of successful prevention given whether the
assailants are armed with a gun or not (and the probability they are, based on
policy/availability)" is always controversial. "criminals will always find a
way to get guns"... strikes me as an altogether and false framing. We attempt
to regulate all sort of harmful activities uncontroversially to great degrees
of success.

------
eftychis
>> While one of the primary goals of crisis preparedness is to develop a sense
of empowerment and control, armed assailant drills not conducted appropriately
may cause physical and psychological harm to students, staff, and the overall
learning environment.

This is the most interesting comment in the article. The purpose of a school
is to introduce a functioning person to the society. How long will it take
till kids feel school shootings are a norm, they are terrified or worse a
viable approach to release your frustrations and end your life.

I don't think people realize the effect various solutions have to future
generations. One could consider Metal detectors in schools as a stepping stone
to feeling it is normal to be considered as a threat by the society as a kid
and ok to be watched by the Big Brother. (Where I grew up, I remember they
added a fence at some point and people were negative (on average) as "it will
make kids feel like they are, or it is acceptable, to be caged and not free
citizens." To that society, saying you are doing a shooting drill will appear
as a post-apocalyptic universe idea.)

P.S. FYI gun ownership is high in that area (from hunting rifles to
operational WWII assault rifles).

------
keeganjw
I'm American and I remember doing these in school. If people from other
countries could weigh in here, is this common where you're from? Even though
school shootings are far less common in most places, do you still have the
drills?

~~~
jandrese
Your comment is tragic and funny because it's almost exactly an onion
headline:

[https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-
na...](https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-
this-r-1823016659)

We aren't the first nation to have a problem with mass shootings, but we are
the first nation to not respond by banning guns. For case studies, read up on
mass shootings in England, Germany, Japan, and Australia.

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-
america-t...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-
is-how-you-do-gun-control)

~~~
krapp
>We aren't the first nation to have a problem with mass shootings, but we are
the first nation to not respond by banning guns.

That's what happens when your nation is founded on the thesis that an armed
populace is necessary for a free state...

~~~
jandrese
The US is not even close to the first to have an armed populace for the
national defense. English longbowmen are another example of an armed populace.
Many countries have compulsory military service for young men.

------
clarkmoody
What percentage of public schools allow teachers to carry firearms?

I know a couple schools in Texas went forward with proper training for a few
teachers who wanted to carry in school. Frangible ammo, clearing tactics,
proper concealment. I'm sure if there were any incidents at those schools, it
would be all over the national news, but I haven't heard anything yet.

It seems like teachers with guns would be a better option than teachers as
[temporary] shields for students. Also seems better than "turn the lights off
and hide."

I've heard all the arguments about students getting ahold of a teacher's gun,
accidental discharge, etc. If you're making those sorts of arguments, do you
also carry a gun?

As others have mentioned, the gun culture in America is not going to change
any time soon, so the politicians are not going to "take away the guns." We're
also continuing to pump psychotropic drugs into our children by the millions.
Add to that the environment of public school: raging hormones, toxic bullying,
dehumanizing suppression of individuality. Not exactly a recipe for peace.

Perhaps it's time to try something different?

~~~
qxamak
I've always found this debate interesting. I own a few guns and don't want to
see my rights restricted. But I also don't feel comfortable with the thought
of my kid's teacher carrying a gun. And while I don't dismiss the possibility
of armed teachers being a deterrent for school shootings, I do question the
fact that so many other countries that have more restrictive gun control laws
also have far fewer homicide rates (especially in mass shooting situations).

As a scientist, it feels like I'm looking at a dataset of the rest of the
world that shows a strong correlation between strict gun control and lower
homicide rates. But then I say to myself, "maybe we (America) can have less
gun control, which will cause us to exhibit even lower homicide rates". But I
know that thought doesn't really make sense.

~~~
jotm
... my response can be summed up with "wat"

Edit: fine, alright. He's questioning the fact so many other countries with
strict gun controls have fewer homicide rates. No shit they do.

Acknowledging the correlation between gun control and lower homicide rates,
this "scientist" then says to himself "maybe we can have less gun control,
which will cause us to exhibit lower homicide rates".

And then he edits it with "But I know that thought doesn't really make sense".

Fucking social media, I swear. I want to quit it like I want to quit nicotine
and alcohol.

~~~
qxamak
I was trying to point to the absurdity of the debate, even as someone who
(moderately) opposes gun control laws. And I think we actually agree with each
other on the "scientific" basis of my comments. I view the logic behind the
debate in a similar way that a drunk driver might say, "well, if I was even
more intoxicated, then I wouldn't have caused that accident". It doesn't
really make sense to think that way. But the narrative of putting more guns
into schools as a benefit has been pushed so hard that it actually makes me
question the potential positive outcome (as opposed to outright rejecting it
based on the preponderance of evidence to the contrary).

