More misinformation in Uvalde

[Corraleno]

Another fact from the NYT article that really surprised me was that locking the classroom door from the inside requires the teacher to use a key. Someone upthread mentioned that it had been reported the classroom doors were supposed to lock automatically in lockdown situation, but in reality not only did the door need to be locked manually, the teacher needed a key to do it:

"Khloie Torres had been watching a movie with her fourth-grade classmates in Room 112 when her teacher, Irma Garcia, told the class to go into lockdown. Ms. Garcia turned off the movie, and then rushed toward the classroom door to lock it. But she struggled to find the right key for the door. Gunfire could be heard in the hallways.

Ms. Garcia finally got hold of the right key, but the gunman was already there. “He grabbed the door, and he opened it,” Khloie said. Ms. Garcia tried to protect her students. The gunman began firing."

 

[Heartstrings]

11 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Another fact from the NYT article that really surprised me was that locking the classroom door from the inside requires the teacher to use a key. Someone upthread mentioned that it had been reported the classroom doors were supposed to lock automatically in lockdown situation, but in reality not only did the door need to be locked manually, the teacher needed a key to do it:

"Khloie Torres had been watching a movie with her fourth-grade classmates in Room 112 when her teacher, Irma Garcia, told the class to go into lockdown. Ms. Garcia turned off the movie, and then rushed toward the classroom door to lock it. But she struggled to find the right key for the door. Gunfire could be heard in the hallways.

Ms. Garcia finally got hold of the right key, but the gunman was already there. “He grabbed the door, and he opened it,” Khloie said. Ms. Garcia tried to protect her students. The gunman began firing."

 

They sell a product for that.  Because this isn’t the first time.    
 

https://idighardware.com/2019/10/classroom-door-magnets/

 

 

• Years ago, many classroom doors had entrance/office function locks.  These locks are locked from inside the classroom by pushing a button or turning a thumbturn on the lock.
• Because of students locking the teacher out of the classroom (or worse), traditional classroom locksbecame the norm.  This function can only be locked by inserting a key into the cylinder on the hallway side of the door.
• When school shootings and other incidents of this type became more common, it was clear that opening the door to insert the key in the outside cylinder could expose the teacher to danger, so the classroom security function was created.  This lock has an additional key cylinder on the inside, so the teacher can use a key to lock the outside lever without opening the door.
• Due to concerns about the ability to locate a key and use fine motor skills to insert it into the cylinder during an active-shooter event, school administrators looked for solutions to the problem of how to lock the door quickly.  One method of quickly securing the classroom is to keep the door locked at all times, regardless of the lock function.
• The problem with having classroom doors that are always locked, is that it’s inconvenient when students arrive late or leave during class and return.  To allow access while the door is locked, some schools use a magnetic strip to cover the hole in the strike.  This prevents the latch from engaging, so the door can be pushed or pulled open even though the lock is locked.

[Drama Llama]

52 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

 

• The problem with having classroom doors that are always locked, is that it’s inconvenient when students arrive late or leave during class and return.  

That's a minor problem.

The major problem with having doors that always lock is child safeguarding.  Anything that prevents people from being able to pop into classrooms to see what's going on without notice. If someone coming into a classroom needs to knock, or fumble for a key, that's time for an abuser to cover their tracks.

School shootings are incredibly awful, and we need to take actions against them. But we also need to recognize that far more students are impacted each year by child sex abuse that happens in school buildings.  For context, in all my years teaching,  I have never met or talked to a student who has experienced a school shooter. There's been one in my city during the course of my career, and no one died.  In comparison, I've taught four students that I know were molested by school employees, and given that I've taught a lot of nonverbal and low verbal, I've almost certainly taught others where the abuse was never discovered.   My students are very high risk.  And that doesn't include abuse by students of other students.  

 

[ktgrok]

20 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

 

Washington Post reports that Arredondo, the officer in charge, did not have that information

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/what-did-police-know-as-the-texas-school-shooting-unfolded/2022/06/03/9c641886-e375-11ec-ae64-6b23e5155b62_story.html

in part because he was not carrying a radio

https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-school-shooting-politics-texas-shootings-6900bca21a95c38bff9183cf1ea103f0

When surrounded by officers, most or all of whom would have been carrying radios, that seems like an incredibly easy thing to solve, which makes me wonder if he just completely shut down.  Not that that's an excuse, at all, for what happened. 

How is the supposed incident commander not in contact or able to get information with anyone?? How can you command if you have no contact with anyone outside the hall you are standing in?!?! 

