That mental health “watchdog” is the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International which was founded by the Church of Scientology, which has a well-known bias about mental health treatment.
It is not a causal relationship, however the correlation is high.
Yes but it doesn’t reduce the number people in proximity of the shooter. Which is what matters.
Sure it matters. If the shooter is pursuing people, then with curved hallways, they can remain out of his gunfire indefinitely, as long as they stay, say, 20 feet ahead of him at all times. Whereas with a straight hallway they wouldn’t be out of his “danger zone” no matter how far ahead of him they are.
Think about it from the perspective of a target, yourself. If ***you ***are in proximity of a gunman, would you want straight or curved hallways?
Magiver, I recommend you take a look at MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION: Initial Report Submitted to the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senate President.
This is not a video game. The space bar does not open doors. The difference between living and dying is often whether or not you can put a flimsy wooden door with thin plaster walls between you and the shooter. It doesn’t have to be a safe room behind concrete inside a sealed cage. Someone who wants to go about killing as many people as possible will tend to move about the place quickly, as the shooter at MSDHS did. They hit an obstacle, they move on. Just being able to get out of sight can be enough.
What means do YOU suggest to remove people from the proximity of the shooter? Do you think we can predict, with precision, who will go on to shoot up a school and who won’t, and remove those people—and only those people—from society or something?
Except everywhere it’s been tried.
This is actually pretty bad on our part. The truth – despite the news – is that pretty much everyone is safe. The public at large don’t understand risk assessment and statistics, so the result is that we terrorize our own children. Yeah, we have to do something about the rare shooter, but damn, our society is terrorizing children over something that’s unlikely compared to traffic accidents, airline crashes, and being struck by lightning. :mad:
It doesn’t matter if a shooter can’t see 50ft down a hall. If the shooter’s goal is to randomly kill people then the closest person gets shot. There will be more than enough people to kill in the vicinity of the shooter. It’s still fish in a barrel.
On top of that a shooter can just walk into a room full of people, shut the door, and kill them all.
That they can does not mean that they will.
For the record I agree with Balthisar (about the relative risks and people being lousy at risk decisions). And to expand, I think that mass shootings are sometimes used as a red herring with mental health issues as a red herring to that red herring.
Most gun violence occurs in small doses, often in the heat of passion or even on accident. While I do think low- to no-cost passive measures to design schools to be safer are worth doing, mass shootings in schools and elsewhere are only a drop in the bucket compared to the toll firearms exact day in and day out all across the nation. The only way to even begin to control that problem effectively is to control access to firearms.
Not to arm everyone (that’ll only make gun violence more prevalent) and sure as hell not to lock up every kid who gets branded as an outsider.
And somehow only America seems to suffer from nigh-weekly mass shootings. I guess the rest of the world (especially Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc.) are teaching their kids just fine, and only America has screwed this up.
:rolleyes:
This is just happening in America, in terms of the frequency of mass shootings. Only America. It’s something about America that’s leading to this incredibly high frequency of mass shootings.
But it’s a smaller barrel. So it does matter.
What could it be? The ready availability of guns and ammunition? No, that can’t have anything to do with it. Just a coincidence. :dubious:
I think that curved hallways and barriers (meeting spots I would call them) would make school a more interesting and happy, less institutionalized experience. But I agree with Magiver on this. It’s not gonna do shit for an active determined shooter. Unless you want to arm the kids and teachers so they can shoot back from under cover or a bend in the hall which I’m completely 100% against.
Such designs will flummox and slow down emergency responders. Nothing more. The designers heart is in the right place but it’s a dumb idea.
Remote locks, alternative access and escape routes would be a better idea. A better idea would be better gun control. That said as a gun owner.
Then present us with a politically viable plan to confiscate 300 million guns. As long as there are even a few thousand or million, a Sandy Hook is always doable.
I have no such plan. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of blaming kids these days, or parenting, for this problem that is mostly unique to America.
You mean, like Chicago?
The UK got rid of guns, so now there are acid attacks and enough stabbings that they are trying to implement knife control. It’s not the weapon, it’s the person using the weapon for evil.
What about Chicago? Please expand.
So your contention is that as long as some amount of bad happens somewhere, it’s equivalent to much more bad somewhere else? Like, if there’s a mass stabbing once in a blue moon in Japan, that means there’s no point in banning assault weapons in America? By that logic, what about machine guns? Do you not see how disingenuous your argument is?
Bad thing X cannot be eradicated, therefore we should make no effort to reduce the occurrence of bad thing X. Right…
ETA: Out of curiosity, what’s your stance on vaccines?
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet 1800+ have been shot and over 300 killed.
What about vaccines? Irrelevant, and a lousy argument for gun or knife control.
What effect do you suppose removing Chicago’s gun control laws would be? What effect do you suppose Chicago being freely accessible from other parts of the nation with laxer regulations might have?
Is it? One of you “arguments” against gun control as a means to reduce violent crime seems to be that if something cannot be eliminated, we shouldn’t bother trying to reduce the occurrence. I’m just wondering if you’d say the same about, say measles, the flu, etc.
Chicago’s gun control efforts have largely failed. This should have been incredibly predictable, because anyone in Chicago who wants a gun that’s not legal in Chicago can still go outside of Chicago and very easily acquire them.
By contrast, Australia has largely succeeded in its gun control efforts. Unlike Chicago, there’s no place that’s easy to get to that Australians who want illegal guns can go to get them.