School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I thought that wasn't done anymore. I was under the mistaken impression closed campuses for high schools were pretty much universal now.

Out here in Vegas, I had to bring my kids something a few times. Just walked into the building via the main door, then walked into the office to drop it off. They weren't closed or locked. And the main door opens to a large open area and the cafeteria. It's a little scary, really. If someone just stormed in there at lunchtime, there would literally be hundreds of kids within 50 feet of the door completely exposed. Maybe that's changed in a couple of years, but I had to drop off something for my girlfriend a couple of weeks ago at her middle school and it was open as well.

The only time something like a metal detector wand was ever used were in certain schools while going to sporting events.
 
Did they not have duck and cover drills in the UK when you were a kid?

No

Bomb drills?

No

Fire drills?

Yes

Did they make you afraid your school would be bombed?

No

I bet kids in the UK are more afraid now of bombs given current events there.

No


While you can't really separate the reaction from the action, I think the shooter drills are the least of kids' worries. News of another school shooting, however, probably does make kids very fearful.


Due only to personal circumstances I was taught to check under my car for unusual items when I first passed my test, but that was very much about me and where I was rather than anything else. The school did fire drills. We once watched 'When the Wind Blows'
 
Did they not have duck and cover drills in the UK when you were a kid? Bomb drills? Fire drills?
Did they make you afraid your school would be bombed? I bet kids in the UK are more afraid now of bombs given current events there.

While you can't really separate the reaction from the action, I think the shooter drills are the least of kids' worries. News of another school shooting, however, probably does make kids very fearful.

I can answer that , No duck and cover, no bomb drills. Fire drills yes.

I would think kids are more worried about getting knocked down by a car and as for guns , not on anyones radar
 
My kids' elementary school had a lockdown drill yesterday. It seemed normal to them, hardly worth mentioning.

It is sad that it has gotten that way, but they accept it the same way they accept fire drills.

ETA: All outside doors are locked, an intercom on the front door connects to a secretary who can see the door and buzz it open. However much like Sandy Hook, the door is glass and has floor to ceiling windows next to it. Lots of ground-level windows, too.
 
Last edited:
There's a generational shift going on here. That's why the anti-gun backlash "feels different" this time. It may or may not have any different immediate results, but it's the trend for the foreseeable future.

Despite all the talk about the Founding Fathers, there's an aspect of the present gun control issue in the U.S. that's largely rooted in 20th century European and Asian history; specifically, its genocides of relatively unarmed populations. My father's generation was acutely aware of it; many of the immigrants of that generation and the previous one came to the U.S. to flee it. That represented, not necessarily a bloc of gun owners or enthusiasts, but people on the sidelines of that generation and the next, who felt they had, and in some cases still feel they have, an adequate reason to accept the costs and risks of having a well-armed citizenry.

A case in point: the only firearm my own father ever owned was a collector's piece that he inherited late in his life, and he kept it disassembled and never attempted to fire it. Yet I heard him say this, more than once: "If every Jew in Europe had met the Gestapo at the front door with a gun in his hand..."

He didn't finish that sentence. The implication was that the extremes of the Holocaust might have been prevented, although surely such armed resistance would still have been suicidal and there would still have been a bloodbath of some sort. But then, it's plausible that if such a massacre occurred in one neighborhood, the next neighborhood due to be visited might organize a more effective form of armed resistance. As people have pointed out in this thread, such resistance wouldn't be effective in a straight battle against a country's armed forces, but in this case, and as will often be the case in such times of civil upheaval, those forces were busy elsewhere. Ultimately, a genocide (or invasion, occupation, coup, etc.) might be made too costly to sustain, or to contemplate in the first place.

Now we’re seeing a generational shift. To the kids in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the menace of NKVD or Gestapo agents with uniforms and pistols pounding on every front door on your block in the middle of the night is nearly as historically remote as the menace of Napoleon’s armies marching in formation across your farms with muskets and cavalry would have been to my parents’ generation. Understandably, they see instead the risks and costs of an armed citizenry, that have played out right before their eyes.

Sooner or later it will be their choice to make. All we can do is help make sure they have the knowledge to make that choice an informed one.
 
Last edited:
It's hard wired because the UK and Australia live under a monarchy that recognizes some people are simply special based on birth. It is easy for ants to recognize their collective. Man is responsible for his or her individual safety.
Bob, you often surprise me with the illogical places your libertarianism takes you but this has to take the biscuit. I live in the UK. Technically I am therefore a "subject". But we are a constitutional monarchy where the power resides with the "monarch in parliament" which is to say the elected government of the UK has all the real power. The current Queen doesn't even have much in the way of patronage at her disposal since the Queen's Birthday and New Years Honours list is made up by committee. Given your kleptocracy in the USA where a 2 1/2 year election campaign is fought between two rich people on behalf of the 1% of rich people in the USA I am not feeling less free than your average American and I am a lot less concerned about being gunned down by one of my fellow "subjects"!
 
There's a generational shift going on here. That's why the anti-gun backlash "feels different" this time. It may or may not have any different immediate results, but it's the trend for the foreseeable future.

Despite all the talk about the Founding Fathers, there's an aspect of the present gun control issue in the U.S. that's largely rooted in 20th century European and Asian history; specifically, its genocides of relatively unarmed populations. My father's generation was acutely aware of it; many of the immigrants of that generation and the previous one came to the U.S. to flee it. That represented, not necessarily a bloc of gun owners or enthusiasts, but people on the sidelines of that generation and the next, who felt they had, and in some cases still feel they have, an adequate reason to accept the costs and risks of having a well-armed citizenry.

A case in point: the only firearm my own father ever owned was a collector's piece that he inherited late in his life, and he kept it disassembled and never attempted to fire it. Yet I heard him say this, more than once: "If every Jew in Europe had met the Gestapo at the front door with a gun in his hand..."