Years ago I took training on incident command structure, when I was contemplating doing SAR volunteering, and this is blowing my mind. There should have been someone in charge of communication, who was in charge of relying info to him, but how would they if he didn't have a radio?

20 hours ago, Baseballandhockey said:

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that there were police officers who knew there were living children in the room, but if the Arredondo wasn't carrying a radio (I have no idea how that happened.  I would think all he had to do was grab the nearest officer and ask for his radio), he may not have known, and it appears that it was his order to wait that was being followed.  

Where this all falls apart for me is that no matter what, he knew kids had been shot. The training they had had just a few months earlier included instruction on how fast people bleed out, and trained them on using bleeding kits to stop blood loss, as they would have to act as first responders. 

He may not know kids were calling, but he knew they were shot, and that some might be saved with prompt medical attention. You can't wait out a hostage situation while kids bleed to death. 

32 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

That's a minor problem.

The major problem with having doors that always lock is child safeguarding.  Anything that prevents people from being able to pop into classrooms to see what's going on without notice. If someone coming into a classroom needs to knock, or fumble for a key, that's time for an abuser to cover their tracks.

School shootings are incredibly awful, and we need to take actions against them. But we also need to recognize that far more students are impacted each year by child sex abuse that happens in school buildings.  For context, in all my years teaching,  I have never met or talked to a student who has experienced a school shooter. There's been one in my city during the course of my career, and no one died.  In comparison, I've taught four students that I know were molested by school employees, and given that I've taught a lot of nonverbal and low verbal, I've almost certainly taught others where the abuse was never discovered.   My students are very high risk.  And that doesn't include abuse by students of other students.  

 

Well, and what happens in a fire? Teacher is stuck trying to find the key? What if the teacher has a medical emergency, and kids have to get help? They are trapped inside with her? This is insanity! 

Why on earth can't it be like any other door, locks with a turn of a deadbolt from inside, and the teacher carries a key on her person in case she gets locked out? 

[Heartstrings]

38 minutes ago, Baseballandhockey said:

That's a minor problem.

The major problem with having doors that always lock is child safeguarding.  Anything that prevents people from being able to pop into classrooms to see what's going on without notice. If someone coming into a classroom needs to knock, or fumble for a key, that's time for an abuser to cover their tracks.

School shootings are incredibly awful, and we need to take actions against them. But we also need to recognize that far more students are impacted each year by child sex abuse that happens in school buildings.  For context, in all my years teaching,  I have never met or talked to a student who has experienced a school shooter. There's been one in my city during the course of my career, and no one died.  In comparison, I've taught four students that I know were molested by school employees, and given that I've taught a lot of nonverbal and low verbal, I've almost certainly taught others where the abuse was never discovered.   My students are very high risk.  And that doesn't include abuse by students of other students.  

 

That's a good point.  I just copied and pasted from the website to explain what it was.  I do think the magnetic strips to allow the handle to be locked but the door to function like its unlocked is good idea that solves a lot of these problems.  I've seen where some school district hand out decorative ones to teachers.  It's pretty terrible that we need these kinds of solutions at all though.  Children should be safe at school and they just aren't, from any number of things.    

Edited June 4, 2022 by Heartstrings

[Pam in CT]

The mother who ran in and retrieved her sons has spoken on the record to CBS.

 

She says that over the last week law enforcement warned her against telling her story publicly with a threat of jail time for violating her probation -- that speaking to the media would constitute ‘obstruction of justice.’

 

 

[Saw a twit flying by to the effect of, I expect if this woman were a father of one of the kids, a commemorative statue would already have been erected...]

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

The mother who ran in and retrieved her sons has spoken on the record to CBS.

 

She says that over the last week law enforcement warned her against telling her story publicly with a threat of jail time for violating her probation -- that speaking to the media would constitute ‘obstruction of justice.’

 

 

[Saw a twit flying by to the effect of, I expect if this woman were a father of one of the kids, a commemorative statue would already have been erected...]

If they arrest her there will be lawyers doing rock, paper, scissors in the parking lot to represent her pro bono.  The Go Fund Me would be astronomical.  She would be signing movie rights with Hollywood.  

[Pam in CT]

re race to represent Angeli Gomez

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

If they arrest her there will be lawyers doing rock, paper, scissors in the parking lot to represent her pro bono.  The Go Fund Me would be astronomical.  She would be signing movie rights with Hollywood.  

