WebFire;1348152 wrote:You guys are fucking nuts if you think the 12 hour CHL class is all these people will need to be adequately trained in a high stress mass shooting scenerio.

Define "adequately trained." They don't need to be military sharp shooters.

As for a "high stress mass shooting scenario," short of being in the military you can't be trained for that. Be comfortable enough to know the gun inside and out, fire it with an acceptable level of accuracy, and have a healthy respect for what it is. That's pretty much what you can do to. How do you train someone for a life-and-death situation? You can't, so the notion that they will somehow be better equipped to handle the situation with something more expensive, but below military training, seems deluded.

O-Trap;1348168 wrote:Define "adequately trained." They don't need to be military sharp shooters.

As for a "high stress mass shooting scenario," short of being in the military you can't be trained for that. Be comfortable enough to know the gun inside and out, fire it with an acceptable level of accuracy, and have a healthy respect for what it is. That's pretty much what you can do to. How do you train someone for a life-and-death situation? You can't, so the notion that they will somehow be better equipped to handle the situation with something more expensive, but below military training, seems deluded.

Again, I present this video. No way just the standard CHL should be enough to carry in schools. I think a whole new level of training and licensing should be required to carry in a school. This isn't something to take lightly.

[video=youtube;8QjZY3WiO9s][/video]

ccrunner609;1348185 wrote:Its obviously going to be left to the schools to do this. THe state is not going to mandate and fund this. Each district will then offer to its employees the chance for them to carry if they want at their expense. If nobody in a district wants to do this then they dont have anyone carrying.

Hence, none taxpayer funded and likely most districts will have a few people that want to do this. Like I said, there are already a few people in my district that already has this permit.

I don't have a problem with that if their are volunteers. But see my post above. I don't think a "regular" CHL is enough.

WebFire;1348217 wrote:Again, I present this video. No way just the standard CHL should be enough to carry in schools. I think a whole new level of training and licensing should be required to carry in a school. This isn't something to take lightly.

[video=youtube;8QjZY3WiO9s][/video]

so have you changed your opinion that officials carrying would be a viable option if proper training is made available? what would you consider proper training?

Pick6;1348236 wrote:so have you changed your opinion that officials carrying would be a viable option if proper training is made available? what would you consider proper training?

No, I still don't think it is a good solution. But if it is going to happen, the training needs to be more than a 12 hour class with a little bit of shooting. The CHL class in Ohio is nothing more than a formality to get your license. No one fails.

I don't know what the training would be. I would leave that to experts in gun training. I'm sure they could handle it.

WebFire;1348217 wrote:Again, I present this video. No way just the standard CHL should be enough to carry in schools. I think a whole new level of training and licensing should be required to carry in a school. This isn't something to take lightly.

[video=youtube;8QjZY3WiO9s][/video]

The issue I might take with this is that the "assailant" in the experiment appeared to have been very well trained. If you put an advanced or expert against a novice, this is of course going to be the result.

Not to mention that the assailant in the example went immediately for the student with the weapon after killing the instructor. In reality, a gunman isn't necessarily going to know that someone is armed, let alone who.

Plus, these same physiological impairment for the armed students that this video substantiates should also be exhibited in the assailant if they've not had the type of training that the video suggests police have.

Ultimately, it doesn't appear as if this video reflects an apples-to-apples comparison to what we're discussing here.

Moreover, perhaps the best realistic outcome is not to prevent any innocents from being killed, but to limit that number. If the school has five armed staff members, and one is killed, and the rest of the school is put on lockdown, there are four more who are not necessarily going to be surprised as the students were in the video.

Again, expecting any teacher to be police-proficient is a pipedream. However, there have been far too many examples of gunmen being put down by CCW carriers in other instances for it to simply be an anomaly.

Also, we haven't discussed the potential for the knowledge that some teachers are armed acting as a deterrent in at least some instances.

