School shooting Florida

[Reheat]

training can never show what will happen unless your training will offer the real chance of getting shot.

You can fly through every scenario or training unit and then freeze at the moment of action. I have seen it.

Define the difference between freezing and cowardliness regarding the scenario involved.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If I were a LEO who is trained and paid to protect and respond to such emergencies, I would be under obligation to, so yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

Until you are in the situation you don't know. You can train and run exercises and convince yourself you will be up for it but until the **** hits the fan you don't know.

And since you'd like make it about me and not Deputy Peterson, I tell you this - I own firearms and I don't even consider myself a good guy with a gun. I just a guy with a gun, neither good or bad. If I were to save the day in some kind of critical scenario, then I'd consider myself the good guy. However, I hold no illusion that will be likely to happen because I don't keep or carry a firearm outside of my home. Period. It is illegal to do so where I live. So I'm fully aware that in a gunman scenario I'll either be hiding, fleeing or dead.

This is how I interpret the NRA "good guy with a gun mantra". The drooling imbeciles who believe they'll rush in and shoot the bad guy without the training and discipline it takes to get yourself in that kind of mindset are perhaps the biggest reason why I urge some folks to just put their guns up for sale and pay for psychiatric therapy with the proceeds.

Good reply. Thanks for that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.

So send your six year old to school armed and trained to shoot back? Send a body guard with the kid?

 

[MikeG]

....... there may have been a time in the US where 80% of the population supported slavery. They were wrong, too.

So it's wrong to not own a gun. I see.

 

[TJM]

Really?

Yes, ideally the result would be 0 casualties and a neutralized threat.

Realistically, I know that isn't likely. I thought it would go without saying.

 

[IanS]

This is positively laughable. What is the practical difference to the school kids between an armed guard who was shot dead trying to protect them, and a living armed guard who has run outside and hidden himself behind a bush while the gunman is inside with them and shooting them dead? What is the use of a living guard that is protecting nobody and nothing? What is he even "guarding" at that point? His words?

At least if he tried to seek out and engage the shooter there is a non-zero chance that he may not have been shot dead and in fact might have been able to neutralize the shooter and save the lives of some of the school kids. The chances of him saving any kid's life whatsoever while outside the building hiding behind a bush were zero.

Absolutely “no practical difference use to the school kids at all” ... and that's just emphasising the point - it's worse than useless for the guard to immediately get himself killed, because that way he's dead and certainly can't help anyone at all.

So, tell us where everyone was in relation to one-another, what was their distance, who could see whom, how did anyone know the number of shooters etc. etc. etc .... what are you going to do, just charge around the open campus looking for one or more gunmen who are already actively killing anyone who comes near them?

I'll tell you what's “laughable”, in fact what is criminally imbecilic, and that's trying to blame a school guard who was probably in an utterly hopeless position, when the real blame lays with a government and a populace of gun fanatics who insist on owning unlimited amounts of murderous weapons and ammo in their own homes from where any of them can start killing unlimited numbers of people at any moment ... that's what is laughable criminally indefensible in any kind of responsible adult society.

 

[jimbob]

This wasn't a "good guy" scenario.

A good guy with a gun would've rushed in defense of the children and faculty with no regard for his personal safety. Then end result ideally being 0 to minimal casualties and the threat neutralized.

Really?

He hears shooting, works out where it's coming from and heads that way. How many bullets is that before he gets there? How many dead and injured before he even begins to confront the gunman?

ffs (or were you being ironic? In which case my apologies)

Or he rushes in, sees someone moving, fires, and hits one of the many innocent people. The cop has to not hit lots of people and only hit one or maybe two, whilst the shooter can shoot anyone they want. The shooter is also blase about being shot - at least when they were planning the shooting.

Eventually the cop identifies the right person - and positively identifies that they have a carbine, he shoots at them from too far away, misses - luckily his shot didn't hit another person. However he does get the attention of the shooter who does shoot him.

Result - shooter still active, one dead cop and some extra people shot by the crossfire.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

MSNBC right now: After the shooting at the Pulse Nightclub, an NRA gun lobbyist and the Republicans (state level) shut down even so much as a discussion on gun control: vote on a measure banning people on the terrorist watch list from owning guns and have a discussion on other possible gun control measures.

The NewYorker: The N.R.A. Lobbyist Behind Florida’s Pro-Gun Policies

Hammer is the National Rifle Association’s Florida lobbyist. At seventy-eight years old, she is nearing four decades as the most influential gun lobbyist in the United States. Her policies have elevated Florida’s gun owners to a uniquely privileged status, and made the public carrying of firearms a fact of daily life in the state. Daley was referring to a law that Hammer worked to enact in 2011, during Governor Rick Scott’s first year in office. The statute punishes local officials who attempt to establish gun regulations stricter than those imposed at the state level. Officials can be fined thousands of dollars and removed from office....

In the early two-thousands, Hammer created the country’s first Stand Your Ground self-defense law, authorizing the use of lethal force in response to a perceived threat. Some two dozen states have adopted a version of Stand Your Ground, giving concealed-carry permit holders wide discretion over when they can shoot another person....

“Florida is often the first place the N.R.A. pursues specific gun rights protections,” Cole explains, “relying on Hammer and her supporters to set a precedent that can then be exported to other states.”...

 

[TJM]

Until you are in the situation you don't know. You can train and run exercises and convince yourself you will be up for it but until the **** hits the fan you don't know.

I'd wager Deputy Peterson either never trained for this scenario or he had forgotten his training long ago. That would explain why he reacted like a civilian.