I expect that's right.

It won't bring dead kids back. And I expect that matters more.

[Heartstrings]

21 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re race to represent Angeli Gomez

I expect that's right.

It won't bring dead kids back. And I expect that matters more.

Well, I kind of feel that goes without saying. I was talking about you saying the police were threatening to arrest her if she spoke out.  I felt that was obvious.   Nothing will bring those kids back, but there are those with the ability to help this one mother speak out about the police failures that day.  

[GoVanGogh]

That interview. All I can think is Holy F. And I don’t say that lightly. 

[Idalou]

6 hours ago, Corraleno said:

From NYT:

"The officers who finally breached the locked classrooms with a janitor’s key 

They were done waiting for permission, one of them said, according to the person, before they moved toward the classroom where the gunman waited. They continued even after one of them heard a command crackling in his earpiece: Do not breach.

They entered the room and killed the gunman.

So my big question is, if the chief did not have a radio in his hand to communicate with anyone, which I find either highly suspicious or incredibly stupid, then who the heck was giving the command to not breach that the one guy heard crackling in his earpiece??

[Idalou]

4 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

The mother who ran in and retrieved her sons has spoken on the record to CBS.

 

She says that over the last week law enforcement warned her against telling her story publicly with a threat of jail time for violating her probation -- that speaking to the media would constitute ‘obstruction of justice.’

 

 

[Saw a twit flying by to the effect of, I expect if this woman were a father of one of the kids, a commemorative statue would already have been erected...]

So some officers were willing to follow this lady to physically restrain her from touching her son right outside his classroom, yet none of them had the foresight or whatever to go to those rooms beforehand to escort the children out? They were boltcutting a fence ( so they had boltcutters ready...)to get her out, as she described, or was  this because they couldn't haul their behinds over it easily, or because they actually did have a halfway-plan to get the kids through the chain link fence? If that was the plan, did they keep cutting the fence to begin a rescue? There is no decent word in my vocabulary to describe this.

ETA- As to my impolite remark about their rear ends, I was remembering a recent article about how many Texas Rangers were too obese and they were going to pull some from duty if they could not get their waist sizes below 40 and 36, men and women. 

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Idalou

[Heartstrings]

Has anyone else seen Abbott's plan to perform "intruder detections audits"? 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Gov-Abbott-calls-for-intruder-detection-17213182.php

State officials will begin random, unannounced visits to schools around Texas to check whether they’re compliant with state-mandated safety measures, including checks to see how quickly a stranger “can penetrate buildings without being stopped,” Gov. Greg Abbott announced Wednesday.

“Among other reviews, your team should begin conducting in-person, unannounced, random intruder detection audits on school districts,” Abbott wrote in a letter to the director of the school safety center. “Staff should approach campuses to find weak points and how quickly they can penetrate buildings without being stopped. This will help determine if schools are prepared to implement and follow the (emergency operations plans) they have already submitted to the state.”

Abbott and other Republicans have said tightening access to guns is “not a real solution” to mass shootings. They are choosing instead to focus on school “hardening,” although some experts in mass shootings have noted that shooters typically choose to terrorize places they are familiar with, making security protocols less effective.

 

 

I'm sure nothing can go wrong with this plan.  

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Heartstrings

[Drama Llama]

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

How is the supposed incident commander not in contact or able to get information with anyone?? How can you command if you have no contact with anyone outside the hall you are standing in?!?! 

Years ago I took training on incident command structure, when I was contemplating doing SAR volunteering, and this is blowing my mind. There should have been someone in charge of communication, who was in charge of relying info to him, but how would they if he didn't have a radio?

I am not defending it!  I am just reporting it.  Honestly it sounds as though he was in far over his head and maybe was so panicked he wasn’t problem solving at all.  Because getting a radio seems so obvious.  But it then calls into question what else he didn’t do.  Was everyone on the same channel, for example?

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Where this all falls apart for me is that no matter what, he knew kids had been shot. The training they had had just a few months earlier included instruction on how fast people bleed out, and trained them on using bleeding kits to stop blood loss, as they would have to act as first responders. 

He may not know kids were calling, but he knew they were shot, and that some might be saved with prompt medical attention. You can't wait out a hostage situation while kids bleed to death. 

Well, and what happens in a fire? Teacher is stuck trying to find the key? What if the teacher has a medical emergency, and kids have to get help? They are trapped inside with her? This is insanity! 