He didn't finish that sentence. The implication was that the extremes of the Holocaust might have been prevented, although surely such armed resistance would still have been suicidal and there would still have been a bloodbath of some sort. But then, it's plausible that if such a massacre occurred in one neighborhood, the next neighborhood due to be visited might organized a more effective form of armed resistance. As people have pointed out in this thread, such resistance wouldn't be effective in a straight battle against a country's armed forces, but in this case, and as will often be the case in such times of civil upheaval, those forces were busy elsewhere. Ultimately, a genocide (or invasion, coup, etc.) might be made too costly to sustain, or to contemplate in the first place.

Now we’re seeing a generational shift. To the kids in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the menace of NKVD or Gestapo agents with uniforms and pistols pounding on every front door on your block in the middle of the night is nearly as historically remote as the menace of Napoleon’s armies marching in formation across your farms with muskets and cavalry would have been to our parents’ generation. Understandably, they see instead the risks and costs of an armed citizenry, that have played out right before their eyes.

Sooner or later it will be their choice to make. All we can do is help make sure they have the knowledge to make that choice an informed one.


Good post.
 
No



No



Yes



No



No
......'

Astonishing that someone thinks A/ that a country where there are no bomb attacks would have bomb drills, and B/ that this is somehow on topic in a thread about school shootings in Florida.
 
Astonishing that someone thinks A/ that a country where there are no bomb attacks would have bomb drills, and B/ that this is somehow on topic in a thread about school shootings in Florida.


Well, the school shootings do tend to help with the overall feeling of demagoguery, I guess.
 
Astonishing that someone thinks A/ that a country where there are no bomb attacks would have bomb drills, and B/ that this is somehow on topic in a thread about school shootings in Florida.

We used to have useless "duck and cover" drills in the USA in case of nuclear attacks, I think that's what he meant by bomb drills. Obviously both the UK and USA were under the same threat of nuclear attack during the Cold War. Apparently the UK just didn't feel it necessary to have silly "feel good" drills in schools back then.
 
There's a generational shift going on here. That's why the anti-gun backlash "feels different" this time. It may or may not have any different immediate results, but it's the trend for the foreseeable future.

Despite all the talk about the Founding Fathers, there's an aspect of the present gun control issue in the U.S. that's largely rooted in 20th century European and Asian history; specifically, its genocides of relatively unarmed populations. My father's generation was acutely aware of it; many of the immigrants of that generation and the previous one came to the U.S. to flee it. That represented, not necessarily a bloc of gun owners or enthusiasts, but people on the sidelines of that generation and the next, who felt they had, and in some cases still feel they have, an adequate reason to accept the costs and risks of having a well-armed citizenry.

A case in point: the only firearm my own father ever owned was a collector's piece that he inherited late in his life, and he kept it disassembled and never attempted to fire it. Yet I heard him say this, more than once: "If every Jew in Europe had met the Gestapo at the front door with a gun in his hand..."

He didn't finish that sentence. The implication was that the extremes of the Holocaust might have been prevented, although surely such armed resistance would still have been suicidal and there would still have been a bloodbath of some sort. But then, it's plausible that if such a massacre occurred in one neighborhood, the next neighborhood due to be visited might organize a more effective form of armed resistance. As people have pointed out in this thread, such resistance wouldn't be effective in a straight battle against a country's armed forces, but in this case, and as will often be the case in such times of civil upheaval, those forces were busy elsewhere. Ultimately, a genocide (or invasion, occupation, coup, etc.) might be made too costly to sustain, or to contemplate in the first place.

Now we’re seeing a generational shift. To the kids in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the menace of NKVD or Gestapo agents with uniforms and pistols pounding on every front door on your block in the middle of the night is nearly as historically remote as the menace of Napoleon’s armies marching in formation across your farms with muskets and cavalry would have been to my parents’ generation. Understandably, they see instead the risks and costs of an armed citizenry, that have played out right before their eyes.

Sooner or later it will be their choice to make. All we can do is help make sure they have the knowledge to make that choice an informed one.

Nonsense on every level. It's stuff like this that makes Europeans think that USAans are uneducated hicks.
 
Long as there's talk of arming teachers it would only make sense to have a bounty on armed students, more proactive that way.
 
Nonsense on every level. It's stuff like this that makes Europeans think that USAans are uneducated hicks.

A/ We don't.
B/ How about a line-by-line rebuttal then, rather than a sweeping but empty dismissal?
 
the channel is imaginatively called "British Muzzleloaders". The gentlemen who runs it lives in British Columbia and does most of his shooting on improvised ranges. Not the most exciting communicator, but an interesting channel if you enjoy this sort of thing.

'Forgotten Weapons' is the best.
 
That's a pile of bullcrap. You took my statement out of context on purpose.

I suspect that you are a person who carries a sword on occasion for role-playing special events. That has no relation to mental illness and it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Your approach to clarification is ridiculous. I mean, you would have me declaring actors in films who are carrying swords to be mentally ill. The actor is a person who is mentally ill in real life.

A complete waste of time to ask me if that's what I meant. And you didn't even ask - you just stated that that's what I meant.
I said nothing about what you meant, I repeated what you said. If what you said doesn't correlate with what you meant, then you need to say things more carefully.
 
I wonder why the UK, Australia, etc are so appalled at mass shootings that they enact sweeping restrictions, but the US does not. I think it may have to do with a sense of community that is lacking in the States? Americans have an overwhelmingly Us v Them mentality, IME. I wonder if that interferes with enacting measures for the common good.
From discussing the issues with American gun owners on this board and others, I have come to the conclusion that Americans simply have a disdain for human life that the rest of us don't share.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom