• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Douglas County School District has purchased 10 semi-automatic rifles for security

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jmman said:
Maybe because it says so in the article?

"According to the district, all eight armed security officers have law enforcement experience and already carry handguns."
Click to expand...

so do parole officers
and meter maids
and workstudy nighttime security guards at your campus library
and hall monitors
oh and so do the actual LEOs that were released from the force for....reasons.
etc.
 
Jmman said:
Nice straw man there. There is absolutely no way to protect every facet of your child's life, but having an SRO or an armed guard at the school just seems prudent.
Click to expand...

We have already established that there are far more dangerous places out there for children that they encounter every day. We also covered the incredibly small chance that the school will even be involved in a school shooting let alone these rifles having an impact on the outcome. If this were really about saving children's lives then the best course of action would be to spend that money feeding starving children.

What this is actually about is wasteful, feelgood expenditures that are, statistically, unlikely to have any relevance on those students lives. Spending that time and money on actions elsewhere could, in contrast, have measureable immpacts on the lives of children. If you think this is prudent then you are ignoring the facts of the matter and reacting soley on the basis of emotion and fear
 
Exterous said:
What this is actually about is wasteful, feelgood expenditures that are, statistically, unlikely to have any relevance on those students lives. Spending that time and money on actions elsewhere could, in contrast, have measureable immpacts on the lives of children. If you think this is prudent then you are ignoring the facts of the matter and reacting soley on the basis of emotion and fear
Click to expand...

This entirely, yet it does not go nearly far enough. Here are 2 considerations:

1. The worst thing you can do for a person who is at risk of mass violence is to make them feel more justified as dangerous and different and unwanted members of society.

2. Security theater has short-term palliation of that fear you mention, but in the long-term merely contributes to setting of a new normal. First it was security officers, then metal detectors, then armed officers, active shooter drills, assault rifles, etc. Each time some of us say the action is bad, yet we give up that fight shortly after it has become status quo. Sooner or later we are going to be frisking kids as if we've always done it.

And yet we will have done nothing to actually prevent these scenarios, and likely we will have promoted their occurrence in our attempts.

Seriously. The numbers of incidents and fatalities are going up. Shouldn't we be asking why?
 
LTC8K6 said:
First maybe we should establish the facts about that claim. Is it really true? Or does it depend on who I ask?
Click to expand...

The reports seem to suggest it is the case:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/number-mass-shootings-rise-most-schools-fbi-report-n211261
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/mass-public-shootings-increasing-in-us/

interchange said:
Seriously. The numbers of incidents and fatalities are going up. Shouldn't we be asking why?
Click to expand...

We know one reason why but the groups responsible for that reason just can't help themselves. Hell - even both sides of the gun debate recognize that third party's roll:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/dean-weingarten/va-journalist-shooting-is-the-media-responsible/
 
Certainly not an explosion of these events. But my intent was merely a way of drawing attention to consideration of the causes when seeking solutions.
 
Not seeing the big deal. We already have 6 (last I heard) full time armed police officers at the local high school. Used to be able to graduate, come back the next year, walk into any one of many unlocked doors, and drop in and say Hi to teachers and students. Not any more...
 
DrPizza said:
Completely pointless. As evidenced by one of the recent thwarted attempts at a large school shooting, the perpetrators plans included the resource officers schedule - he was going to be the first person shot.
-snip-
Click to expand...

From my reading of the article these are not SRO's. They are patrol officers.

So 8 guys now have rifles? Big whoop, plus seems prudent. If there is an active shooter situation I'd rather send in a guy with a rifle and not a pistol.

Fern
 
Fern said:
From my reading of the article these are not SRO's. They are patrol officers.

So 8 guys now have rifles? Big whoop, plus seems prudent. If there is an active shooter situation I'd rather send in a guy with a rifle and not a pistol.

Fern
Click to expand...

Safety behaviors always seem prudent. That's precisely the point.
 
interchange said:
Sooner or later we are going to be frisking kids as if we've always done it.
Click to expand...

Nope. Body scanners are too profitable to not be using. Just sick the taxpayer with a bill for 20 million body scanners. Big money $$. And then you make even more money selling cancer treatment after years of thrice-daily radiation of tender young flesh.
 
sm625 said:
Nope. Body scanners are too profitable to not be using. Just sick the taxpayer with a bill for 20 million body scanners. Big money $$. And then you make even more money selling cancer treatment after years of thrice-daily radiation of tender young flesh.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! If only doctors profited from providing specific treatments (anymore).
 