I have been in classrooms with various types of locks but one thing they all have in common is that they are lock one way.  They keep people out, not in.  Fire code mandates that. 

5 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Why on earth can't it be like any other door, locks with a turn of a deadbolt from inside, and the teacher carries a key on her person in case she gets locked out? 

 

[Katy]

I find it impossible to believe the commander of 8 people didn’t have his own radio. He made a series of terrible decisions. 

[Drama Llama]

12 minutes ago, Katy said:

I find it impossible to believe the commander of 8 people didn’t have his own radio. He made a series of terrible decisions. 

If true, and AP is usually a decent source, it is a mind boggling level of incompetence.

 

[happi duck]

Focusing on making schools hard to get into is the wrong focus, imo.  Kids have recess, arrival, dismissal, bus rides, bus stops, fire drills and would be evacuated for a bomb threat, right?  

Less guns, harder to get guns, less ammo, less capacity etc!

Edited June 5, 2022 by happi duck

[Grace Hopper]

6 minutes ago, happi duck said:

Focusing on making schools hard to get into is the wrong focus, imo.  Kids have recess, arrival, dismissal, bus rides, bus stops, fire drills and would be evacuated for a bomb threat, right?  

Less guns, harder to get guns, less ammo, less capacity etc!

Agree. As I said upthread, we (they) are stuck on the wrong debate issue. 
 

As for Abbott’s plan… we’ll see how long it takes for one of these auditors to be taken out by a concealed carry school employee. 

[busymama7]

10 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

Agree. As I said upthread, we (they) are stuck on the wrong debate issue. 
 

As for Abbott’s plan… we’ll see how long it takes for one of these auditors to be taken out by a concealed carry school employee. 

Are they planning on *acting* like they are a shooter? With no warning? Like a secret shopper? That seems like an incredibly bad idea. 

[Grace Hopper]

5 minutes ago, busymama7 said:

Are they planning on *acting* like they are a shooter? With no warning? Like a secret shopper? That seems like an incredibly bad idea. 

The quote above states the audit teams are to “… approach campuses to find weak points and how quickly they can penetrate buildings without being stopped.”

Eta I presume for such an assessment to be entirely accurate, they couldn’t give even the SRO advance warning. If they give advance notice, their spot-check assessment seems pointless. The lack of logic is circular. 

Edited June 5, 2022 by Grace Hopper

[KSera]

1 hour ago, happi duck said:

Focusing on making schools hard to get into is stupid.  Kids have recess, arrival, dismissal, bus rides, bus stops, fire drills and would be evacuated for a bomb threat, right?

Not to mention that unless all the schools are going to be rebuilt either windowless or with bulletproof glass in all windows, someone with a gun can still get in. It's ridiculous. And so depressing that there are people who would rather build schools to be like jails than to change things so that schools don't have to be "hardened" to keep kids safe. Because that might actually require something of them and it's not worth it to them to give up even one thing to keep kids safe and not terrorized.

[bookbard]

2 hours ago, Grace Hopper said:

As for Abbott’s plan… we’ll see how long it takes for one of these auditors to be taken out by a concealed carry school employee. 

I'm laughing in an insane way that someone thought this was a good idea . . . reducing school shootings by pretending to do one and see how people react . . ..

It's an idea that a five year old would think is ridiculous. I find all the little ideas ridiculous. Get guns out of private hands - that's the answer. Follow your constitution and bring to court anyone with a gun who isn't in a well-regulated militia. 

[TravelingChris]

45 minutes ago, bookbard said:

I'm laughing in an insane way that someone thought this was a good idea . . . reducing school shootings by pretending to do one and see how people react . . ..

It's an idea that a five year old would think is ridiculous. I find all the little ideas ridiculous. Get guns out of private hands - that's the answer. Follow your constitution and bring to court anyone with a gun who isn't in a well-regulated militia. 

That is not what our constitution says,.

[Katy]

7 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

That is not what our constitution says,.

I’m confused. It’s literally what it says, it’s just interpreted differently by the supreme court…..

[TravelingChris]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

I’m confused. It’s literally what it says, it’s just interpreted differently by the supreme court…..

In order to have militias,. does not mean that we have to be in a militia.  And what the constitution means is what is interpreted by the Supreme Court.   And no on,e, and I mean, no politician, is arguing for banning all guns.  Totally undoable too.

[Katy]

5 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

In order to have militias,. does not mean that we have to be in a militia.  And what the constitution means is what is interpreted by the Supreme Court.   And no on,e, and I mean, no politician, is arguing for banning all guns.  Totally undoable too.

