Posted on Apr 11, 2018
A Former Embassy Guard's Solution To School Shootings
52.7K
514
130
131
131
0
*The views expressed in RallyPoint Command Posts are those of the authors’ and are not endorsed by RallyPoint*
This whole gun debate is getting out of hand. We’re focusing on all the wrong things in my opinion. So, I did some thinking and came up with a tried and true way of bringing school shootings to zero. Or close to it.
Most of the arguments I hear about how to stop school shootings are focused on the shooter. That’s our first problem. It’s an impossible task to try to stop the next shooter when they’re all different, have different motives, and different resources. The other arguments focus on the weapons. AR-15’s bear the brunt of this. What makes this weapon so bad? Magazine capacity? Ok. So, will forcing the shooter to reload more save lives? Maybe, maybe not. Most everyone I know with an AR-15 shoots FMJ rounds like we use in the military. If I had to choose between my child getting shot with a green tipped 5.56 round or a 30.06 Core-Lokt round, I’ll pick the AR-15 round 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. So, let’s be careful before we force these murderers to choose a 30.06. Just food for thought.
So, if focusing on the shooter and focusing on the weapon won’t work, what will? We need to focus on the school. Bear with me as I walk through this.
I was a Marine Security Guard at the American Embassy in Bogota, Colombia and Harare, Zimbabwe. Despite what you see in movies, the MSG’s job is to protect the people and information INSIDE the embassy. Much like what needs to be done at a school. What happens outside was of little concern. We literally never talked about the threats to the embassy unless they were an actual force like the FARC in Colombia. There was no point in spending time trying to pinpoint some individual that no one knows who might do something one day. So how did we protect the people and information inside from these unknown threats? I’ll use the embassy in Colombia for this analysis since it was much more fortified. First, we start with the building to be protected being placed far away from any streets. How far? Far enough that if a car blew up on the street nothing would happen to the building. Next, we have a wall (not a fence) surrounding the property to keep people and vehicles from going off-road and getting to the building. The entry point will have armed guards and barriers. Every vehicle and every person is searched at this gate before entering. The armed guard inside has cameras on the entire property. Could someone still scale the wall and sneak onto the property? Sure, but we’ll cover that later.
What if someone shoots the guards outside and heads toward the building you say? Well the building is fortified with bullet proof glass and blast resistant doors. And those doors are locked and controlled by another armed guard inside. This guard also can control the barriers at the outside gate should he need to. (Make a mental note that at this time the guard inside just triggered an alarm and 5-10 other guys that are nearby are suiting up to come help.) Located around the perimeter of the building are CS canisters that the guard inside can deploy as needed. So, the intruder that killed the guards outside and made a run for the front door is now sucking in gas.
What if someone has a gas mask and somehow gets inside the building with a gun? Remember that armed guard inside the building? With the flip of a switch he can magnetically lock all the doors in the building. So now the intruder can only attack those who find themselves outside of the locked down areas. But he better hurry because that armed response team I mentioned earlier is only minutes away. And this team does nothing but train to clear and defend this particular building. They have rehearsed this scenario more times than they can count, and they know every nook and cranny in the building. You can’t hide. Their whole purpose in life is this exact scenario. The intruder will soon be dead.
You can see how much better this is than the current situation schools face where the shooter just walks through the front door and starts shooting. A single police officer may be there in a minute, but it takes some time figuring out what’s going on. He also doesn’t know the layout of the building. Meanwhile other law enforcement arrives and a plan is developed. All of this takes time and during that time people are dying.
But you also see the enormous cost this would entail. It is impossible to do what I’ve described in every school if any. So, what do we do? We start peeling off layers of security. The building won’t be fortified. Maybe we have an armed guard, but he isn’t in a protected position and most likely becomes the first casualty. We might install a metal detector, but it will be inside and useless for someone looking to start shooting. In the military we call this Risk Management. FM 6-0 defines it as the process of identifying, assessing, and controlling risks arising from operational factors and making decisions that balance risk cost with mission benefits. We know at the beginning of an operation people will die. We do what we can to limit that, but we can’t prevent it completely. Every layer of security we peel off from what I’ve described means we assume a little more risk which equates to possible deaths. Is the embassy scenario overkill? Probably. But at what point do you stop adding security measures and accept the risk?