Two thoughts. One, this is a largely pointless and wasteful move. Given how rarely mass shootings happen, wasting time and money on the guns and associated training required, it's just pointless and I'd rather see that money go towards the education. In the event that something horrible were to happen police and swat would be much better way to handle it. Two, I find it ironic and hypocritical that government in this case represented by a school district in CO is giving itself semi auto rifles while simultaneously denying citizens of CO access to 30 round magazines. Really really hypocritical. If the state feels they need access to the "scary black rifles" with "high capacity" magazines for "protection", the same gear should be available for regular citizens to legally purchase.
 
fleshconsumed said:
Two thoughts. One, this is a largely pointless and wasteful move. Given how rarely mass shootings happen, wasting time and money on the guns and associated training required, it's just pointless and I'd rather see that money go towards the education. In the event that something horrible were to happen police and swat would be much better way to handle it. Two, I find it ironic and hypocritical that government in this case represented by a school district in CO is giving itself semi auto rifles while simultaneously denying citizens of CO access to 30 round magazines. Really really hypocritical. If the state feels they need access to the "scary black rifles" with "high capacity" magazines for "protection", the same gear should be available for regular citizens to legally purchase.
Click to expand...
I'd argue this is not a "largely pointless and wasteful move" as Rifles offer a significant advantage over handguns in combat situations. Second, the local PD and SWAT may certainly be better trained than security with "LE experience" but the security personnel are already on scene. Through the training I have seen and read the emphasis is on confronting the threat immediately. That means if a beat cop on patrol is first on scene, he goes in and doesn't wait for SWAT. A majority of mass/school shooters end their spree once confronted by armed resistance. So having a capably equipped officer in the school can reduce the time the shooter is roaming the halls unobstructed.

While some valid point are raised by some here about the shooter eliminating the security officer first, the best laid plans can and usually do go to waste once in play. In such a scenario it would be beneficial to have MORE armed resistance on scene for the shooter. I know some schools allow concealed carry for teachers. Kind of makes it hard for the shooter to eliminate armed resistance if he either doesn't know who is armed or how many.

Yes school shootings are rare and there are other more dangerous things to children, like pools and stairs. A parent can educate their children on the dangers around pools and stairs to reduce their risk of accidental death. There is little you can do for your child in the event of an armed gunman in their school.

Ar15s can be purchased/built for ~$500 each. Depending on the district budget it may not be a huge expense that has a significant boost to an officers effectiveness in an active shooter scenario.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
AHamick said:
I'd argue this is not a "largely pointless and wasteful move" as Rifles offer a significant advantage over handguns in combat situations. Second, the local PD and SWAT may certainly be better trained than security with "LE experience" but the security personnel are already on scene. Through the training I have seen and read the emphasis is on confronting the threat immediately. That means if a beat cop on patrol is first on scene, he goes in and doesn't wait for SWAT. A majority of mass/school shooters end their spree once confronted by armed resistance. So having a capably equipped officer in the school can reduce the time the shooter is roaming the halls unobstructed.

While some valid point are raised by some here about the shooter eliminating the security officer first, the best laid plans can and usually do go to waste once in play. In such a scenario it would be beneficial to have MORE armed resistance on scene for the shooter. I know some schools allow concealed carry for teachers. Kind of makes it hard for the shooter to eliminate armed resistance if he either doesn't know who is armed or how many.

Yes school shootings are rare and there are other more dangerous things to children, like pools and stairs. A parent can educate their children on the dangers around pools and stairs to reduce their risk of accidental death. There is little you can do for your child in the event of an armed gunman in their school.

Ar15s can be purchased/built for ~$500 each. Depending on the district budget it may not be a huge expense that has a significant boost to an officers effectiveness in an active shooter scenario.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're more likely to get killed by lightning than be a victim of mass shooting in a school. So yes, it is unreasonable to spend all this time and money to protect against something that happens once in a blue moon.

As far as money, basic rifle is 500, quality red dot is another 400, add in couple of mags and ammo and you're at 1K per rifle, so 10K to just purchase the gear. I believe the article said the officers would also be undergoing regular training. I bet the training won't be just shooting targets on range, but actual swat like training, that is not going to be cheap. Once again you're probably talking tens of thousands of dollars on training a year.

Quick google says there are 13,000 school districts in US. If every school did this we'd be spending 13 Billions to protect against something that's more rare than a lightning strike. I think it's totally unreasonable, pointless, and wasteful. I'd rather see that money go towards educating kids.
 
Don't see the big deal at all, but then I haven't been trained by propaganda like some to pee myself over someone having a gun.

So some guard at some school will have access to a rifle. Good for them.

The usual pants-pee'rs can't really seem to come up with a single valid reason why this is some dire thing anyone should really care about.

Other than any nut that might think twice about showing up at a Douglas County school with intent to shoot someone... who else in their right mind would care?
 
As been pointed out there are good reasons not to do it. Reason number one is 13 Billions of dollars (if every single school district went ahead and did this) spent trying to stop something that's less likely to kill you than a lightning strike. Reason number two as Genx87 pointed out, this kind of behavior leads to acceptance of military police state in the name of perceived security, I don't want the future generation to grow up thinking it's acceptable to create military state just because someone said "boo".
 
Sorry, still no valid reasons.

Police state is laughable hyperbole- sounds like someone got all upset over the term 'semi-automatic' cause that sounds real scary. Talk about someone saying "boo."


Schools probably spend a ton on fire extinquishers and smoke alarms that are very unlikely to be used. Some will- most won't- just like any other protective device.

Anyone all butthurt and crying over that?

I know, I know.. but guns are scary!!!

I guess if you've been programmed to think so.

I have no more problem with armed guards in a school than I do armed guards in a bank.

Is my money more valuable than my children? Maybe to some people, but not mine.

I see it as kind of stupid to leave among society's most valuable things completely unprotected - when we've all seen now that harm certainly is possible, however unlikely and unpredictable in any given location.

I see pants-wetting over one tool of protection in a school for a possible but unlikely emergency (a gun and someone trained to use it) vs. other tools of protection against possible but unlikely emergencies (fire alarms, extinquishers, etc.) as silly.
 
Sonikku said:
Why stop there? Why not buy miniguns? :hmm:
Click to expand...


Probably already been considered in Texas, but ditched when they saw the price of feeding a Dillon .308 in bulk. 😉

I'd take several smart GSDs or Malinois trained to bring down shooters over mallcops shooting 5.56 in a place loaded with kids. Dogs naturally want to protect our young, and can ambush, track and respond to a shooter much faster and safer than any human. Shooting a dog who is moving full speed is hard for a pro, let alone the typical unhinged nut high on adrenaline and rage. One well trained dog can be quite the handful for a grown man, two or more coming at you is game over. At the very least the shooter has his attention on the dogs so responders can better engage and eliminate.


Or maybe just this news will deter would be shooters. I guess we'll see.
 
Zaap said:
Sorry, still no valid reasons.

Police state is laughable hyperbole- sounds like someone got all upset over the term 'semi-automatic' cause that sounds real scary. Talk about someone saying "boo."


Schools probably spend a ton on fire extinquishers and smoke alarms that are very unlikely to be used. Some will- most won't- just like any other protective device.

Anyone all butthurt and crying over that?

I know, I know.. but guns are scary!!!

I guess if you've been programmed to think so.

I have no more problem with armed guards in a school than I do armed guards in a bank.

Is my money more valuable than my children? Maybe to some people, but not mine.

I see it as kind of stupid to leave among society's most valuable things completely unprotected - when we've all seen now that harm certainly is possible, however unlikely and unpredictable in any given location.

I see pants-wetting over one tool of protection in a school for a possible but unlikely emergency (a gun and someone trained to use it) vs. other tools of protection against possible but unlikely emergencies (fire alarms, extinquishers, etc.) as silly.
Click to expand...

Let's do some math on this:

Let's be exceedingly generous and say that these 9 guns at cost of $12,300 for a county with 305,963 would reduce school shooting deaths by 50%. If we take that $12,300 * 318,900,000 (pop US) / 305,963 (pop Douglas Co, CO) / 9.5 (half of school shooting deaths last year) we get: $1,349,482 spent to save 1 life. And that's being very generous in saying that this intervention is 50% effective. I suggest it will be 0% effective, but hey I can't really know can I?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top