I don’t want to argue the politics, but from history, PP’s argument is precisely the originalist interpretation.  That supreme court interpretation is extremely recent (2008), much newer than Roe. A different court could and probably will strike the interpretation down and leave nothing but the National Guard and the police as the “well regulated militia” that is clearly described in the 2nd Amendment. I’m not arguing that’s what should be done, there are plenty of people who live in areas police cannot get to for hours or days, and police have no duty to protect, but PP’s interpretation is neither original nor wrong. Many people read it that way. Many Americans who weren’t raised with guns are perplexed that anyone would read it any other way. 
 

Here’s an ammunition site that describes the same thing in detail. Trigger warning: they are selling ammunition, they discuss the need for gun free school zones and the history of them. Just trying to provide a concise hx from a clearly pro-gun source: https://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide

 

[Pam in CT]

re Unannounced Intruder Audits: what could possibly go wrong?

14 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Has anyone else seen Abbott's plan to perform "intruder detections audits"? 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Gov-Abbott-calls-for-intruder-detection-17213182.php

State officials will begin random, unannounced visits to schools around Texas to check whether they’re compliant with state-mandated safety measures, including checks to see how quickly a stranger “can penetrate buildings without being stopped,” Gov. Greg Abbott announced Wednesday.

“Among other reviews, your team should begin conducting in-person, unannounced, random intruder detection audits on school districts,” Abbott wrote in a letter to the director of the school safety center. “Staff should approach campuses to find weak points and how quickly they can penetrate buildings without being stopped. This will help determine if schools are prepared to implement and follow the (emergency operations plans) they have already submitted to the state.”

Abbott and other Republicans have said tightening access to guns is “not a real solution” to mass shootings. They are choosing instead to focus on school “hardening,” although some experts in mass shootings have noted that shooters typically choose to terrorize places they are familiar with, making security protocols less effective.

 

 

I'm sure nothing can go wrong with this plan.  

 

Well, we can be 100% certain that many schoolchildren will be terrorized in the moment; some fraction of them will have sustained PTSD out of the experience; and all of them will encode the fear they experienced in the moment and anger at the so-called authorities that inflicted it upon them that they process thereafter as part of the baggage they hold as they mature into adults.

[This is the generation that will be responsible for our generation when we come older and more vulnerable.]

 

I'm more interested in this possible -- but not impossible -- likelihood:

11 hours ago, Grace Hopper said:

...As for Abbott’s plan… we’ll see how long it takes for one of these auditors to be taken out by a concealed carry school employee. 

Right?  The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, and all that.

If that were to occur: who's liable?

 

 

[KSera]

8 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

In order to have militias,. does not mean that we have to be in a militia.  And what the constitution means is what is interpreted by the Supreme Court.   And no on,e, and I mean, no politician, is arguing for banning all guns.  Totally undoable too.

What gun regulations are you willing to encourage be made law to reduce the number of children being shot?

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

What gun regulations are you willing to encourage be made law to reduce the number of children being shot?

21 for semi-automatic rifles--- how much this will help---probably very little.  But it is the same with all the other suggestions.  Eventually, some other crime will come into fashion.  I am a realist, and know that with our super divided Congress, very little will be done.  Bump stocks were banned in 2019. hasn't helped.  You do realize that  Columbine happened when we had a so-called assault weapon ban.  

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

21 for semi-automatic rifles--- how much this will help---probably very little.  But it is the same with all the other suggestions.  Eventually, some other crime will come into fashion.  I am a realist, and know that with our super divided Congress, very little will be done.  Bump stocks were banned in 2019. hasn't helped.  You do realize that  Columbine happened when we had a so-called assault weapon ban.  

21 would almost surely have prevented Buffalo and Uvalde. I’ll take it. It’s a start. 18-21 is the most common age group for school shooters, so that would help. 

“Six of the nine deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 2018 were by people who were 21 or younger” (New York Times)

 

Would you be willing to agree to anything else? Because congress will likely act if BOTH sides of the aisle become vocal that enough is enough and they will not vote for people who will not protect our children. Would you vote for red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of violent, mentally unstable people? This isn’t on the table , but would you personally be willing to give up your guns if you knew doing so would prevent the death of an innocent person?

[Grace Hopper]

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

21 would almost surely have prevented Buffalo and Uvalde. I’ll take it. It’s a start. 18-21 is the most common age group for school shooters, so that would help. 

