What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

I was not expecting to see data that stark. homicides are the actual gun problem.  

 

The suicide numbers and demos were not expected.

 

 

Suicides remain the biggest cause of gun deaths in the US (54% of firearm deaths), more than homicides (43%).

 

Not only is suicide the biggest driver of firearm deaths, but 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die of suicide at a later date.

 

Suicide is a momentary crisis. If the person gets through that crisis in that moment, there's a 90% chance that they will not die of suicide.

 

Firearms are by far the most effective method of suicide:

1. Firearms (82.5% attempts are successful)
2. Drowning / Submersion (65.9%)
3. Suffocation / Hanging (61.4%)
4. Poison by gas (41.5%)
5. Jump (34.5%)
6. Drugs / Poison ingestion (1.5%)
7. Cut / Pierce (1.2%)
8. Other (8.0%)

So most Americans who die by firearms do so by their own hand. And 90% of them would live their lives without dying by suicide if they survived that first attempt. But firearms are far more likely to be successful than other methods.

 

You have to conclude that if these people didn't have ready access to a firearm in that moment of crisis, it is more likely than not that many (most?) would not end up dying by suicide.

 

[Tommy Callahan]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Suicides remain the biggest cause of gun deaths in the US (54% of firearm deaths), more than homicides (43%).

 

Not only is suicide the biggest driver of firearm deaths, but 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die of suicide at a later date.

 

Suicide is a momentary crisis. If the person gets through that crisis in that moment, there's a 90% chance that they will not die of suicide.

 

Firearms are by far the most effective method of suicide:

1. Firearms (82.5% attempts are successful)
2. Drowning / Submersion (65.9%)
3. Suffocation / Hanging (61.4%)
4. Poison by gas (41.5%)
5. Jump (34.5%)
6. Drugs / Poison ingestion (1.5%)
7. Cut / Pierce (1.2%)
8. Other (8.0%)

So most Americans who die by firearms do so by their own hand. And 90% of them would live their lives without dying by suicide if they survived that first attempt. But firearms are far more likely to be successful than other methods.

 

You have to conclude that if these people didn't have ready access to a firearm in that moment of crisis, it is more likely than not that many (most?) would not end up dying by suicide.

 

So this is where I point out your argument about other countries not having guns.  cause many countries have suicide rates at our rates or higher.  

 

And would point out that its actually a progressive thing to support assisted suicides.

 

And according to the data you showed, the demo most affected are old men that I am guessing choose to go out that way.

 

 

 

IF the narrative if still gun violence, mass shootings and what not.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Chris farley

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Suicides remain the biggest cause of gun deaths in the US (54% of firearm deaths), more than homicides (43%).

 

Not only is suicide the biggest driver of firearm deaths, but 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die of suicide at a later date.

 

Suicide is a momentary crisis. If the person gets through that crisis in that moment, there's a 90% chance that they will not die of suicide.

 

Firearms are by far the most effective method of suicide:

1. Firearms (82.5% attempts are successful)
2. Drowning / Submersion (65.9%)
3. Suffocation / Hanging (61.4%)
4. Poison by gas (41.5%)
5. Jump (34.5%)
6. Drugs / Poison ingestion (1.5%)
7. Cut / Pierce (1.2%)
8. Other (8.0%)

So most Americans who die by firearms do so by their own hand. And 90% of them would live their lives without dying by suicide if they survived that first attempt. But firearms are far more likely to be successful than other methods.

 

You have to conclude that if these people didn't have ready access to a firearm in that moment of crisis, it is more likely than not that many (most?) would not end up dying by suicide.

 

perfect.  it should be noted that a large proportion of the latter methods are properly categorized as suicide gestures and not attempts.

[ArdmoreRyno]

4 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Well as a mental health professional, I would have thought you might have considered mandatory reporting from health care providers to a national gun data base for all patients who appear to pose a significant risk of violence.  An independent panel then could review the case and decide whether or not gun sales to these patients are appropriate.

 

We already have mandatory reporting requirements. Unfortunately, we can't stop everything. Kids will manage to get a firearm from their parents closet or safe or have parent(s) who don't care if their kid has access to a gun. We have a lot of shootings where there were no signs of a problem. Not a school shooting, but Vegas is a good example. The guy had no history of violence or mental problems. 

 

We want to protect our kids, I've explained what can help right now. That girl would have never made it into the school if a front office staffer (usually a principle) had a firearm. 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

So this is where I point out your argument about other countries not having guns.  cause many countries have suicide rates at our rates or higher.  

