The downside risk to the parents is that they shoot one another; to the cops that they get killed by the parents; and to the kids that their parents are stifling some sort of tactical operation from the police, assuming the parents don't shoot any kids. The parent and cop risk is acceptable, I'd say. But interfering with a police operation that allowed the shooter to get to another classroom of kids isn't acceptable in my mind.

So my criteria would be that if you're a parent and you actually know there's nothing going on police-wise, then you should go. If you do know, you shouldn't interfere because the police are still your kids' best hope despite your priors.

.

Ok. So that goes equally for anyone inside already with a gun, whether a teacher or a parent. When the shooter comes in, to avoid the danger of a parent or teacher shooting an innocent or interfering with a pending tactical breach by police, those with guns inside should immediately get rid of them. Do not attempt to defend oneself as all the same issues apply.


So what about I can't get in but i can throw my gun up to the window to a person begging me to do so as there is no way down for them that does not risk them engaging with a gunman? I am guessing you say there is no way I should throw that guy a gun. I mean, if I am not to go in with the gun to try and help because bad things might happen, then I should not throw him the gun, because the exact same bad things could happen. Right?

I realize that is what you were trying to do. That is your interpretation of those people, or dare I say, delusion.


When did I assert I was any of the above or that I could perform any of their jobs as good or better than they do?

Yup. Perhaps if the school was a gun-free zone they wouldn't have let guns into the school and this tragedy could have been avoided.

No. I interpreted what he meant exactly, which is a scenario where it's so dangerous that the firemen will not enter the house under any circumstances during an active fire. QP isn't the most articulate writer, but most of the time it's pretty easy to decipher what he means.


Not at all. When an English speaker shows confusion and difficulty over the use of colloquial language, we call him or her on the spectrum and adjust as necessary.

Thank you for sharing.

No, I don't believe that. But thank you sharing!

You ignored my epistemic criteria. If the teachers know the police aren't doing anything then they should engage; if they don't then they shouldn't, outside of an immanent threat of course.

Lax? You can't even purchase a handgun in TX until you're 21. Wonder why that is?

My hunch is something's going to change in regard firearm classification fairly soon, .

It's because federal law prohibits FFL dealers from selling a handgun to anyone under 21. However, anyone 18 or over can purchase a handgun through a private sale so long as both parties live in the same state and the state allows it. Texas does.

I was pretty sure it predated that because up until the 70s voting age was 21 and I thought it was tied to that. Still not sure it wasn't and regulated by the states at 21.

Gun Control Act of 1968. Before then, age limits were set by states.

[QUOTE] Well, I am assuming that you're arguing for the right of citizens to take over in an emergency situation it's because you believe there will be a better outcome.

If you aren't trying to achieve a better outcome then obviously my point is moot.




Same as above.
You didn't. But if you weren't assuming that then you're not making a reasonable point, are you ?



Meh. There's really no proof that you had to correctly interpret what QP said in order to misstate it.

I guess I'll take your word and concede that you did, in fact, interpret it correctly before you misstated it.

Good job.

So you're just passing on the wisdom others have passed unto you ?

Makes sense.

Quote:

the on-scene commander at the time of the shooting believed the
situation had transitioned from an active shooter to a barricaded subject

About 45 minutes passed before officers entered the room using keys from the janitor.
Shots during that time were sporadic and it’s unclear how many children died within that window

Yeah, thanks. I mean I would like to see what he says in a formal investigation because if that is true, as reported, my head will probably blow up.

unless an 18 year old joins the military, then they can have a handgun, and a Javelin missile.

You are most welcome.

Your assumption is incorrect.


As I said, I will make things easier for you in the future.

The « funny » thing about this picture is the last time I saw something similar it was in the 1960s , in case of a nuclear attack by Russian .

Now it’s to protect kids from guns own by Americans .
Seem it had become national security threat ?
How time changes ….

Go Freedom go !
Pro life. Lol .

I didn't ignore it, i just think the same 'imminent threat' exists in the example you replied to with an 'active shooter' and yet you don't want that defense due to a bunch of POTENTIAL negative factors that can come from it.

The main point I am trying to get out there is that this list of reasons people say is the reason a parent should not be allowed to go in:

- they may shoot an innocent
- they may not know the police plan or SWAT team plan and might disrupt it
- they may cause more problems than they fix

ALL exist if you have a person inside who is legally armed (teacher, parent or security guard) who also engages.

So would you recommend that if an active shooted presents that the person inside already take a more safe path and throw their gun out the window so as not to accidentally do any of those worser things and if not... why not?



Or what if the person inside with their gun, had an opportunity the second the active shooter was coming in to scoot out a back door alone and escape the scener and instead stayed to engage and help? Are they bad and wrong as they are introducing all those risk we just listed by staying?. Or are they HERO's for staying, even if they die?

If you say it is ok to 'stay' and to act. what if they are a parent? Same answer? And again if ok, what if they are a parent who had just stepped outside the door (are now outside the building) when they see an active shooter going in another door. firing away as he does. Are they wrong to go in the door they are close to and try to intercept and help?

If you say no to the above and they should be able to go in, I am now then extending to the parent on the sidewalk?

This is a completely correct and fair position (because the alternative is chaos), but there will be a post-mortem on those decisions and in this case, it's gross, gross, gross incompetence on the part of that police department.

Go on any forum, subreddit or Facebook group where Law Enforcement are known to congregate and see their response to this. I'm generally 'neutral' on them as a group (not a hater, not a blind supporter) but save for a few of the more mindless 'blue line' types, there's nobody among cops trying to make excuses for this and their reactions trend incredibly hostile towards the cowardice shown there. One raised a very valid point that bears repeating, which goes back to your original assertion:

Because of the inaction on the part of Law Enforcement that day, future active/barricaded school shooter situations now have a massively heightened risk of hysterical, armed parents saying '**** it' and just storming in and shooting it out with anyone who tries to stop them, including the cops... because your kid being locked inside a building with a shooter will absolutely inspire that sort of suicidal courage in a parent and now, you have no faith that the cops will do anything about it. Mothers and fathers alike. Until Uvalde, the illusion was once the cops were there, help had arrived.... That Peterson dilweed at Parkland could be written off as an outlier... but what we saw at Uvalde was something else entirely. Cops standing around while kids were being killed.... rescuing THEIR OWN kids... stopping parents from intervening as kids were dying... It was a school shooting "9/11" moment, as far as the thesis of 'just cooperate with the hijackers and everything will be fine'.

The illusion is utterly, permanently over. Its possible the cops *might not* save your kid and from now on, you're going to find parents who will, at any cost. And they have AR15s, too.

Law Enforcement failed everyone that day but they created a permanent loss of trust that's going to make those sorts of situations a lot harder to deal with.

I wonder how many of these people got the sarcasm? I'd take the under on 30%.

Sadly, there's a lot of truth in this. I don't know that it's necessarily a permanent loss of trust, but this certainly will be bad for public confidence, and I don't know how much faith I have in a final outcome that will start to restore it.

I quite enjoyed this from one of the first replies:

Red Flag Alert: 1,516,863 deaths from guns on American soil since 1968? No way anyone can be that precise about it.

What an armed parent or whoever does is increase the volatility, so they may "accidentally" create a more favorable outcome as well.