The numbers themselves seem to indicate that having a CHL-trained carrier in real-life instances provides an advantage for the potential victims. Fewer people die, on average, when someone with a concealed weapon is present. The number is not zero, so I'm not suggesting that it grants the ideal outcome. I'd simply suggest that it is preferable.

WebFire;1348291 wrote:No, I still don't think it is a good solution. But if it is going to happen, the training needs to be more than a 12 hour class with a little bit of shooting. The CHL class in Ohio is nothing more than a formality to get your license. No one fails.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine recently got his, and two people failed.

Also, perhaps the number of failures is low because the training is adequate for what is required.

O-Trap;1348415 wrote: For what it's worth, a friend of mine recently got his, and two people failed.

Also, perhaps the number of failures is low because the training is adequate for what is required.

Go take the class and then tell me what you think. I think I've only heard of people failing if the instructor thought they were an absolute danger with a gun. Sure, I'm sure you can cite a failure or two, but it's rare.

If you think sitting through 10 hours of book work and about 30 rounds at a paper target is enough training for a teacher to carry in a school, then I have no response to that.

Just make it a week long course taken in the summer taught by police or military. I have no idea what it would entail but I'm sure smarter people than I can figure that out. I'm with web, NO WAY is a 12 hour CCW class enough training to carry a gun in a school. Also a massive background check would need to be done on whoever wants to carry(in a school).

O-Trap;1348415 wrote:The issue I might take with this is that the "assailant" in the experiment appeared to have been very well trained. If you put an advanced or expert against a novice, this is of course going to be the result.

I would say it's at least fair enough to say that most of the shooters in these types of scenarios have experience with guns. It doesn't take much skill to do what the assailant did here.

O-Trap;1348415 wrote:Not to mention that the assailant in the example went immediately for the student with the weapon after killing the instructor. In reality, a gunman isn't necessarily going to know that someone is armed, let alone who.

Point is that you have to be able to do this quick. He may not come at you first, but he also may. And as soon he sees you pulling out a weapon, you can bet your ass he's shooting at you.

O-Trap;1348415 wrote:Plus, these same physiological impairment for the armed students that this video substantiates should also be exhibited in the assailant if they've not had the type of training that the video suggests police have.

Advantage: bad guy. Why? He knows what's going on, he planned it. He has the anticipation. The concealed carrier is completely surprised. Two totally different mindsets there.

O-Trap;1348415 wrote:Ultimately, it doesn't appear as if this video reflects an apples-to-apples comparison to what we're discussing here.

I'd say it's fair and pretty accurately represents the reactions of people in these situations.

O-Trap;1348415 wrote:Moreover, perhaps the best realistic outcome is not to prevent any innocents from being killed, but to limit that number. If the school has five armed staff members, and one is killed, and the rest of the school is put on lockdown, there are four more who are not necessarily going to be surprised as the students were in the video.

They may not quite have the element of surprise, but I still think you overestimate average Joe's ability to react and think clearly in these situations.

O-Trap;1348415 wrote:Again, expecting any teacher to be police-proficient is a pipedream. However, there have been far too many examples of gunmen being put down by CCW carriers in other instances for it to simply be an anomaly.

Of course they won't be trained to the level of police. I don't believe I ever said they should. But you don't agree they should have some level of training greater than the regular CHL? If not, go take the CHL class and then let me know.

O-Trap;1348415 wrote:Also, we haven't discussed the potential for the knowledge that some teachers are armed acting as a deterrent in at least some instances.

The numbers themselves seem to indicate that having a CHL-trained carrier in real-life instances provides an advantage for the potential victims. Fewer people die, on average, when someone with a concealed weapon is present. The number is not zero, so I'm not suggesting that it grants the ideal outcome. I'd simply suggest that it is preferable.

This really is the only argument that I think is a decent one. However, I really think the carrier gets shot dead an the shooter continues. Maybe not every time, but the odds are stacked against him.

Also, I'd like to see these numbers you speak of.

WebFire;1348479 wrote:I would say it's at least fair enough to say that most of the shooters in these types of scenarios have experience with guns. It doesn't take much skill to do what the assailant did here.