“Six of the nine deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 2018 were by people who were 21 or younger” (New York Times)

 

Would you be willing to agree to anything else? Because congress will likely act if BOTH sides of the aisle become vocal that enough is enough and they will not vote for people who will not protect our children. Would you vote for red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of violent, mentally unstable people? This isn’t on the table , but would you personally be willing to give up your guns if you knew doing so would prevent the death of an innocent person?

Count me as one ready to accept partial compromises along the way. We’ve simply got to start somewhere. 

[ktgrok]

3 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re Unannounced Intruder Audits: what could possibly go wrong?

Well, we can be 100% certain that many schoolchildren will be terrorized in the moment; some fraction of them will have sustained PTSD out of the experience; and all of them will encode the fear they experienced in the moment and anger at the so-called authorities that inflicted it upon them that they process thereafter as part of the baggage they hold as they mature into adults.

[This is the generation that will be responsible for our generation when we come older and more vulnerable.]

 

 

 

I didn't read it as people showing up at school cosplaying as a shooter, but just showing up to the front door in a normal outfit, and trying to walk in to the office. Seeing if the door is open or locked. If it is locked, they can buzz in and see if they get in without giving a valid reason. If not, exercise over. If they do get buzzed in, they would then explain to the school what had just happened. Or if the door was open, they'd go in, go to the office, ask to speak to whoever is in charge and explain waht happened, present a report, etc. It's pretty common in other situations. 

[LaughingCat]

The history of the 2nd amendment is extremely ironic considering that the Supreme Court leak about overturning Roe vs. Wade cited the history of not allowing abortion in the US as one of his reasonings.   It is insane to me how so many high government officials can cite "reasons" for doing something and then on the very next issue completely ignore those exact same "reasons".   More and more it seems we are being governed by a bunch of people who believe the job is to "sound bite" and be an "influencer" rather than to govern responsibly. 

 

[Grace Hopper]

5 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I didn't read it as people showing up at school cosplaying as a shooter, but just showing up to the front door in a normal outfit, and trying to walk in to the office. Seeing if the door is open or locked. If it is locked, they can buzz in and see if they get in without giving a valid reason. If not, exercise over. If they do get buzzed in, they would then explain to the school what had just happened. Or if the door was open, they'd go in, go to the office, ask to speak to whoever is in charge and explain waht happened, present a report, etc. It's pretty common in other situations. 

Seems like if the only “weakness” they attempt to “penetrate” is the front door, I guess “only one door in and out” model is a foregone assumption. Otherwise other weaknesses would go undetected. 

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Grace Hopper said:

Seems like if the only “weakness” they attempt to “penetrate” is the front door, I guess “only one door in and out” model is a foregone assumption. Otherwise other weaknesses would go undetected. 

I guess they may check if other doors are locked, just grab handle and check. Again, that shouldn't traumatize children terribly. Just some guy that looks like he could work at the school, checking the door. 

[LaughingCat]

20 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I didn't read it as people showing up at school cosplaying as a shooter, but just showing up to the front door in a normal outfit, and trying to walk in to the office. Seeing if the door is open or locked. If it is locked, they can buzz in and see if they get in without giving a valid reason. If not, exercise over. If they do get buzzed in, they would then explain to the school what had just happened. Or if the door was open, they'd go in, go to the office, ask to speak to whoever is in charge and explain waht happened, present a report, etc. It's pretty common in other situations. 

I would hope they would not go up to the front door at all -- but try various other doors and if they do get in, walk around the school to see how long before someone realizes that a person without a nametag (or however that school visually distinguishes 'people allowed to be there') is walking around the school

For the schools I've personally seen, the primary focus is on the front door during school hours.   Security theater as some one here called it.   

My local elementary has put up walls and doors inside by the office to stop entry from the front doors into the classrooms (in the last 14 years since my older DD did K there) - which actually does very little since not only is it made of mostly glass!, but the cafeteria, gym and music room are outside the new walls, and each class goes out to the playground several times a day through other doors as well and of course there are plenty of windows in the building that could be broken in.

School shooting stats to think about when trying to figure out what would make a real difference:

• The most common location for a school shooting is in a parking lot (21.8%), followed by a classroom (10.3%)
• In 887 incidents (43.1%), the shooter was a current student at the school.
• The most commonly used weapon was a handgun or multiple handguns, which were used in 1,344 incidents. A rifle or multiple rifles were used in 107 incidents.
• The most common age of a shooter is 17, followed by 16 and 15.