------
katzgrau
My wife was a teacher and eventually principal. One time we were discussing
the idea of buying a bullet proof vest just in case. Then the absurdity of
what we are now accepting as normal struck me.

------
gremlinsinc
This is scary... kids are impressionable, and having drills like this may
actually backfire and romanticize the idea of becoming the shooter for a
number of kids who already could be prone to doing that.

When we had fire drills I'd often imagine pulling the red lever walking back
into the school... to trigger another... not the same thing, and I never
thought of starting a fire -- but I also often kind of hoped that one of these
drills would be the real thing so we wouldn't have to go back into school.

------
Balgair
My SO is a teacher and has them monthly, randomly scheduled. They just lock
the door, turn out the lights, and play with their phones in the corner until
the all clear bell. It messes up the curriculum and learning to just stop-drop
and chill for 30 minutes.

'Fortunately' the largest concern they have is the suicide cell currently
working it's way through. Turns out, suicide is pretty contagious:
[http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/teen-suicide-
contagious-c...](http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/28/teen-suicide-contagious-
colorado-springs-511365.html)

------
zaidf
In 1999, the middle school I attended required meshed or see-through bookbags.
May be more schools should put in policies like these while we wait on our
politicians to do something.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Let's just skip straight to requiring all students to be naked and start the
school day with cavity checks.

/s

I will never understand why people think starting from an assumption of guilt
and treating all of the potential victims as guilty parties is some kind of
improvement. This does not foster a more civilized environment. It has the
opposite effect. It just escalates the atmosphere of terror.

~~~
Balgair
You laugh, but...: [https://www.courthousenews.com/dehumanizing-body-cavity-
sear...](https://www.courthousenews.com/dehumanizing-body-cavity-search-at-
school/)

~~~
DoreenMichele
No, not funny at all. Thank you for posting it. Under some jurisdictions, this
would qualify as sexual assault and it's horrible.

------
danschumann
Are there any states where guns are allowed and prevalent in schools? Seems
like a mass shooter would want to go to a place where he knows he is the only
person with a gun.

On one hand, if there a tons of guns in schools, perhaps kids would randomly
shoot eachother during fights. On the other hand, there are mass shooters who
see schools as easy targets.

The shooter in FL apparently had lots of FBI data on him. He told kids about
guns, he posted weird comments on youtube.

~~~
throwaway5752
_Are there any states where guns are allowed and prevalent in schools? Seems
like a mass shooter would want to go to a place where he knows he is the only
person with a gun._

I don't know. But Florida is notorious for having some of the loosest gun laws
in the country and it didn't seem to affect the outcome here at all (or in the
Orlando nightclub).

The Texas army base shooting seems like a double whammy: extremely loose gun
laws, and highly armed target. The recent church shooting happened in Texas,
too.

It is fascinating. It seems like the availability/nearyby availability of guns
seems correlated with the occurrence of mass shootings, but has no correlation
with prevention.

I wonder if the CDC has been able to conduct any research on this subject
using data that state level law enforcement collects?

~~~
breakpointalpha
It's illegal in Florida to conceal carry in a bar or any establishment that
derives more than 50% of it's revenue from the sale of alcohol.

Also, it's a big assumption that gun ownership = gun carrying. There are a
_lot_ of people who have 2-3 guns (shotgun, rifle, pistol) at home, and never
carry them unless specifically heading to a shooting range or hunting.