I'd say the video suggests otherwise. One of the students tested had "hundreds of hours" using a firearm, and he still had trouble. That would, it seems, indicate a difference between "experience" with guns and police or military training.

WebFire;1348479 wrote:Point is that you have to be able to do this quick. He may not come at you first, but he also may. And as soon he sees you pulling out a weapon, you can bet your ass he's shooting at you.

Assuming he's ready for someone in the room to HAVE a weapon. I'm perhaps not as convinced as you seem to be that a gunman is going to know the facts surrounding each classroom. As I said before, even with rules as they exist today, I know of at least one person who was a teacher and always had a firearm on their person. If you walked into a classroom, I sincerely doubt you're watching to see who reaches for a weapon.

WebFire;1348479 wrote:Advantage: bad guy. Why? He knows what's going on, he planned it. He has the anticipation. The concealed carrier is completely surprised. Two totally different mindsets there.

Did you watch the entire clip? The example later was that even when she knew what was coming in the video, she still had a slow reaction time, based on those physiological changes. The video you posted would suggest that the shooter would likely be experiencing the same physiological functions related to adrenaline and blood flow.

WebFire;1348479 wrote:I'd say it's fair and pretty accurately represents the reactions of people in these situations.

As I stated:

1. Real gunman will not usually have police or military training, making them equally susceptible to the decreased motor skills and coordination associated with increased blood flow away from the extremities. The example here had a police-trained professional acting as the gunman, avoiding these. Flawed comparison.

2. The real gunman will not necessarily know to look for a gun, let alone where. The example here showed that he did. Flawed comparison.

3. Even if the first classroom was to play out much in this way, which is unlikely, the ability for other teachers to then be aware of the situation and be more prepared with weapons drawn increases their chance of success, particularly given that the biggest problem students seemed to have was to draw the weapon in the first place. Insufficient test.

The test accurately depicted a college student with a firearm in a classroom and an assailant who (a) knew it was a test, (b) had police training, (c) knew what student had the weapon, and (d) knew that the event was over with that room alone.

None of those four things, I'd suggest, are inevitabilities for an actual gunman, and I'd say only one is even possible in most cases (the training one).

WebFire;1348479 wrote:They may not quite have the element of surprise, but I still think you overestimate average Joe's ability to react and think clearly in these situations.

Not at all. I simply think you overestimate the gunman's ability to react and think clearly. Unless he has military or police training, I wouldn't put money on a gunman against five different armed teachers. Maybe one-to-one, the element of surprise is still fully there, but I like the odds with five armed teachers/administrators to prevent him from making his way through the school unopposed before turning the gun on himself.

Needless to say, I still think the first option should be to flee if possible, but if that's not an option, I don't think sitting in the corner away from the view of the door and hoping he doesn't just shoot his way in is a safer option.

WebFire;1348479 wrote:Of course they won't be trained to the level of police. I don't believe I ever said they should. But you don't agree they should have some level of training greater than the regular CHL? If not, go take the CHL class and then let me know.

I agree that it might not necessarily be the exact same, but having a class that is similar in cost and time commitment once every couple months ... I'd imagine there are police forces adept enough to make that as viable an option as there can be.

WebFire;1348479 wrote:This really is the only argument that I think is a decent one. However, I really think the carrier gets shot dead an the shooter continues. Maybe not every time, but the odds are stacked against him.

I could see giving the gunman the better odds in a one-to-one, but you really think a gunman is going to win out more times than not if faced with five different armed school personnel, none of whom he knows are carrying ahead of time?

I still think you're overestimating the aptitude of most gunmen.

WebFire;1348479 wrote:Also, I'd like to see these numbers you speak of.

I was referring to the number of instances in which a violent crime being committed was stopped by someone with a CCW. A quick Google search will give story after story after story about how someone with a CCW stopped an assailant.

Awhile back, I even read an FBI report (which I'm now trying to find, so don't take my word for this yet) that said 1 in 10 mass shootings during a particular time frame was ended by a CCW holder.

Now, perhaps it would be more convincing if it was 6 out of 10 or so, but remember, a lot of such mass shootings (almost all, as I recall) have taken place where firearms are not permitted.

O-Trap;1348619 wrote:I'd say the video suggests otherwise. One of the students tested had "hundreds of hours" using a firearm, and he still had trouble. That would, it seems, indicate a difference between "experience" with guns and police or military training.



Assuming he's ready for someone in the room to HAVE a weapon. I'm perhaps not as convinced as you seem to be that a gunman is going to know the facts surrounding each classroom. As I said before, even with rules as they exist today, I know of at least one person who was a teacher and always had a firearm on their person. If you walked into a classroom, I sincerely doubt you're watching to see who reaches for a weapon.



Did you watch the entire clip? The example later was that even when she knew what was coming in the video, she still had a slow reaction time, based on those physiological changes. The video you posted would suggest that the shooter would likely be experiencing the same physiological functions related to adrenaline and blood flow.



As I stated:

1. Real gunman will not usually have police or military training, making them equally susceptible to the decreased motor skills and coordination associated with increased blood flow away from the extremities. The example here had a police-trained professional acting as the gunman, avoiding these. Flawed comparison.

2. The real gunman will not necessarily know to look for a gun, let alone where. The example here showed that he did. Flawed comparison.

3. Even if the first classroom was to play out much in this way, which is unlikely, the ability for other teachers to then be aware of the situation and be more prepared with weapons drawn increases their chance of success, particularly given that the biggest problem students seemed to have was to draw the weapon in the first place. Insufficient test.

The test accurately depicted a college student with a firearm in a classroom and an assailant who (a) knew it was a test, (b) had police training, (c) knew what student had the weapon, and (d) knew that the event was over with that room alone.

None of those four things, I'd suggest, are inevitabilities for an actual gunman, and I'd say only one is even possible in most cases (the training one).



Not at all. I simply think you overestimate the gunman's ability to react and think clearly. Unless he has military or police training, I wouldn't put money on a gunman against five different armed teachers. Maybe one-to-one, the element of surprise is still fully there, but I like the odds with five armed teachers/administrators to prevent him from making his way through the school unopposed before turning the gun on himself.

Needless to say, I still think the first option should be to flee if possible, but if that's not an option, I don't think sitting in the corner away from the view of the door and hoping he doesn't just shoot his way in is a safer option.



I agree that it might not necessarily be the exact same, but having a class that is similar in cost and time commitment once every couple months ... I'd imagine there are police forces adept enough to make that as viable an option as there can be.



I could see giving the gunman the better odds in a one-to-one, but you really think a gunman is going to win out more times than not if faced with five different armed school personnel, none of whom he knows are carrying ahead of time?

I still think you're overestimating the aptitude of most gunmen.



I was referring to the number of instances in which a violent crime being committed was stopped by someone with a CCW. A quick Google search will give story after story after story about how someone with a CCW stopped an assailant.

Awhile back, I even read an FBI report (which I'm now trying to find, so don't take my word for this yet) that said 1 in 10 mass shootings during a particular time frame was ended by a CCW holder.

Now, perhaps it would be more convincing if it was 6 out of 10 or so, but remember, a lot of such mass shootings (almost all, as I recall) have taken place where firearms are not permitted.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with almost all your points, and your last part isn't even the same situation. We aren't talking about a robber in a convenience store. So finding CCW (CHL in Ohio, btw) stories is irrelevant.

Also, are you suggesting that for this to work, 4 or 5 teachers have to get together and gang up on the assailant?

WebFire;1348671 wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't agree with almost all your points, and your last part isn't even the same situation. We aren't talking about a robber in a convenience store. So finding CCW (CHL in Ohio, btw) stories is irrelevant.

Also, are you suggesting that for this to work, 4 or 5 teachers have to get together and gang up on the assailant?