 

And would point out that its actually a progressive thing to support assisted suicides.

 

And according to the data you showed, the demo most affected are old men that I am guessing choose to go out that way.

 

IF the narrative if still gun violence, mass shootings and what not.

 

 

 

 

 

My narrative is gun deaths and preventing them.

 

This involves talking about all types of gun deaths and how to prevent them.

 

If we want to allow for end-of-life suicides then that should be it's own discussion, and if it's something that we decide should be allowed, then maybe it should be doctor assisted so it's clean and safe for all involved instead of just hoping the elderly swallow a bullet.

Edited March 29, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Boatdrinks]

30 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

but more guns are better right?  you said school employees who aren't currently armed should be.

The schools should be secured and an armed officer present. This is standard in government buildings among other places . Very likely would have prevented what happened in Nashville The shooter detailed two targets in their writings and chose the one that was less secure. With all the money wasted by the government , we certainly can afford to secure our schools from deranged criminals. 

[Tommy Callahan]

10 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Well as a mental health professional, I would have thought you might have considered mandatory reporting from health care providers to a national gun data base for all patients who appear to pose a significant risk of violence.  An independent panel then could review the case and decide whether or not gun sales to these patients are appropriate.

So some panel of people decide if one can utilize their right.  A doctor (in reality probably a PA) making that decision?  its an idea.

 

but seems like it would need to be at the court level to make that decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

The schools should be secured and an armed officer present. This is standard in government buildings among other places . Very likely would have prevented what happened in Nashville The shooter detailed two targets in their writings and chose the one that was less secure. With all the money wasted by the government , we certainly can afford to secure our schools from deranged criminals. 

 

Can you provide evidence on the effectiveness of SROs stopping mass shooters?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

11 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

We already have mandatory reporting requirements. Unfortunately, we can't stop everything. Kids will manage to get a firearm from their parents closet or safe or have parent(s) who don't care if their kid has access to a gun. We have a lot of shootings where there were no signs of a problem. Not a school shooting, but Vegas is a good example. The guy had no history of violence or mental problems. 

 

We want to protect our kids, I've explained what can help right now. That girl would have never made it into the school if a front office staffer (usually a principle) had a firearm. 

Maybe in your state.  Certainly not nationally or to a national data base.  Not a big fan of the AMA but many salient topics including suicide (5X more likely in a household with a gun) are discussed here.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-should-physicians-make-decisions-about-mandatory-reporting-when-patient-might-become-violent/2018-01

"Some states mandate that confidentiality be broken to report a threat of harm under certain circumstances. For example, California Civil Code 43.92, known as the “Tarasoff statute,” requires that if a patient makes “a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim” to a psychotherapist, that psychotherapist is required to take steps to protect the intended victim [18]. This statute was based on a 1974 lawsuit against the university that employed a therapist whose patient had confided to him that he planned to kill a woman he had formerly dated, Tatiana Tarasoff [19]. The patient then acted on his threat. Many other states followed suit with similar reporting laws for mental health professionals or physicians in various circumstances in which there is a threat of violence. These laws vary from state to state as to whether disclosure of PHI is mandatory or permissible [8]. There is also considerable variation in the specificity of the threat the laws address. Some state laws require a clearly identifiable victim, while others refer only to threats to the public in general [8]."

 

I suggest that nationally threats to the public in general prompt mandatory reporting.  They don't now.

Edited March 29, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

My narrative is gun deaths and preventing them.

 

This involves talking about all types of gun deaths and how to prevent them.

 

If we want to allow for end-of-life suicides then that should be it's own discussion, and if it's something that we decide should be allowed, then maybe it should be doctor assisted so it's clean and safe for all involved instead of just hoping the elderly swallow a bullet.

your narrative is how to get rid of guns, you have said it a lot.

 

Who said hoping.

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Chris farley said:

So some panel of people decide if one can utilize their right.  A doctor (in reality probably a PA) making that decision?  its an idea.

 

but seems like it would need to be at the court level to make that decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Red flag laws have it go to a court precisely because it's potentially curtailing someone's rights. Flagged by a mental health professional or someone close to them; adjudicated by a judge. And it can be temporary instead of permanent.

Just now, Chris farley said:

your narrative is how to get rid of guns, you have said it a lot.

 

Who said hoping.

 

 

 

When have I said I want to get rid of guns?