Also, as others have pointed out, personal firearm carrying is _highly_
restricted on active duty military bases. You'd probably find more guns in
cars at a Texas Walmart than you would at a Texas military barracks.

~~~
throwaway5752
"it's a big assumption that gun ownership = gun carrying" ... seems like one
is an obvious prerequisite to the other, so you'd at least expect some degree
of correlation, correct? I'm certainly not suggesting there aren't responsible
gun owners (in fact I believe they are a large majority). I personally know
many people just like you describe (generally do not carry, otherwise stored
unloaded in a safe).

To go back a bit, why didn't a CCL bystander intervene, though, in the Orlando
shooting even if nobody was armed in the club? I just think the asymmetry of
active shooter situations renders an armed population basically useless most
of the time, and people apt to grossly overestimate how effective they would
be.

My suspicion is that the risk from death (all cause and homicide only) from
firearm is highly correlated with degree of gun ownership. And the real
discussion is how much should people give away in the balance of their right
to stay alive vs other peoples' liberty to own firearms. It think that is not
a bad faith reduction. Firearm deaths will never be zero, and there are and
must be restrictions on ownership of weapons (NBC weapons, artillery) at some
level.

I'm slightly guilty of bad faith with asking a bad faith question. I know the
CDC is prevented by law from doing this sort of epidemiological study, so we
are sort of left in a state arguing without facts (and that seems
intentional).

------
nolite
Wow. And back when I was in school, we only used to hide under furniture like
that for tornado drills. What hte hell is the world coming to...

------
watertom
We as a society are fine with mentally unstable individuals having access to
multi-shot, and semi-automatic handguns and assault weapons.

When a person takes one of these weapons and begins indiscriminately killing
people it's not an "evil" act, it's the act of a mentally ill individual,
plain and simple. When we label it as "evil" we absolve ourselves of our duty
to act, because evil is a nameless, faceless, and uncontrollable entity, it's
just something we must live with. When in reality what's causing these
shooting is the crisis of mental illness that is facing this country, and that
is something we can control, but we've chosen to ignore. Mental illness is one
of those topics that can't be discussed, it's private, and it's embarrassing,
but it's killing us.

Mentally unstable individuals have unlimited access to weapons and ammunition
is fully supported by our laws, and by the majority of the population. It's
only prudent for schools to hold drills for dealing with active shooters
because it's an accepted and encouraged part of our culture.

~~~
FireBeyond
Here's the challenge with "more arms".

We talk about the "need to protect against an unjust government" (going back
to the original reasoning why 2A was enshrined)...

You basically have two scenarios there, as we've seen play out around the
world:

1\. The military / soldiers revolt, 'remember the patriotism', whatever you
want to call it. The government is toothless because their military isn't
going to quell civil uprising.

2\. A general or colonel decides it's his time, and has the backing of the
military. A military with access to fighter jets, armored helicopters,
bombers, not to mention the actual big guns, NBC weaponry. And then we have
the 'militia' populace, limited to largely semi automatic small arms or less.
Is the military going to "play fair", or are they, per current US doctrine,
"shock and awe" a demonstrative show of force.

Either way, largely, we'd be fucked. The days of rebel insurgencies hanging
out in the jungle/desert/ wherever providing credible resistance to a
tyrannical government never really applied to the US.

~~~
Anonsold09836
If that were true, the USA would having a good time in the middle east now.

Advanced weaponry is great to destroy,but you arent going to rule a population
with it.And you sure aren't going to get away with nuking a country to glass.

You still need boots on the ground for an occupation. Civies with guns will
make that a nightmare, if not impossible.

We cant even do it in a small third world desert countries.

A nation like america would be near impossible to occupy.

~~~
jotm
There's no need for that, the US is already occupied...

------
cletus
Ah, America, the land prepared to allowed the continued slaughter of children
and other innocents on a scale that would take a civil war anywhere else, all
for a particular interpretation of the Second Amendment.

"There's nothing we can do" from a country with a problem that literally no
one else has.

The slaughter goes well beyond the borders of the US too. Handing out opiates
like candy without holding doctors responsible has created a zombie army of
heroin addicts. The war on cannabis in the 1970s and beyond was so successful
that cannabis became harder to get and more expensive than meth or heroin.
Good call that.

And that market demand drives drug cartels in search of the billions of
dollars US citizens spend on illegal drugs and that war is fueled by... guns
from the USA.

Watch any of these reality border shows and you'll see the trafficking trade
is in drugs going north and money and guns going south.

But sure, let's argue that the founders meant for every idiot with anger
issues to have an AR-15 with a bump stock and that the slaughter of children
is the price of "freedom".

Good call.

------
wufufufu
In elementary school and middle school we had "lockdown" drills, which as a
kid I did not associate with mass shooting. No teacher mentioned guns,
terrorism, or anything scary. It was just "lockdown".

------
Gys
I wished Americans were as obsessed with keeping their privacy as they are
with keeping their guns. Then the internet would be an entirely different
place.

------
Udik
It sounds to me like the best way of perpetuating, spreading, and eventually
somewhat normalizing the idea of entering a school and shooting everybody.

~~~
ygaf
Agreed. It also makes me think, at a glance, you're teaching gunners how to do
more damage. But I have no idea how shootings play out.

------
alphabettsy
My school- district started right after Columbine and the less notable
incidents that followed.

------
malvosenior
In my day we held nuclear attack drills. Not sure what is more
terrifying/depressing tbh.

