Things to remember about mass shootings

If you think that a gun-free zone is safe, or if you think that placing armed staff/teachers in our schools/businesses is a bad idea, here are some facts that you may have forgotten about previous mass shootings:

Columbine lasted 49 minutes and even tho there were 100+ police OUTSIDE the school, NONE came inside until the shooting stopped. Kids continue to be shot while the police waited.

The Pulse shooting in Orlando lasted over three hours. Again, hundreds of police around the perimeter and they did not go in. They poked holes in the wall to get at the shooter, but did not enter for three hours. People died while they waited for the shooter to die.

The Parkland high school shooting again had police on the outside who did not enter until it was all over. Not sure how many died because the police did not enter until it was too late.

Sandy Hook school ended in less than 2 minutes. There was not enough time for police to respond.

The Aurora Colorado movie theater shooting left 12 dead and 52 injured from gunfire. By the time the police finally arrived, they found the gunman sitting outside in his car. It was already too late to save anyone.

The Las Vegas shooting was ended by suicide just before the SWAT team entered the room 72 minutes after it began. How many more people were killed during the 72 minutes it took SWAT to arrive?

The San Bernadino shooting only lasted a few minutes before 14 were dead. It was not until 30+ minutes later when police and EMS entered the building. Some people that died might have been saved.

The facts are that when a police officer arrives at an active shooting, they are conditioned to wait for back-up and do not want to enter to confront the armed shooter/shooters. In many areas of the country, police officers will wait for their own SWAT team to arrive, which happened in Orlando, Las Vegas, Columbine, and San Bernadino. Without people on the INSIDE, that are armed, there is no reason to believe that the NEXT shooting won't follow the same police procedures used in the past, which will result in a greater loss of life.

I sent this info to a few local journalists who felt that the protection of the citizens is the duty and responsibility of the police. If you believe that, you may die in the next incident without the means to protect yourself.
The situation in Great Mills HS in Maryland ended the way it did because there was an armed resource officer already in the building.

A couple of other examples are the Holocaust Museum and Family Research Council shootings where armed guards stopped what probably would have otherwise been mass killings -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#2012_domestic_terrorist_attack

Those who argue against trained, armed persons in public places, such as schools, malls, museums, etc. are idiots and/or anti-gun ideologues, plain and simple.

Violence of action is what stops bad guys. The faster you kill bad guys the safer everyone is. Overwhelming firepower and speed kills bugs dead. Sitting on your ass and waiting does not equal a good outcome.

5.56blaster said:

Violence of action is what stops bad guys. The faster you kill bad guys the safer everyone is. Overwhelming firepower and speed kills bugs dead. Sitting on your ass and waiting does not equal a good outcome.

Click to expand...

Easily applied to Syria.

“The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes, Really.”

In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”

Click to expand...

https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/12/the-police-have-no-obligation-to-protect-you-yes-really/

The long and short of it is that the highest court in the land has said that police have no obligation to protect citizens beyond that which the police themselves decide, either individually or at the departmental level.

Click to expand...

http://www.insidesources.com/police-not-protect-supreme-court-side/

Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Shooting:

On November 27, 2015, a mass shooting occurred in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, resulting in the deaths of three people and injuries to nine.[1][2] A police officer and two civilians were killed; five police officers and four civilians were injured.[3][4] After a standoff that lasted five hours,[1][5] police SWAT teams crashed armored vehicles into the lobby and the attacker surrendered.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting

I 100% agree with your main point but your “facts” leave out a lot of facts.

Except parkland......that’s just plain bad police and disgusting police behavior IMHO

mpdc4511 said:

I 100% agree with your main point but your “facts” leave out a lot of facts.

Except parkland......that’s just plain bad police and disgusting police behavior IMHO

Click to expand...

Without wanting to write a book about each incident, what "facts" did I leave out that would have changed things?

Every situation is different. The police can do one of two things depending on their doctrine and protocols (and I've seen agencies with bad protocols or worse...none at all). The first officer on scene can gain intelligence for the guys who will actually enter the building or he can assess, report and enter on his own and either gain more intelligence (such as how many shooters) or take action to stop the incident immediately. While Parkland was a failure of law enforcement on so many levels...first responders...the sheriff...the protocols in place...previous failures all the way down the line.

Personally, I believe the first officer on scene should report then enter to attempt to stop the incident. What he finds might make him wait for backup or give him the opportunity to put an end to the incident. Every scene is different and what an officer needs to do may not always be the same. When I was an officer we were told we might have to take a round in order to stop the aggressor...it's simply what we have to do and we trained to give ourselves every advantage and not to make it a fair fight.

rgatijnet said:

Without wanting to write a book about each incident, what "facts" did I leave out that would have changed things?

Click to expand...

Not MPDC but Columbine was played under the old rules of contain and control. They assumed it was a hostage negotiation and waited to hear ransom demands and establish rapport. They also had to deal with hundreds of fleeing students and the threat of pipe bombs. Columbine really kickstarted the active killer terminology and response doctrine. The cops did what they where trained to do and played by the rules. The shootere there simply had made another rulebook. It's easy to sit here 20ish years later and plan a response but much different when it's an unfolding novel crime.

While I agree stopping the shooter quickly reduces casualties, the numbers are not directly correlated with time the shooter goes unchallenged.