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Red flag laws have it go to a court precisely because it's potentially curtailing someone's rights. Flagged by a mental health professional or someone close to them; adjudicated by a judge. And it can be temporary instead of permanent.

 

When have I said I want to get rid of guns?

Many times through this and other threads on guns. 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Chris farley said:

Many times through this and other threads on guns. 

 

 

 

Please provide evidence of when I said I wanted to get rid of guns.

 

I think you may have been reading what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said.

[Boatdrinks]

21 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Didn't avoid it .  Trans, straight , gay, german, dutch,pakistani or irish.  Doesn't matter.  What matters is that he/she was insane and was able to get multiple guns.  And someone here says. No one is looking for solutions.  Several of us agree that that's a good place to start

It’s worth looking into , but once again we have what appears to be a failure on the part of the family. Also at least one friend. They knew of the weapons and didn’t do anything about it. Even with such a law , the shooter may have been legally able to purchase at the time of purchase. She clearly was under a mental health professionals care and the family should have seen to it that these weapons were out of her hands , rather than shrug it off and say she told them they were gotten rid of. The Schools should be secured with armed personnel though, I believe . It would certainly reduce deaths without infringing on rights with legislation. 

[L Ron Burgundy]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Please provide evidence of when I said I wanted to get rid of guns.

 

I think you may have been reading what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said.

Happens here every 5 seconds. 

4 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

That is not saying all guns should be banned and I've never seen anyone make that argument here.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

It’s worth looking into , but once again we have what appears to be a failure on the part of the family. Also at least one friend. They knew of the weapons and didn’t do anything about it. Even with such a law , the shooter may have been legally able to purchase at the time of purchase. She clearly was under a mental health professionals care and the family should have seen to it that these weapons were out of her hands , rather than shrug it off and say she told them they were gotten rid of. The Schools should be secured with armed personnel though, I believe . It would certainly reduce deaths without infringing on rights with legislation. 

We had this debate in my church.  A vagrant who was mentally unstable kept barging into and disrupting services.  Several people called for arming some of the congregation.  Law enforcement in the congregation, of which there are many, unanimously disagreed with this saying the likelihood of more deaths and injuries would be higher in an armed congregation.  Area Law enforcement eventually bought the guy a one way bus ticket out of town.  BTW, it's not easy to get someone involuntarily committed for psych issues.

[aristocrat]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Red flag laws have it go to a court precisely because it's potentially curtailing someone's rights. Flagged by a mental health professional or someone close to them; adjudicated by a judge. And it can be temporary instead of permanent.

but if a judge in NY removes the right, can the person still buy a gun in Tennessee?

[Boatdrinks]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

We had this debate in my church.  A vagrant who was mentally unstable kept barging into and disrupting services.  Several people called for arming some of the congregation.  Law enforcement in the congregation, of which there are many, unanimously disagreed with this saying the likelihood of more deaths and injuries would be higher in an armed congregation.  Area Law enforcement eventually bought the guy a one way bus ticket out of town.  BTW, it's not easy to get someone involuntarily committed for psych issues.

No, it’s definitely  not easy.  Not sure about churches , but schools absolutely should be secured like other government buildings with an armed officer. I wouldn’t suggest arming any civilian staff as that would be a potential negative that could lead to issues in my view . 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

No, it’s definitely  not easy.  Not sure about churches , but schools absolutely should be secured like other government buildings with an armed officer. I wouldn’t suggest arming any civilian staff as that would be a potential negative that could lead to issues in my view . 

 

It's counterintuitive and surprising, but the presence of an armed officer in schools doesn't reduce the injuries/deaths from shooters and actually is associated with a slightly increased rate of injuries.

 

Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980-2019

 

"Based on theory, multivariate models include the presence of an armed guard and control for region, school type (public, nonpublic), and grade level (high school, elementary, other); location (urban, suburban, rural); use of lockdown drills; if the attack was targeted; total number of weapons brought to the scene; number of shooters; and weapon type. Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003)."

[KDIGGZ]

If a girl wants to be a boy then do whatever you want. But you will never be a man. That's something that is earned. 

[ArdmoreRyno]

23 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

but if a judge in NY removes the right, can the person still buy a gun in Tennessee?

 

I would (assume) think that if someone loses a right in a state (NYS) due to that state having a certain law and moves to a state (Tenn) that doesn't have those laws... I would believe that they could buy a firearm. 

 

Now if someone couldn't own a gun in NYS for DV or some other offense, it would carry over to every state via the NICS check.