Good reply. Thanks for that.

Cheers.

 

[Nessie]

This wasn't a "good guy" scenario.

A good guy with a gun would've rushed in defense of the children and faculty with no regard for his personal safety. Then end result ideally being 0 to minimal casualties and the threat neutralized.

Deputy Peterson, for whatever reason, is not a good guy with a gun. Apparently he was only masquerading as one.

Hell of a way to have the mask come off though.

The no true Scotsman fallacy. He was a good guy with a gun. This proves good guys with guns are not the solution the NRA suggest it is.

 

[Checkmite]

So, tell us where everyone was in relation to one-another, what was their distance, who could see whom, how did anyone know the number of shooters etc. etc. etc .... what are you going to do, just charge around the open campus looking for one or more gunmen who are already actively killing anyone who comes near them?

Yes? It's called "assessing the situation". Was the police officer waiting for God to gift this vital information about the shooter to him through a revelatory vision?

 

[Checkmite]

Or he rushes in, sees someone moving, fires, and hits one of the many innocent people.

The innocent people were all hiding in classrooms. The only one in the hallways was the shooter, who was firing shots through the classroom doors attempting to hit people. Your scenario of hallways filled with screaming and panicked people is misinformed.

As is your raised possibility of the police officer's service weapon having too-limited range to engage the shooter effectively. Just how long do you believe the upper-floor hallways inside these school buildings are?

 

[pgwenthold]

I think one should add that the 'good guy with a gun' hero is a fantasy and needs to be stated as such.

As for the government, lets call that for what it is as well, it's the voters. Stop voting in legislators who don't have the bests interests of the voters in mind.

Is there actually a law that schools have to have armed guards?

I'm trying to understand to connect the dots between "the guard did not engage" and "the government failed to protect the students."

I think the armed guard is more of a school (schoolboard) decision, in response to the LACK of any "government" (in this case, legislature) actions to protect the students. Who's idea was it to use an armed guard? Is that the solution proposed by "government needs to do something" advocates?

I can accept the argument that the government has failed to protect the students, but it's not because they required an armed guard.

 

[TJM]

The no true Scotsman fallacy. He was a good guy with a gun. This proves good guys with guns are not the solution the NRA suggest it is.

I'm under the impression the NRA defines a good guy with a gun as someone who is able and willing to use a firearm to neutralize a threat.

Deputy Peterson did not fit this definition.

 

[Checkmite]

The "armed guard" was an on-duty police officer. He was stationed at the school as part of a cooperative program between the school board and the county sheriff's department, both of which are government agencies.

"School liaison officers" as they are often called, have been around for many years - I know for certain that they've been around at least since Columbine, and may yet predate that incident in some form or other. The officer isn't there expressly to "guard against school shootings". They provide an on-campus police presence and they're there for the sake of intervening in any situation at the school that would require a police response. That includes shootings, but also includes fights, theft, vandalism, drugs, and so forth.

 

[jimbob]

The innocent people were all hiding in classrooms. The only one in the hallways was the shooter, who was firing shots through the classroom doors attempting to hit people. Your scenario of hallways filled with screaming and panicked people is misinformed.

As is your raised possibility of the police officer's service weapon having too-limited range to engage the shooter effectively. Just how long do you believe the upper-floor hallways inside these school buildings are?

Were they hiding in the classrooms, or had they gone outside because of the fire alarm?

Where I am, the two closest schools have corridors that are the best part of 100m long. That doesn't seem excessive to me.

 

[pgwenthold]

Absolutely “no practical difference use to the school kids at all” ... and that's just emphasising the point - it's worse than useless for the guard to immediately get himself killed, because that way he's dead and certainly can't help anyone at all.

So, tell us where everyone was in relation to one-another, what was their distance, who could see whom, how did anyone know the number of shooters etc. etc. etc .... what are you going to do, just charge around the open campus looking for one or more gunmen who are already actively killing anyone who comes near them?

I'll tell you what's “laughable”, in fact what is criminally imbecilic, and that's trying to blame a school guard who was probably in an utterly hopeless position, when the real blame lays with a government and a populace of gun fanatics who insist on owning unlimited amounts of murderous weapons and ammo in their own homes from where any of them can start killing unlimited numbers of people at any moment ... that's what is laughable criminally indefensible in any kind of responsible adult society.

Remember, if they don't have guns, they will find something else to use to carry out destruction, but if only an armed guard is there and does the EXACT right response, they are left helpless. Nope, they are smart enough to overcome the challenges of not having semi-automatic weapons, but they are not smart enough to go where the armed guard is not patrolling.

 

[Checkmite]

Were they hiding in the classrooms, or had they gone outside because of the fire alarm?

They were hiding in the classrooms. Video taken by multiple students during the incident confirms this.

 

[Polaris]

Why should that make a difference?

Because three weeks ago they were eating Tide Pods.*








*No really, that was the gist of an actual serious post I saw on FB answering your very question.

 

[Nessie]

I'm under the impression the NRA defines a good guy with a gun as someone who is able and willing to use a firearm to neutralize a threat.

Deputy Peterson did not fit this definition.

We only found that out afterwards. Up to the time of the shooting, he was a good guy with a gun. The fallacy is completed by hindsight determining if he was a good guy of not.

He was employed to be the good guy. It did not work. It did not work at Columbine or Virginia Tech either (for different reasons).

Every time there is armed security at a place and there is a still a mass shooting, the good guy claim has been shown to be flawed if not false.