The point of this is to show that A) there is a way to protect our children in school almost completely. And B) the cost to do so would be astronomical. Now we just need to decide how much we’re willing to pay (since our taxes pay for schools). But we must focus on the facility being protected. We don’t focus on unnamed, random threats in the military so why do that here? We also don’t focus on getting rid of something so prevalent as guns. We have entire government agencies focused on getting rid of illegal drugs and they can’t do it. If you think outlawing guns in the US won’t make every arms dealer in the world start drooling, you’re wrong. The influx of illegal weapons into our country would be enormous and immediate. It’s basic economics.
So, we have the plan. And like most other things in life it really comes down to money. How much are you willing to spend and how much risk are you ready to assume?
This whole gun debate is getting out of hand. We’re focusing on all the wrong things in my opinion. So, I did some thinking and came up with a tried and true way of bringing school shootings to zero. Or close to it.
Most of the arguments I hear about how to stop school shootings are focused on the shooter. That’s our first problem. It’s an impossible task to try to stop the next shooter when they’re all different, have different motives, and different resources. The other arguments focus on the weapons. AR-15’s bear the brunt of this. What makes this weapon so bad? Magazine capacity? Ok. So, will forcing the shooter to reload more save lives? Maybe, maybe not. Most everyone I know with an AR-15 shoots FMJ rounds like we use in the military. If I had to choose between my child getting shot with a green tipped 5.56 round or a 30.06 Core-Lokt round, I’ll pick the AR-15 round 6 days a week and twice on Sunday. So, let’s be careful before we force these murderers to choose a 30.06. Just food for thought.
So, if focusing on the shooter and focusing on the weapon won’t work, what will? We need to focus on the school. Bear with me as I walk through this.
I was a Marine Security Guard at the American Embassy in Bogota, Colombia and Harare, Zimbabwe. Despite what you see in movies, the MSG’s job is to protect the people and information INSIDE the embassy. Much like what needs to be done at a school. What happens outside was of little concern. We literally never talked about the threats to the embassy unless they were an actual force like the FARC in Colombia. There was no point in spending time trying to pinpoint some individual that no one knows who might do something one day. So how did we protect the people and information inside from these unknown threats? I’ll use the embassy in Colombia for this analysis since it was much more fortified. First, we start with the building to be protected being placed far away from any streets. How far? Far enough that if a car blew up on the street nothing would happen to the building. Next, we have a wall (not a fence) surrounding the property to keep people and vehicles from going off-road and getting to the building. The entry point will have armed guards and barriers. Every vehicle and every person is searched at this gate before entering. The armed guard inside has cameras on the entire property. Could someone still scale the wall and sneak onto the property? Sure, but we’ll cover that later.
What if someone shoots the guards outside and heads toward the building you say? Well the building is fortified with bullet proof glass and blast resistant doors. And those doors are locked and controlled by another armed guard inside. This guard also can control the barriers at the outside gate should he need to. (Make a mental note that at this time the guard inside just triggered an alarm and 5-10 other guys that are nearby are suiting up to come help.) Located around the perimeter of the building are CS canisters that the guard inside can deploy as needed. So, the intruder that killed the guards outside and made a run for the front door is now sucking in gas.
What if someone has a gas mask and somehow gets inside the building with a gun? Remember that armed guard inside the building? With the flip of a switch he can magnetically lock all the doors in the building. So now the intruder can only attack those who find themselves outside of the locked down areas. But he better hurry because that armed response team I mentioned earlier is only minutes away. And this team does nothing but train to clear and defend this particular building. They have rehearsed this scenario more times than they can count, and they know every nook and cranny in the building. You can’t hide. Their whole purpose in life is this exact scenario. The intruder will soon be dead.
You can see how much better this is than the current situation schools face where the shooter just walks through the front door and starts shooting. A single police officer may be there in a minute, but it takes some time figuring out what’s going on. He also doesn’t know the layout of the building. Meanwhile other law enforcement arrives and a plan is developed. All of this takes time and during that time people are dying.
