myths about school shootings

[sirs]

as I stated earlier is the danger high enough ?

I disagree.  The question as I see it is what's being protected valuable enough to need firearms.  Simply put, yes, IMHO. 

in ten years the rate has gone down.

the fact that the incident rates are low, doesn't negate what's being protected.  I'd argue that fireamrs in the hands of well trained staff, such #'s would even be lower

most places are vulnerable and don`t require guns

Not entirely accurate, in that they're "valuables" are different, and their choice to whether or not to use guns, is still a choice, that the school children & teachers don't have

[kimba1]

the fact that the incident rates are low, doesn't negate what's being protected.  I'd argue that fireamrs in the hands of well trained staff, such #'s would even be lower

actually how does that work?
in a shool setting how does a arm person stop such a incident from happening?
columbine was premeditated ,so those boys may of found ways to bypass a guard.
it not like every claasroom will be guarded.

[sirs]

actually how does that work?

Simple.  When an area is no longer understood to be a "gun free zone", such an area is a much less likely target in the 1st place (rate goes down).  In the event of such an incident, well trained staff can quell the incident nearly immediately vs waiting for the escalation of both emotion and potential for harm to children, while waiting for the police.  This too becomes a dterrent for others (rate goes down)

[kimba1]

but isn`t most of the school shooting in non-urban areas?
meaning not reportedly gun free areas to begin with.
ex. columbine.
this may intially work,but does not stop the cause of the shooting.
the majority of these are caused by internal stresses.
so shooting may still happen.
how does a well train staff stop kids from taking over a school?
would they be the first target,since they are armed?
I see working with crazy adults,but not kids with alot of time in their hands to plan.

[sirs]

but isn`t most of the school shooting in non-urban areas?

What would it matter.  I'm referring to protecting a valuable commodity, children, be it rural amish school, a suburban Colorado school, or an Urban jungle in south central LA.  I explained the why and the how.  I'm not sure where I can go from there.  This isn't a psychological approach I'm taking.  I'm not trying to figure out why someone would want to shoot up a school, kill children.  I'm talking practical approach of just doing a better job of protecting them.  I don't think I need to explain "why" we should, should I?

how does a well train staff stop kids from taking over a school?

a) what "army" of kids are you referring to that might be able to take over a school?  b), the few kids that do are not well trained, and should be easily able to be dealt with by already mentioned well trained staff

would they be the first target,since they are armed?

No, since the staff I'm referring to are carrying concealed weapons, so no one would know who had weapons, thus less likely to want to even take on a school in the 1st place. (rate goes down even more)

[kimba1]

the area make a world of difference.
some areas are more gun friendly than others.
but we`ll may find out if this works or not
check this link out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15142930/?GT1=8618

the only problem i have is just because it works in isreal does not mean it`ll work here
different place,different circumstances.
also you keep saying well trained staff
as the link pointed out this will be a first for everybody
it`ll be guess work for first 3 years at least
it`s not wise to underestimate anyone.

[sirs]

...considering we were just talking about this topic.

Wisconsin lawmaker urges arming teachers
Updated 10/5/2006
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A state lawmaker, worried about a recent string of deadly school shootings, suggested arming teachers, principals and other school personnel as a safety measure and a deterrent.
VIDEO: Congressman suggests arming teachers

It might not be politically correct, but it has worked effectively in other countries, Republican Rep. Frank Lasee said Wednesday.

"To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table," he said. "Israel and Thailand have well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin."

In Thailand, where officials have been waging a bloody fight with Muslim separatists for the last two years, some teachers carry weapons for self defense as they are viewed as part of the government. In Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed.

Lasee said he planned to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons. He stressed that it would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons, and he acknowledged he would have to work around a federal law that bans guns on school grounds.

The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed the idea.

"Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school," Pochowski said. "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."

Last week, a 15-year-old Wisconsin student was arrested in the shooting death of Weston Schools Principal John Klang. The criminal complaint said the teen brought guns to school to confront students, teachers and the principal.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-05-arming-teachers_x.htm?csp=34
 

[Plane]

What are the reasons that schools are sometimes chosen?

There is no mony there , no wepons , no important political personage.


When someone chooses a school as a place to attack it must be because of what is there.


When the Chechens attacked the Russian school they took it over quickly and were able to kill many , they chose a theater on another occasion for the same reasons.

The thing that schools have is a gathering of vunerable persons.