(from https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/k-12-school-shooting-statistics-everyone-should-know/ )      

[Terabith]

A ten year old at an elementary school here apparently made a very detailed drawing of the school with in depth plans for a school shooting.  No idea what his intention was, but parents here are absolutely freaking out and the plans are that the child will be charged once released from the hospital.  https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2022/06/03/police-seek-charges-against-10-year-old-they-say-is-behind-roanoke-elementary-school-threat/?outputType=amp

[TexasProud]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

I didn't read it as people showing up at school cosplaying as a shooter, but just showing up to the front door in a normal outfit, and trying to walk in to the office. Seeing if the door is open or locked. If it is locked, they can buzz in and see if they get in without giving a valid reason. If not, exercise over. If they do get buzzed in, they would then explain to the school what had just happened. Or if the door was open, they'd go in, go to the office, ask to speak to whoever is in charge and explain waht happened, present a report, etc. It's pretty common in other situations. 

Yes, this. My brother-in-law who is in charge of security for a very, very large school district conducts these types of drills every single week at the various schools. They are pretty serious about it. He is a former colonel in the military and takes his job very seriously. 

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

I didn't read it as people showing up at school cosplaying as a shooter, but just showing up to the front door in a normal outfit, and trying to walk in to the office. Seeing if the door is open or locked. If it is locked, they can buzz in and see if they get in without giving a valid reason. If not, exercise over. If they do get buzzed in, they would then explain to the school what had just happened. Or if the door was open, they'd go in, go to the office, ask to speak to whoever is in charge and explain waht happened, present a report, etc. It's pretty common in other situations. 

There have also been examples of schools cosplaying shootings complete with flash bangs and smoke bombs, both with and without students present as a drill.  Kind of hard to say which way it could go.  
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna992941

Over the past two decades, the drills have ramped up in intensity — with some schools going so far as to use fake blood and fire blanks at students. A drill last month at an Indiana school prompted outrage when teachers were shot execution-style with pellet guns, leaving them injured.

 

At the same time, students’ anxieties have swelled. Some are not told that the lockdowns are just drills, prompting them to send what they believe are final goodbyes over text to their parents or faint or throw up. Others are afraid to go to school in the days following the drills.

 

 

Good judgement isn’t guaranteed in these situations.  

Edited June 5, 2022 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

There have also been examples of schools cosplaying shootings complete with flash bangs and smoke bombs, both with and without students present as a drill.  Kind of hard to say which way it could go.  
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna992941

Over the past two decades, the drills have ramped up in intensity — with some schools going so far as to use fake blood and fire blanks at students. A drill last month at an Indiana school prompted outrage when teachers were shot execution-style with pellet guns, leaving them injured.

 

At the same time, students’ anxieties have swelled. Some are not told that the lockdowns are just drills, prompting them to send what they believe are final goodbyes over text to their parents or faint or throw up. Others are afraid to go to school in the days following the drills.

 

 

Good judgement isn’t guaranteed in these situations.  

This is horrifying. What is wrong with this country?

[Idalou]

3 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

21 for semi-automatic rifles--- how much this will help---probably very little.  But it is the same with all the other suggestions.  Eventually, some other crime will come into fashion.  I am a realist, and know that with our super divided Congress, very little will be done.  Bump stocks were banned in 2019. hasn't helped.  You do realize that  Columbine happened when we had a so-called assault weapon ban.  

https://www.bustle.com/p/was-there-assault-weapons-ban-during-columbine-the-law-had-some-issues-8849364

Yes, it did, but here are a few more facts for you. Multiple loopholes. Most likely, in all laws, loopholes are known and spoken about in advance. Maybe we need to be more vigilant about not letting these type of loopholes go through, or else call out all of the lawmakers involved to explain just why they are there.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Idalou

[Terabith]

9 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

There have also been examples of schools cosplaying shootings complete with flash bangs and smoke bombs, both with and without students present as a drill.  Kind of hard to say which way it could go.  
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna992941

Over the past two decades, the drills have ramped up in intensity — with some schools going so far as to use fake blood and fire blanks at students. A drill last month at an Indiana school prompted outrage when teachers were shot execution-style with pellet guns, leaving them injured.

 

At the same time, students’ anxieties have swelled. Some are not told that the lockdowns are just drills, prompting them to send what they believe are final goodbyes over text to their parents or faint or throw up. Others are afraid to go to school in the days following the drills.

 

 

Good judgement isn’t guaranteed in these situations.  

If my kids were present at any of those kind of drills, that would be the last day they were in school.  This is reprehensible.  

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

This is horrifying. What is wrong with this country?

In this case I think it’s bored people who want to play soldier or hero.

[TravelingChris]

6 minutes ago, Terabith said:

If my kids were present at any of those kind of drills, that would be the last day they were in school.  This is reprehensible.  

And it is anti-helpful too

[TravelingChris]

Anyway, there will be no banning of any guns in any Senate proposal according to the Dem Senator from Connecticut. 

[ktgrok]

27 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

There have also been examples of schools cosplaying shootings complete with flash bangs and smoke bombs, both with and without students present as a drill.  Kind of hard to say which way it could go.  
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna992941

Over the past two decades, the drills have ramped up in intensity — with some schools going so far as to use fake blood and fire blanks at students. A drill last month at an Indiana school prompted outrage when teachers were shot execution-style with pellet guns, leaving them injured.

 

At the same time, students’ anxieties have swelled. Some are not told that the lockdowns are just drills, prompting them to send what they believe are final goodbyes over text to their parents or faint or throw up. Others are afraid to go to school in the days following the drills.

 

 

Good judgement isn’t guaranteed in these situations.  

Yes, those drills are appalling. 

But what he described sounded like a physical penetration test (something my husband has conducted as part of his job) which are pretty common. not a drill. 

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Yes, those drills are appalling. 

But what he described sounded like a physical penetration test (something my husband has conducted as part of his job) which are pretty common. not a drill. 

Since he spoke broadly it’s open to interpretation what he meant.  How one interprets what he said is going to come down to trust.  If you trust Abbott and Texas security officials then you would be more charitable in your interpretation.  I’m less trustful of them so I’m less charitable in my interpretation. We’re both just speculating.  I do so hope that your interpretation is correct and mine isn’t.  

[Grace Hopper]

43 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Anyway, there will be no banning of any guns in any Senate proposal according to the Dem Senator from Connecticut. 

Probably because it wouldn’t get past the majority in the senate. Different sorts of measures about who qualifies to purchase what are more more likely to be starting points for national level legislation. 
 

But let’s not veer into politics here, please, not because it’s not worthy of discussion but because this is not the place. 

[Idalou]

3 hours ago, KSera said:

21 would almost surely have prevented Buffalo and Uvalde. I’ll take it. It’s a start. 18-21 is the most common age group for school shooters, so that would help. 

“Six of the nine deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 2018 were by people who were 21 or younger” (New York Times)

 

Would you be willing to agree to anything else? Because congress will likely act if BOTH sides of the aisle become vocal that enough is enough and they will not vote for people who will not protect our children. Would you vote for red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of violent, mentally unstable people? This isn’t on the table , but would you personally be willing to give up your guns if you knew doing so would prevent the death of an innocent person?

See, this makes no sense to me. Of course they will not Give Up Their Guns. Why do we even go there? No one thinks we will-can- want to ban guns. We need to be asking gun owners if they will jump through harder hoops to own a gun, to submit to training or licenses or more in depth background checks or longer, more appropriate wait times, etc. It's a total shut down to ask someone to give up their guns to save a life, imo. Our own country supplies weapons of war to the world, we as a country kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in other countries, we bomb civilians and say oops, sorry. I think we need to be realistic at the mentality we are up against, to frame this as a series of steps we CAN do to reduce injury and death. We easily get fixated on school shootings, but can forget the sheer numbers of other innocents murdered with guns that were easily obtained.

I truly understand your question, though,please do not get me wrong. I am nearly at the point now that I wonder if we should simply frame this as a congressman recently said-  Are you with the kids or the killers?

Edited June 5, 2022 by Idalou

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, Idalou said:

See, this makes no sense to me. Of course they will not Give Up Their Guns. Why do we even go there? No one thinks we will-can- want to ban guns. We need to be asking gun owners if they will jump through harder hoops to own a gun, to submit to training or licenses or more in depth background checks or longer, more appropriate wait times, etc. It's a total shut down to ask someone to give up their guns to save a life, imo.

You're right that it's not the place to go in conversation. That came out of sheer utter frustration and, frankly, anger, because the deafening message really does come down to a vocal minority of gun owners being unwilling to do a damn thing to reduce gun deaths. Such that, it really does come across that if they had the psychic ability to know that giving up their own guns would prevent kids from dying, that they still wouldn't do it. It's not an actual proposal that they do so.