would metal detectors cut down school shootings??

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by ITR champion *
Did I just read this correctly? You brag about the fact the in this one case, “it took a gun to stop a gun”. Well what do you wnat us to do? Issue firearms to every single person who enters the building?

I hadn’t considered that before, but now that you mention it…

Do I really need to remind you that just because something happened during this one case in San Diego, doesn’t mean that it will work anywhere else.

I’m not saying it has to happen often. I’m saying that, if the press would recognize that the shooting stopped because someone else with a gun used it responsibly, we might see a reduction in shootings in the future.

Ho, and contrary to your statement, most school shooters are suicidal or extremely depressed. None of them ever make a serious effort to escape from law enforcement.

All the more reason they should be stopped quickly when the shooting starts. Tell me which of the following is your preferred way for a school shooting to conclude:

1. Shooter kills everyone he means to kill and waits for the police to arrive.
2. Shooter kills everyone he means to kill and flees before police arrive.
3. Shooter kills everyone he means to kill and commits suicide.
4. Shooter runs out of ammunition.
5. Shooter is charged by an extremely lucky unarmed individual.
6. Shooter is shot by police when they ultimately arrive at the scene.
7. Shooter is shot by someone on the scene with a gun before he can kill everyone he wants to.

I suppose we could wait for the shooter to die of thirst, too, but that’s a long shot (no pun intended). So, which do you prefer?

**As for metal detectors, they’re a waste of money. They would be a major distraction and delay, and as many people have already mentioned, they can’t be very effective. And the idea that school shooters are aiming for a specific target in school is wrong; mostly, they just want to show how angry they are. Suppose that the Columbine kids really wanted to kill jocks, then why didn’t they just shoot up a football game? **

If guns are going to get into schools regardless of the precautions taken, we have to plan for what happens when shootings occur. Which means we have to choose an option from my list above. I’ve made my choice.

[zwaldd]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *

**Like I’ve said a dozen times before, a bunch of sheep can’t stop a wolf or two. You need teeth to match teeth. Do shepherds put up signs that say

No wolves allowed!
Keep out!
THIS MEANS YOU!

Nope. They train dogs and carry guns to guard them. You don’t rely on the goodwill of the wolf or appeal to its better nature. You answer it in its own language. With teeth.

(By the way, It’s a metaphor, so I don’t need links and cites to ProfessionalSheepHerderMagazine.com or ShepherdsIllustrated.net, ok?)**

well technically it started out as a metaphor and turned into an analogy. however, i don’t see school shootings as a ‘teeth to match teeth’ situation. certainly it would be nice to have a way to quickly disable a shooter and minimize injury once a shooting has gotten underway, and it follows that arming one, many, or all members of the staff and/or student body would expedite the process (though i’m not saying it couldn’t cause other problems, possibly far worse). but this recent trend seems to be snowballing (imo due mostly to glorified media coverage) and i’d like to see steps taken to stop what appears to be a frighteningly growing trend. as others have said, i don’t think the possibility of getting shot will stop these disturbed kids. i’ve conceded that metal detectors would be too costly and obtrusive to be effective, but i would like to see other preventative measures considered, such as banning media coverage. i know, freedom of speech and all that, but i think at least half the impetus for lonely losers shooting up their school is the notoriety they see their brothers-in-psychosis getting across the country.