~~~
jdavis703
How many people do you know who have been injured or killed from gun violence?
How many do you know who have been victims of nuclear violence? I know for me
personally I've witnessed gun violence, and know people who've been injured
because of it. For me at least gun violence is much more personal, and thus
more depressing and terrifying.

~~~
gizmo686
Gun violence frequently kills a small number of people.

USA/USSR nuclear war is an extremely rare event (to the point where it never
actually happened; but any reasonable reading of history recognizes that it
could have happened), that kills a large number of people. Lets estimate
between 70 and 160 million immediate deaths in the US. [0]. This would be
between 35 and 80% of the population. Lets round this estimate to a flat 100
million.

In 2013, there was about 100,000 firearm injuries (~34,000 of which were
fatal. and 21,000 were suicide) [1]

These two number are not directly comparable, because of population growth,
and my considering non-fatal gun injuries but only immediately fatal nuclear
injuries. However, both of these facts serve to make gun violence look
relatively worse than nuclear violence.

Even with these simplifications, our gun violence is equivalent to a nuclear
war every 100 years. Readings of history may vary, but I doubt we could
survive 100 years of cold war without starting a nuclear war.

For simplicity, lets ignore population growth and just focus on the absolute
numbers (which will make shootings look even worse, because the total
population has increased).

[0]
[http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129966](http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/129966)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)

------
garettmd
I'm kind of surprised the figure isn't 100%

~~~
tenpies
I'm surprised it's that high at all given the likelihood that a child will
ever be in a school shooting. It's not quite in lottery-winning territory, but
as a child you are more likely to be killed by a vehicle than a gun by several
orders of magnitude. It's not even close.

It's a good example of the media shifting our fear to the wrong thing.

~~~
egwynn
I completely agree regarding the media being terrible at discussing risk.
However, I do think the attention is somewhat warranted because every other
developed nation in the world has solved this problem (as is made abundantly
clear in another thread in this same post). If the solution is so obvious, why
not implement it and start saving lives?

Lastly (and somewhat pedantically) I'm not sure about your "several orders of
magnitude" remark. Could you elaborate? Wikipedia[0] says that about four
times as many Americans die in traffic collisions each year as die from
firearms (once you take out the 2/3 of firearms deaths that are suicides).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#An...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventable_causes_of_death#Annual_number_of_deaths_and_causes)

------
MollyR
It should be a 100%. They also need to get armed security.

My alma mater had its own police force, and it was really helped. It reduced
not just shootings, but violent crime in general.

EDIT: Also the FBI needs to be investigated. Apparently they were warned
several times about that Florida shooter. It's just utterly unbelievable, Wray
should be fired, and a special counsel set up to investigate this unbelievable
failure. Ex. The Fbi said it couldn't verify the shooter, who used his own
name on youtube with death threats. Unbelievable!

~~~
FireBeyond
You realize that most countries in the world have neither armed security,
police, or even metal detectors in -any- of their schools and don't have these
issues?

Why is our solution here always "more guns!"?

~~~
MollyR
I gave a realistic solution for the united states, One that I have personally
seen work.

You will not be able to do a gun grab without a civil war or extreme violence
in the united states.

~~~
FireBeyond
And yet as an EMS responder, I've seen and heard personally of the challenges
that come with it.

There are cases where shooters have been brought down by "a good guy with a
gun".

There are others where there have been plenty of armed security around, even
police, and it's done nothing to stop things.

And there's been cases where now you have a bunch of inconsistently trained
people running around an active shooter scene, confused and terrified,
possibly injuring bystanders or each other. "Hey, are you the shooter?"
Shooter: "no, i'm just like you, hunting him too!" (if indeed the reaction is
not "see gun, shoot").

~~~
MollyR
I'm not advocating for random people with guns, but law enforcement officers.

>There are others where there have been plenty of armed security around, even
police, and it's done nothing to stop things.

Just because a small number of bad cops haven't done their job, doesn't I mean
I think we get should get rid of all cops.

~~~
FireBeyond
Where did I mention getting rid of all cops?

If we went this route, I'd probably rather have the military (though I know
that comes with even more 'concerns' for our 'freedom') - more tightly
controlled rules of engagement, more experience with and training with respect
to returning fire, compared to law enforcement, who only do active shooter
exercises themselves a couple of times a year, if that.

Active shooter scenarios are terrifying, to state the obvious. I've been
involved in training at a school here in Washington where even as a medic, we
go in while the shooter is still active, covered by a SWAT team, for pulling
victims out of the hot zone, and it is loud, it is confusing.

I appreciate that you're trying to be realistic to the culture here, and I
agree that 'yes, there would most likely be civil uprising if we attempted to
claw back firearm ownership', so then the only alternative is an escalating
arms race.

Which the NRA, which long ago ceased to be a sportsman's club and is now "by
with and for" the gun manufacture industry, can't fail to be happy about.