But you also see the enormous cost this would entail. It is impossible to do what I’ve described in every school if any. So, what do we do? We start peeling off layers of security. The building won’t be fortified. Maybe we have an armed guard, but he isn’t in a protected position and most likely becomes the first casualty. We might install a metal detector, but it will be inside and useless for someone looking to start shooting. In the military we call this Risk Management. FM 6-0 defines it as the process of identifying, assessing, and controlling risks arising from operational factors and making decisions that balance risk cost with mission benefits. We know at the beginning of an operation people will die. We do what we can to limit that, but we can’t prevent it completely. Every layer of security we peel off from what I’ve described means we assume a little more risk which equates to possible deaths. Is the embassy scenario overkill? Probably. But at what point do you stop adding security measures and accept the risk?
The point of this is to show that A) there is a way to protect our children in school almost completely. And B) the cost to do so would be astronomical. Now we just need to decide how much we’re willing to pay (since our taxes pay for schools). But we must focus on the facility being protected. We don’t focus on unnamed, random threats in the military so why do that here? We also don’t focus on getting rid of something so prevalent as guns. We have entire government agencies focused on getting rid of illegal drugs and they can’t do it. If you think outlawing guns in the US won’t make every arms dealer in the world start drooling, you’re wrong. The influx of illegal weapons into our country would be enormous and immediate. It’s basic economics.
So, we have the plan. And like most other things in life it really comes down to money. How much are you willing to spend and how much risk are you ready to assume?
Firearms and Guns
Security
Teacher
Education
Command Post
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 62
1
1
0
Good points and I presume there is a lot more you did not cover. Passive security measures and a well understood plan in conjunction with local police and possibly armed guards ae solution that can be developed and applied locally. Waiting for state and federal politicians to come up with a solution is useless.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Yes sir, there is a lot more that could go into it. My main point was to show that despite what people on the news say, there is in fact a defense plan and that the cost of it is astronomical. Sort of a pick your poison kind of thing.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
So true The harder we make the target the less chance there is that it will be hit. The parking will be hard for existing buildings but could be easily incorporated in new construction. The magnetic locks are probably pretty easy and cost effective. The quick reaction Force is too much for schools but local police could and should conduct training at all the schools in their areas to become familiar with them. Hardened door in all classrooms and limited access points are easy to do
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Use the TSA model., list prohibited items, go through a validation check to determine if the kid is a current student, with a card/ID reader, metal detectior and at least two uniformed guards, one watching and the other processing the kids through. Teachers would be main part of the screening process. This would make the entry process quicker. Make it known to all that some of the teachers have concealed firearms even if they don't. A Police officer would maintain high visibiliy in the parking lot. Security is not just responding but to provide preventative atmosphere. Opinions vary of course....
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Right On! Well said, simple, and exactly to the point, as it should be.
I get so sick and tired of the first thing coming out of the mouths of politicians whenever this happens is "I'll be calling for a bi-partisan committee to study this problem and come up with a recommendation. Of course, we may all have to make concessions here and there (code for "forget the 2nd amendment) but our kids are more important!" or some such gobblygook and then nothing ever happens!
I get so sick and tired of the first thing coming out of the mouths of politicians whenever this happens is "I'll be calling for a bi-partisan committee to study this problem and come up with a recommendation. Of course, we may all have to make concessions here and there (code for "forget the 2nd amendment) but our kids are more important!" or some such gobblygook and then nothing ever happens!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
where do I begin - first - I think you have some good ideas, but turning our schools into small fortresses, complete with a dedicated armed response team - or QRF is a little overboard - not only would the cost of such measures be astronomical, but the public would revolt when told how much it would cost and how much taxes will get raised. The idea that doors can be locked from a central location would be a wet dream for someone looking to kill indiscriminately, all the culprit need do is wait for the system to kick in and start a fire - this is not an easy problem to solve - schools are not embassies on foreign soil, schools are places of learning and do not have the high profile political capital vested in it like an embassy - someone shoots up an embassy is grounds for international war - schools do not carry that weight - the issue I see is - how can we identify a person that's about to do something like this - the first step is having parents actively involved in their childs life, the signs of angst, anxiety, and depression are there - too many times, we find the signs were present AFTER the fact, and those closest to the culprit ignored them , or just did not care enough to try to help them before things got out of hand - social media - this , imho - is a huge reason reason for the angst, anxiety, depression, and frustration - our youngsters barely live in the material world - their entire social structure is centered on social media, especially if the children are already shunned by their peers. Society in general - when something of this magnitude happens, they let their emotions rule their brains - they generalize things and look for anything that they can label - take incels for example, these are people who are already shunned, ridiculed, and ostracized - instead of trying to help them - they get further denigrated, attacked, and bullied by those looking to have a target for their fears and anger thus reinforcing their belief that society wants them dead and that they have little, if anything, to offer. Gun control and turning our schools into mini fortresses is not the answer, they are gut reactions and defensive in nature - you never win any fight by being defensive.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Robert Perrotto I agree completely. If you read the whole article you'll see that I say that the embassy model is overkill and the cost would be astronomical. The point was to show that there is in fact a solution for making our schools safe. Which is what everyone is screaming about. But as you start peeling back layers of security you assume more and more risk. We do this in all aspects of our life.
You mention parents being active. Absolutely. The root cause of all of this violence, in my opinion, is the breakdown of the family in America. Fix that and you fix a lot of the other stuff that plagues our society. Early identification of shooters is a great concept but is really impossible. We need to be careful not to target everyone with mental disorders which is where it looks like we're heading. If someone (mentally disabled or not) speaks about committing a crime then yes, tell the authorities. But there are so many people in the country/world that are lonely, outsiders, depressed, angry, hurt, paranoid, etc. and 99.9% will never harm a soul. So while shooters make exhibit some of these traits, actively focusing on these alone will result in a witch hunt and won't help the issue at all.
And yes, social media (and the media in general) are very much a part of this problem. Shooters today know that when they commit their crime the entire world will know about it within minutes. And news outlets air coverage 24/7 and give these people all the press they could ever want.
You mention parents being active. Absolutely. The root cause of all of this violence, in my opinion, is the breakdown of the family in America. Fix that and you fix a lot of the other stuff that plagues our society. Early identification of shooters is a great concept but is really impossible. We need to be careful not to target everyone with mental disorders which is where it looks like we're heading. If someone (mentally disabled or not) speaks about committing a crime then yes, tell the authorities. But there are so many people in the country/world that are lonely, outsiders, depressed, angry, hurt, paranoid, etc. and 99.9% will never harm a soul. So while shooters make exhibit some of these traits, actively focusing on these alone will result in a witch hunt and won't help the issue at all.
And yes, social media (and the media in general) are very much a part of this problem. Shooters today know that when they commit their crime the entire world will know about it within minutes. And news outlets air coverage 24/7 and give these people all the press they could ever want.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
CPT (Anonymous), I believe you know what you are talking about!
Help me out with a couple things, though?
--Do you really think it is just comes down to money? A decision about cost versus security? If the ultimate goal is to provide students with a place where they don't have to worry about their safety, and can just focus on schoolwork, then going to school where security measures are omnipresent is only going to remind them of what we don't want them to be afraid of.
--We can prevent students from being the victims of mass shootings at school very cheaply. Just have 'em log into school from a laptop at home. (If my four-year-old niece can find her favorite videos online using a cheap tablet, and sit with it until the battery dies if you let her, I think she could probably handle online school.) And let the teachers work from home, too. But aside from the added responsibility for care and education which this would place on all parents, and the financial impossibility of this for single parents who can't to stay home with their children if they want to pay the rent, I think we want our kids to have the opportunity to experience the socializing that schools provide. So I think it's less about money and more about the shared experience we want them to have.
--You say, ''...we must focus on the facility being protected.'' But your experience is about keeping adults safe; adults who have chosen to work in a dangerous place. Children don't choose, though. And they shouldn't feel like they are in a dangerous place.
--You say, ''We don’t focus on unnamed, random threats in the military so why do that here?'' In the military, you do what works best with the resources you have. Civilian authorities should do the same, but they can't seriously be expected to ignore anything that can be done to prevent harm to children, no matter how random the threat.
--You say, ''We also don’t focus on getting rid of something so prevalent as guns.'' Isn't that like saying we can't get rid of something so prevalent as pollution? Sure, it may take generations for reasonable regulations to make an impact, but that's no argument for not starting NOW!
--You say, ''We have entire government agencies focused on getting rid of illegal drugs and they can’t do it.'' No one is talking about an epidemic of children overdosing in school buildings, so I'm guessing someone is doing something right to be able keep dangerous drugs out of schools. But the government shouldn't be expected to keep weapons out of schools? We accept that out government makes laws to minimize traffic deaths. How is the government making laws to minimize shooting deaths any different? I feel like it is the government's responsibility to try at least, and I think we should demand it of them. Why do you want to Congress off the hook?
Help me out with a couple things, though?
--Do you really think it is just comes down to money? A decision about cost versus security? If the ultimate goal is to provide students with a place where they don't have to worry about their safety, and can just focus on schoolwork, then going to school where security measures are omnipresent is only going to remind them of what we don't want them to be afraid of.
--We can prevent students from being the victims of mass shootings at school very cheaply. Just have 'em log into school from a laptop at home. (If my four-year-old niece can find her favorite videos online using a cheap tablet, and sit with it until the battery dies if you let her, I think she could probably handle online school.) And let the teachers work from home, too. But aside from the added responsibility for care and education which this would place on all parents, and the financial impossibility of this for single parents who can't to stay home with their children if they want to pay the rent, I think we want our kids to have the opportunity to experience the socializing that schools provide. So I think it's less about money and more about the shared experience we want them to have.
--You say, ''...we must focus on the facility being protected.'' But your experience is about keeping adults safe; adults who have chosen to work in a dangerous place. Children don't choose, though. And they shouldn't feel like they are in a dangerous place.
--You say, ''We don’t focus on unnamed, random threats in the military so why do that here?'' In the military, you do what works best with the resources you have. Civilian authorities should do the same, but they can't seriously be expected to ignore anything that can be done to prevent harm to children, no matter how random the threat.
--You say, ''We also don’t focus on getting rid of something so prevalent as guns.'' Isn't that like saying we can't get rid of something so prevalent as pollution? Sure, it may take generations for reasonable regulations to make an impact, but that's no argument for not starting NOW!
--You say, ''We have entire government agencies focused on getting rid of illegal drugs and they can’t do it.'' No one is talking about an epidemic of children overdosing in school buildings, so I'm guessing someone is doing something right to be able keep dangerous drugs out of schools. But the government shouldn't be expected to keep weapons out of schools? We accept that out government makes laws to minimize traffic deaths. How is the government making laws to minimize shooting deaths any different? I feel like it is the government's responsibility to try at least, and I think we should demand it of them. Why do you want to Congress off the hook?
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
A Wiegert That's a lot to cover but I'll do my best. Let me know if you want to go deeper into a certain area.
--It doesn't come down JUST to money. I also depends on the likelihood of the event happening. Most of us could probably do more to secure our homes, but we don't. Why? Because we don't perceive the threat to be imminent. If you knew for sure that someone was going to break into your home this week, you'd act differently. We all would. So the scenario I presented is overkill (as I said) based on the likelihood of a shooting happening. So because of that we have to choose the appropriate level of security. And money will always be a factor.
--Home schooling kids is a much better idea than some I've heard but as you said, it wouldn't be feasible for everyone and kids would miss out on learning important social skills.
--Whether or not children "choose" to attend schools that are dangerous (as you say embassy workers do) is irrelevant. If there's a threat there, there's a threat there.
--I never said that local authorities should ignore threats. My point in that is that these shooters are SO random that there's no viable means of profiling them prior to a shooting. If someone hears a kid talk about shooting a school up, by all means the local LE should act on that. But our main effort needs to be on what we can control, not on what we can't.
--All the gun regulations you can think of in America is not going to get guns out of the hands of criminals. The guns exist in the world and there is a demand for them here in our country. The only way I foresee that happening would be if our country becomes a police state. We don't want that.
--You're correct. We don't have an epidemic of children overdosing in schools. Nor do we have an epidemic of children shooting each other in schools. And if I had to guess, I'd say that you could find drugs in most any school in America at this very moment. Guns? Eh, maybe a few. And this argument really misses the point. I'm not as concerned as the gang member bringing a pistol to school as I am some random person walking onto campus with the intent of killing as many people as possible. Both are bad. One is worse. So yes, the gov't should do their best to keep kids from bringing guns to school. That may stop the gang member. It doesn't stop the mass shooter.
--I don't think I ever mentioned congress or "letting them off the hook". But exactly what hook are they on? Is this really an issue that you think can be solved with the stroke of a pen? I'm all for laws that make sense but a lot more is going to be needed to stop these tragic events.
--It doesn't come down JUST to money. I also depends on the likelihood of the event happening. Most of us could probably do more to secure our homes, but we don't. Why? Because we don't perceive the threat to be imminent. If you knew for sure that someone was going to break into your home this week, you'd act differently. We all would. So the scenario I presented is overkill (as I said) based on the likelihood of a shooting happening. So because of that we have to choose the appropriate level of security. And money will always be a factor.
--Home schooling kids is a much better idea than some I've heard but as you said, it wouldn't be feasible for everyone and kids would miss out on learning important social skills.
--Whether or not children "choose" to attend schools that are dangerous (as you say embassy workers do) is irrelevant. If there's a threat there, there's a threat there.
--I never said that local authorities should ignore threats. My point in that is that these shooters are SO random that there's no viable means of profiling them prior to a shooting. If someone hears a kid talk about shooting a school up, by all means the local LE should act on that. But our main effort needs to be on what we can control, not on what we can't.
--All the gun regulations you can think of in America is not going to get guns out of the hands of criminals. The guns exist in the world and there is a demand for them here in our country. The only way I foresee that happening would be if our country becomes a police state. We don't want that.
--You're correct. We don't have an epidemic of children overdosing in schools. Nor do we have an epidemic of children shooting each other in schools. And if I had to guess, I'd say that you could find drugs in most any school in America at this very moment. Guns? Eh, maybe a few. And this argument really misses the point. I'm not as concerned as the gang member bringing a pistol to school as I am some random person walking onto campus with the intent of killing as many people as possible. Both are bad. One is worse. So yes, the gov't should do their best to keep kids from bringing guns to school. That may stop the gang member. It doesn't stop the mass shooter.
--I don't think I ever mentioned congress or "letting them off the hook". But exactly what hook are they on? Is this really an issue that you think can be solved with the stroke of a pen? I'm all for laws that make sense but a lot more is going to be needed to stop these tragic events.
(1)
(0)
A Wiegert
MAJ (Join to see) - Thank you for such an excellent response to my posting! No, I don't think anything can be solved by the stroke of a pen. I would imagine solutions can only come through continued involvement and commitment of thoughtful people like yourself. At an embassy outside the U.S., you are surrounded by an environment over which you have no control. The same is not true about a school in the U.S. It is fair for us, here, to demand that our lawmakers take action with an eye toward the common good and to not be hamstrung by their fears of being 'primaried' or their concerns about their campaign coffers. Allowing our representatives to get away with not only refusing to act, but also prohibiting even the gathering of statistics which could help clarify measures that would be effective, is letting them off the hook!
(0)
(0)
SP5 Ronald R Glaeseman
I think I see where this is going with urging our congressional representatives to act. Don't want to put words in your mouth but I think your're saying universal background checks, "assault" weapons ban, hi-cap magazine ban, and 21 years of age to purchase a firearm, stuff like that? OK, you're right, most of this would not have an immediate impact on mass shootings and may take generations to show effectiveness. Who can argue with the future? But until that time, mass shootings will continue and since these measures will work exceedingly slow, there will be calls for yet more and more laws with the vain hope that something will work. And don't be deluded that the politicos who enact these laws don't have other motives than protection of the American people. When I think of gun laws, I think of Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook infamy. Where did Adam get his AR and semi-auto pistols? His mother bought them for him (or for her and he had easy access to them). She walked into the gun store, bought 'em up and took them home to Adam, and then they went to the range. One day, Adam decided to re-pay her for her kindness. He walked into her bedroom and while she was sleeping, shot her in the head with a .22 rifle. Then he went to Sandy Hook school and shot a bunch of children. What law would defend against Adam Lanza?
(1)
(0)
CPT William Jones
Covered by current law as illegal- straw buyer she bought guns for another person. or failed to secure fire arms in her house from minors. So we have an example of how laws don't work. or he stole them from her after shooting her. Then he broke a bunch more School gun free zone,commited murder etc.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
How about we focus on putting liberty first. How about we focus on hearing redress of grievances. How about we focus on not marginalizing each other. Because that is the frustration many people feel
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I mean the way it is slowly becoming, schools look more like prisons than actual schools. Which is where/when focus is directed at threats such as the gun or the individual. They need to punish the bullies for starters and not the victim, that would be a good start. But these tragedies are also turned political to push certain policies instead of focusing on the real problems.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A child is significantly more likely to die playing school sports than in a school shooting. Too many people can't effectively prioritize threats. We have already spent more money addressing school shootings than a vulnerability assessment would justify.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google