I wasn't referring to robberies in that last part. I specifically said 1 in 10 mass shootings. Someone with their CCW (I know it's CHL, but you're inviting questions with that, and CCW communicates the intended concept to most people) in a building where someone comes in and starts shooting people. It might be different in another setting, but it's not dissimilar when we're talking about aptitude with firing effectively in a pressure situation.

As for the latter part, no. Even one at a time, he has to come out on top five times in a row. If even just one teacher is able to put him down, that does likely prevent additional killings.

Given that, again, most mass shooters don't have up-to-date training, they're hardly going to be any closer to having nerves of steel than a potential victim. The video you posted, which explains what happens in the body under stress, only affirms that.

IF the gunman were to have such training, and it had not been lost due to a lack of upkeep (the officer in the video said this would happen within a month or two without training), then perhaps I'd agree with you that it probably wouldn't help (though I doubt it would hurt, even then). However, in that so many of these gunman are civilians without police backgrounds or proper training of any sort, I see no logical reason to suggest they would be any more immune to the physiological changes that would result from such a stressful series of events.

O-Trap;1348684 wrote:I wasn't referring to robberies in that last part. I specifically said 1 in 10 mass shootings. Someone with their CCW (I know it's CHL, but you're inviting questions with that, and CCW communicates the intended concept to most people) in a building where someone comes in and starts shooting people. It might be different in another setting, but it's not dissimilar when we're talking about aptitude with firing effectively in a pressure situation.

As for the latter part, no. Even one at a time, he has to come out on top five times in a row. If even just one teacher is able to put him down, that does likely prevent additional killings.

Given that, again, most mass shooters don't have up-to-date training, they're hardly going to be any closer to having nerves of steel than a potential victim. The video you posted, which explains what happens in the body under stress, only affirms that.

IF the gunman were to have such training, and it had not been lost due to a lack of upkeep (the officer in the video said this would happen within a month or two without training), then perhaps I'd agree with you that it probably wouldn't help (though I doubt it would hurt, even then). However, in that so many of these gunman are civilians without police backgrounds or proper training of any sort, I see no logical reason to suggest they would be any more immune to the physiological changes that would result from such a stressful series of events.

Given that Adam Lanza had supposedly been to the shooting range multiple times and was prepared to die, I think he had the advantage. I'm not saying the shooter is immune to anything, but I do think they hold the advantage.

I just think most people in this scenario would piss down their leg.

WebFire;1348695 wrote:Given that Adam Lanza had supposedly been to the shooting range multiple times and was prepared to die, I think he had the advantage. I'm not saying the shooter is immune to anything, but I do think they hold the advantage.

I just think most people in this scenario would piss down their leg.

Shooting range multiple times is nothing. I've been to the range four times in the last three weeks. I don't feel any more able to suppress my body's involuntary reaction to stressful situations. That's essentially a conditioned Pavlovian response required for that.

Willing to die is fine and all, but again, a willingness to die doesn't just override involuntary bodily response. I'm betting he was pissing down his own leg at one point.

It wouldn't be difficult to require range time (not exhausting by any means) in addition to the training for the faculty.

ccrunner609;1348728 wrote: I have grown up with a gun in my hand, been to that so called range 100's of times, shot many animals with a gun and shot competatively at a young age but I am and never will be qualified?

So, in summary, CC's master plan is really about getting the state to subsidize his hobby.

gut;1348751 wrote:So, in summary, CC's master plan is really about getting the state to subsidize his hobby.

If he could pull that off, there'd actually be some justification (as opposed to ridicule...nothing but ridicule) behind his constant claims that he's smarter and more of a badass than other people on this site.

Heretic;1348762 wrote:If he could pull that off, there'd actually be some justification (as opposed to ridicule...nothing but ridicule) behind his constant claims that he's smarter and more of a badass than other people on this site.

But if they eliminate gym class to find the funding his master plan backfires.

ccrunner609;1348728 wrote:WAIT A MINUTE.....going to a range a few times makes you a gun expert? I thought you bashed me cause some well rounded mentally sound school employee wouldnt have enough experience to handle these situations but a wacko 20 year old nutjob is after a few trips to the range?