[Boatdrinks]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It's counterintuitive and surprising, but the presence of an armed officer in schools doesn't reduce the injuries/deaths from shooters and actually is associated with a slightly increased rate of injuries.

 

Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980-2019

 

"Based on theory, multivariate models include the presence of an armed guard and control for region, school type (public, nonpublic), and grade level (high school, elementary, other); location (urban, suburban, rural); use of lockdown drills; if the attack was targeted; total number of weapons brought to the scene; number of shooters; and weapon type. Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003)."

Such statistics aren’t compelling enough not to do it as they don’t prove causation. There may be other factors at work. It stands to reason if a shooter can’t get in, they can’t commit the crime. We have armed officers in government buildings for a reason, and that reason clearly isn’t a higher incidence of deaths. Why is it standard practice if not for safety and security of the building’s occupants ? It appears reasonable that the most expedient thing we can do is make the soft target a hard target. This is about saving the lives of innocent workers and students inside the building. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I would (assume) think that if someone loses a right in a state (NYS) due to that state having a certain law and moves to a state (Tenn) that doesn't have those laws... I would believe that they could buy a firearm. 

 

Now if someone couldn't own a gun in NYS for DV or some other offense, it would carry over to every state via the NICS check.

i don't believe that is true.  the minority of states have red flag laws  Tennessee does not.  one state has an anti red flag law.  

[ArdmoreRyno]

3 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

i don't believe that is true.  the minority of states have red flag laws  Tennessee does not.  one state has an anti red flag law.  

 

I was saying, I assumed the laws/rules/policies that are in one state won't apply to another. Now if it's a criminal case, like Domestic Violence, then it would carry over and be accessible to the FBI database.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by ArdmoreRyno

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Irv said:

 You must not live in NY.  Go ahead.  Put your head back in the sand.

 

Enhancing New York’s Gun Laws in the Wake of Bruen

 

In the wake of the Court’s decision in Bruen, New York’s lawmakers were called back to Albany for a special session to pass new legislation clarifying and enhancing New York’s many public-safety-oriented protections for handgun licensing in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision. On July 1, 2022, Governor Hochul signed landmark legislation expanding restrictions on access to guns in the state. You can read the law here.

 

Sensitive Places: The new measures build on the constitutional carveout for protecting “sensitive places,” barring the carrying of firearms in specific public settings, such as: colleges and universities, hospitals, houses of worship, public transportation, including subways, places where alcohol is consumed, homeless shelters and other public residential facilities, entertainment venues, such as stadiums, theaters, casinos, and polling places, and places where children gather, such as schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, libraries parks and zoos.

 

New Eligibility Requirements: The new law adds requirements for New Yorkers applying for a concealed carry permit, including presenting a certificate of completion of a standardized firearm training and firing range training. Only applicants deemed to have “good moral character” and sufficient mental competence—a determination based on an in-person interview, a written exam and character references—will be eligible for a concealed carry permit. Applicants may be disqualified by past illicit behavior, including misdemeanor convictions for weapons possession and menacing (placing another person in fear of death or serious injury). Applicants who are denied a permit following this process may appeal.

 

Safe Storage, Background Checks and Body Armor: The new law also imposes new safe storage requirements, for example, prohibiting gun owners from leaving a firearm in a car unless stored in a lockbox with ammunition removed, and requiring safe gun ownership in a home where someone under 18 resides. Additionally, New York’s new law allows the State to conduct and exercise oversight over background checks for firearms, beyond those maintained by the FBI, which lack access to state- and local-owned databases. Finally, the law expands the scope of bullet-resistant protective equipment prohibited in New York, for example, the steel-plated vest worn by the shooter in the Buffalo, New York.

  

 

You don't like regulations?

 

Do you just blow thru red lights and stop signs?

 

ZERO - absolutely - ZERO sympathy for you... 

 

Grow up.

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I was saying, I assumed the laws/rules/policies that are in one state won't apply to another. Now if it's a criminal case, like Domestic Violence, then it would carry over and be accessible to the FBI database.

 

 

ok.  so would you support a national red flag law?  why or why not.

[ArdmoreRyno]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

ok.  so would you support a national red flag law?  why or why not.

 

No. I'm in support of the "idea" but worry about how it can be used/abused. Even the ACLU is against it... which is saying a lot. Here is what they said: "People who are not alleged to have committed a crime should not be subject to severe deprivations of liberty interests...in the absence of a clear, compelling and immediate showing of need. As well-intentioned as this legislation is, its breadth and its lenient standards for both applying for and granting an ERPO are cause for great concern."