Columbine lasted 49 minutes and even tho there were 100+ police OUTSIDE the school, NONE came inside until the shooting stopped. Kids continue to be shot while the police waited.

Click to expand...

Columbine death toll: 15

Sandy Hook school ended in less than 2 minutes. There was not enough time for police to respond.

Click to expand...

Sandy Hook death toll: 28

With Sandy Hook, most victims were too young to help much in their own protection.

A layered defense is most likely to reduce casualties. Having a controlled access perimeter, denying free access to interior rooms, and mounting an active defense if room doors are breached is more likely to slow down and deter an armed attacker. Controlled access should be the norm in all schools. We already do that in secure facilities, surely schools should fall in this category.

The law enforcement personnel that I have talked to all say that they are basically supposed to wait until the SWAT team can be mobilized and respond to the incident. Obviously this may not be the protocol in a small town that does not have a SWAT team.
In Orlando, it took 3 hours to neutralize the shooter and I have to believe that some victims may have bled to death during that time frame.
One officer that I spoke with was candid when he said that his department's response is based on minimizing officer deaths FIRST and protecting victims second. Naturally some officers that come upon a school shooting MAY break ranks and go on the immediate offense.
Columbine may have happened 20 years ago, but I didn't see anything different happen in Vegas. For 72 minutes, the shooter basically was left alone to continue the attack. Sure there was fleeing people, but that happens in EVERY mass shooting. People are going to try to escape, period.

rgatijnet said:

The law enforcement personnel that I have talked to all say that they are basically supposed to wait until the SWAT team can be mobilized and respond to the incident. Obviously this may not be the protocol in a small town that does not have a SWAT team.
In Orlando, it took 3 hours to neutralize the shooter and I have to believe that some victims may have bled to death during that time frame.
One officer that I spoke with was candid when he said that his department's response is based on minimizing officer deaths FIRST and protecting victims second. Naturally some officers that come upon a school shooting MAY break ranks and go on the immediate offense.
Columbine may have happened 20 years ago, but I didn't see anything different happen in Vegas. For 72 minutes, the shooter basically was left alone to continue the attack. Sure there was fleeing people, but that happens in EVERY mass shooting. People are going to try to escape, period.

Click to expand...

Colombine attack was a whole new beast for LEO who were trained to contain and Call in heavy hitters. Mopar hit this incident on the head in his response.

LEO realized this is no longer acceptable and developed “Active Shooter” training

VT was a new dynamic he barricaded the doors and initial responders tried to enter but didn’t have equipment to enter.

LEO began carrying entry kits

Pulse was contained rather quickly but turned into a hostage situation with possible explosives outside and negotiating . He didn’t rampage for 3 hours as your OP insinuated.

Parkland......bad, just bad initial LEO response


Admittedly i don’t know enough about Vegas to discuss response times yada yada yada


Again i 100% agree with the main jist that armed people inside can stop armed people inside.

I also don’t think the MD school shooting is really an acceptable comparison to the others and touting as a victory to our POV (see sentence above) as it was a murder suicide from an angry lover

I think we as a country waste a lot of resources on planning/training for mass shootings that are very, very rare. Its sensational when it happens so everyone jumps up and down and says we must do something. Its like training the fire department to respond to a plane crash.

As a cop these are very odd situations 99% of criminals want to get away. Most of these people understand death is coming

I know I’m thread derailing with the above comment and my bad OP

pbharvey said:

I think we as a country waste a lot of resources on planning/training for mass shootings that are very, very rare. Its sensational when it happens so everyone jumps up and down and says we must do something. Its like training the fire department to respond to a plane crash.

Click to expand...

x1,000,000

I agree completely that these are very very rare incidents BUT, as you all know, these are the incidents that the Liberals use as an attack on the 2nd.
Just look at what has happened since Parkland. Even Florida is considering a ban on certain weapons, in addition to raising the age limit.
Mass has inacted a ban on military style weapons, as they describe them. Deerfield, ILL has banned all AR type weapons, etc.
The facts are that unless we present an opposing view to the Liberals agenda, we are slowly losing what rights we have.
Ask yourself how all of this would be going today if Hillary had been elected, and the balance of the Supreme Court had shifted.
I certainly have a lot of respect for our Police officers but we need to present some type of response to the attack on our choice of weapons because the Liberals will not give up.
If any of the major police Chiefs would acknowledge that they do not intend to enter a school shooting with their guns blazing, it may get the parents thinking about just how safe their children are. Right now you have the sheriff at Parkland blasting anyone that even suggests that any armed staff or teachers is a good idea. Unfortunately MANY police chiefs across the country agree with him and do not like the idea of any civilian being armed. The rank and file officers do not agree with this, according to the officers I have spoken to. They encourage civilians that are well trained to obtain a carry permit.
Right now we are probably only one more shooting away from some serious trouble, with many Republicans changing their views on the 2A because of pressure from Left, which has big money supporting them. The Liberal Democrats at least stick together, even if they are intent on violating our Constitutional rights. Some of the current crop of republicans are more than willing to switch sides to protect their own hide.

For those who resist having teachers armed with guns, how about a step in the right direction; arm them with non-lethal deterrents like tear gas and smoke? Or stun guns?

Or toy bats.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...ict-arms-teachers-with-baseball-bats-to-fight

Guess it's a start.

It is very useful to have the time of response compiled...thanks