I have grown up with a gun in my hand, been to that so called range 100's of times, shot many animals with a gun and shot competatively at a young age but I am and never will be qualified?

You are such a hypocrite

It's really too bad you don't follow along and try to comprehend.

O-Trap;1348731 wrote:Shooting range multiple times is nothing. I've been to the range four times in the last three weeks. I don't feel any more able to suppress my body's involuntary reaction to stressful situations. That's essentially a conditioned Pavlovian response required for that.

Willing to die is fine and all, but again, a willingness to die doesn't just override involuntary bodily response. I'm betting he was pissing down his own leg at one point.

It wouldn't be difficult to require range time (not exhausting by any means) in addition to the training for the faculty.

I was not meaning that going to the range was good experience. It was in response to what you were saying about a gunman not having MORE experience that a CHL holder. A guy who often goes to the range vs a guy who guys once or twice per year (which would describe most people).

ccrunner609;1348728 wrote:WAIT A MINUTE.....going to a range a few times makes you a gun expert? I thought you bashed me cause some well rounded mentally sound school employee wouldnt have enough experience to handle these situations but a wacko 20 year old nutjob is after a few trips to the range?

I have grown up with a gun in my hand, been to that so called range 100's of times, shot many animals with a gun and shot competatively at a young age but I am and never will be qualified?

You are such a hypocrite

I would never trust you with a gun in a school. Period.

WebFire;1348802 wrote:I was not meaning that going to the range was good experience. It was in response to what you were saying about a gunman not having MORE experience that a CHL holder. A guy who often goes to the range vs a guy who guys once or twice per year (which would describe most people).

My apologies. I didn't mean to be unclear. I was speaking to the fact that the video showed examples of people ranging from almost no experience to "hundreds of range hours" all experiencing the same involuntary physiological reactions. It's that whole "under pressure" thing that I think would be the biggest issue to overcome, but I think it's an issue that both the teachers and the gunman will face, because unless the gunman has experience doing shootings before, he's likely going to be having the same reactions, even if he's proficient with a gun.

I do think maybe requiring at least an hour a month at the range would be an important requirement for this, as I do agree that if some only went twice a year, it would indeed render a high percentage of them plenty less efficient than a potential gunman, even if the gunman was a civilian his whole life.

O-Trap;1348815 wrote:My apologies. I didn't mean to be unclear. I was speaking to the fact that the video showed examples of people ranging from almost no experience to "hundreds of range hours" all experiencing the same involuntary physiological reactions. It's that whole "under pressure" thing that I think would be the biggest issue to overcome, but I think it's an issue that both the teachers and the gunman will face, because unless the gunman has experience doing shootings before, he's likely going to be having the same reactions, even if he's proficient with a gun.

I do think maybe requiring at least an hour a month at the range would be an important requirement for this, as I do agree that if some only went twice a year, it would indeed render a high percentage of them plenty less efficient than a potential gunman, even if the gunman was a civilian his whole life.

Ok. For sure he'd be nervous too. I just think he has the advantage of being the "initiator" in a sense.

In the end, I just think if schools are going to consider this, they need more than 1 CHL class to do it.

Schools are never going to arm teachers or use retired military to walk the halls so its stupid to even keep talking about. I would guess there might and I think its a very slim might they will even start allowing resource officers to be armed. But feel free to keep regurgitating a completely asinine idea that will never happen.

Tiernan;1348828 wrote:Schools are never going to arm teachers or use retired military to walk the halls so its stupid to even keep talking about. I would guess there might and I think its a very slim might they will even start allowing resource officers to be armed. But feel free to keep regurgitating a completely asinine idea that will never happen.

"Man will NEVER reach the moon, regardless of all future scientific advances."

GoChiefs;1348832 wrote:"Man will NEVER reach the moon, regardless of all future scientific advances."

Someone posted an article already somewhere around here. A district in TX already allows CCW for its staff.