 

https://www.riaclu.org/en/news/aclu-rhode-island-raises-red-flags-over-red-flag-gun-legislation

[Joe Ferguson forever]

43 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

No. I'm in support of the "idea" but worry about how it can be used/abused. Even the ACLU is against it... which is saying a lot. Here is what they said: "People who are not alleged to have committed a crime should not be subject to severe deprivations of liberty interests...in the absence of a clear, compelling and immediate showing of need. As well-intentioned as this legislation is, its breadth and its lenient standards for both applying for and granting an ERPO are cause for great concern."

 

https://www.riaclu.org/en/news/aclu-rhode-island-raises-red-flags-over-red-flag-gun-legislation

so more guns...

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

We had this debate in my church.  A vagrant who was mentally unstable kept barging into and disrupting services.  Several people called for arming some of the congregation.  Law enforcement in the congregation, of which there are many, unanimously disagreed with this saying the likelihood of more deaths and injuries would be higher in an armed congregation.  Area Law enforcement eventually bought the guy a one way bus ticket out of town.  BTW, it's not easy to get someone involuntarily committed for psych issues.

Thanks a lot Hawk. I think I saw that guy wandering around MY street now. 😂

[ArdmoreRyno]

9 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

so more guns...

 

Where did I said that in my response? I posted a link to the ACLU and their quote. 

[Irv]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

You don't like regulations?

 

Do you just blow thru red lights and stop signs?

 

ZERO - absolutely - ZERO sympathy for you... 

 

Grow up.

 

 

 

You asked what rights are being taken away.   I tell you.  Then you change the subject when the truth hurts your fragile feelings.  Go hug your blanket and try not to have a breakdown.  I don't need your sympathy.  Thanks. 

 

What a mess.  

[aristocrat]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

It's counterintuitive and surprising, but the presence of an armed officer in schools doesn't reduce the injuries/deaths from shooters and actually is associated with a slightly increased rate of injuries.

 

Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980-2019

 

"Based on theory, multivariate models include the presence of an armed guard and control for region, school type (public, nonpublic), and grade level (high school, elementary, other); location (urban, suburban, rural); use of lockdown drills; if the attack was targeted; total number of weapons brought to the scene; number of shooters; and weapon type. Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003)."

the girl in this shooting literally avoided a school cause it had too much security. 

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

the girl in this shooting literally avoided a school cause it had too much security. 

 

I get that. And I was a bit surprised at what studies show about SRO's. But an anecdote doesn't override data / studies.

[Tommy Callahan]

The study was 130 some events.  Not where the nutter chose not to do a shooting because of hardening .    Look at the buffalo shooter   had many targets checked off due to armed security before choosing tops. So that report only counted it as one.  Not the dozens he avoided.  Same with many of the past ones that were random.     No data point is even collected when the hardening prevented any event from happening.  

 

Vs that study that points to when am armed guard worked, vs a shooter.  

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Chris farley

[ArdmoreRyno]

16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I get that. And I was a bit surprised at what studies show about SRO's. But an anecdote doesn't override data / studies.

 

I saw a study where there has been no school shootings during school hours where A) Armed staff members and B) That information is provided in the front of the school on a sign. Honestly can't find it now but I'll keep looking. 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Irv said:

 

You asked what rights are being taken away.   I tell you.  Then you change the subject when the truth hurts your fragile feelings.  Go hug your blanket and try not to have a breakdown.  I don't need your sympathy.  Thanks. 

 

What a mess.  

 

But did they take your gun away Irv?

 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

the girl in this shooting literally avoided a school cause it had too much security. 

 

Hey @aristocrat - is it cool for an adult to murder kids in school?  Yes or no?

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I saw a study where there has been no school shootings during school hours where A) Armed staff members and B) That information is provided in the front of the school on a sign. Honestly can't find it now but I'll keep looking. 

 

That would be great. As I said, I was surprised by what the studies seem to show about SROs. 

[aristocrat]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

That would be great. As I said, I was surprised by what the studies seem to show about SROs. 

 

The easy thing to do right now would be to create a federal school force. All schools have bullet proof glass, doors alarmed and locked and only opened by security, cameras, alarms, armed security etc.  Do this so shooters know they can't get in and will be met with resistance immediately. Do this for as long as we see attempts at shootings stop.