"OK - I hear you," said the deaf man to the mute.

I'll go along with the general consensus of what I'm hearing in this thread - that since we cannot depend upon anybody but ourselves to protect us from somebody else, we'll just arm everyone (as is our right) and give them the sole responsibility for protecting themselves (or whomever they think needs protecting). Sounds like a reasonable solution to me. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Nope....
 

Richard, you and Dozer are telling us we have nothing to worry about. The schools, SROs, local police and SWAT elements all have a plan, it's all worked out, no problem. Our schools are safe.

Any nut that comes on campus and pulls a gun will immediately be taken out by the SRO and before the body can hit the ground the local SWAT Team is on site, out of the vehicle and riddling it with thousands of rounds. Splat - body hits the ground DRT.

But "lock down" seems to be the plan most schools are comfortable with so thats the way it's going to be.

At least until the next time...........

Actually, we're not saying that at all. We think the problem is a very complex one - more so than many realize - with so many variants that any simple solution cannot possibly cover them all. Although the current community acceptable compromise has its flaws, we just don't think arming everybody is any better a solution - and could even make things worse. :confused:

But push come to shove - openly debating it like this makes us all think a bit harder and may give us the impetus to actually come up with that better idea we're all looking for here. ;)

We actually are listening...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

.

Having been present at a well-known school shooting (PM for details, if you care) some notes:

- LEOs selected for SRO duty seem to be... less than cream of the crop. Plus, they are often overworked and bouncing between campus and the PD.

- Shooter entered from rear entrance.

- 1 student was dead before anyone knew what was going on. An AAR documented that many students thought someone was setting firecrackers off.

- The shooter then entered a cafeteria full of students and opened fire.

- Classroom lockdowns are great, for classrooms. This shooter went for maximum damage in a commons area.

- The SRO was on campus and didn't make it to the scene on time, the shooting was over in minutes, due to the brave actions of a couple students, at least one was shot in the process, but survived.

- If the SRO was there, I don't think he'd have the training to deal with the pandemonium in the cafeteria (or any commons area), infilt, and neutralize the shooter.

- I and many others, once we heard there was a shooter didn't even know where the shooter was, exactly. At first, we heard that he was in the library. In reality, the library was being used as an informal triage point.

- While the incident seemed to go on for an hour, it was really just a few minutes... hardly any time for anyone not on the scene to help. If a good guy was there and armed at the time, it probably would've been over a lot more quickly and with less innocent blood.

Dozer, with all due respect (and there's a lot of it there), I have to take issue with your words concerning police response. I think you may be overestimating the response time, training, and mobility of an SRO and the PD.

We should be responsible and allowed to do for ourselves and our own. Having our constitutional rights infringed and being forced to rely on the police response is a losing battle.

Respectfully,
Per

Disclaimer: This is a rather emotional issue and I get a bit heated when someone advocates taking away my right to have the tools necessary to survive wherever I might need them, God forbid.

I would agree with your assessment from my personal experience, of the several dozen we had in my AO I can only think of one that I would want in a real fight, let alone a gun fight, the rest were a little to round, and not nearly tactically proficient enough. As a matter of fact I'm not even sure many of them went through the active shooter class we had, I can't remember ever seeing them at the classes, though maybe they had their own. Of course the tactics we were taught required a bare min of 3 officers to execute properly, with 5 being the optimal number.

In reality even if our SRO's got the active shooter course those tactics wouldn't be useful for a lone officer, especially considering most of the SRO's I knew were not the hard core LEO's who go to open range every month, and really take their shooting skills seriously.

Also for those who argue SWAT, our team generally took over an hour to mobilize and get on scene, and that was on a quick day, most times it was 2 or more hours. We don't have a full time team, but that's pretty normal for most departments outside huge cities.

An SRO is better than nothing, but they are far from the answer for an active shooter situation in a school.

At least not IMO.

Man I wish I could do that cool multi-post thingie you google-fu-ians do:cool:

Yeah, they weren't a DARE officer. We have SROs. And I don't want to knock them, they're good guys and professionals. In my discussions with them, it's apparent they don't receive the proper training for school shootings. I'd be surprised if they even fire their firearms with any regularity.

It seems to be a job where the chubbies and other considered-below-the-bar officers are assigned.

I think that training (especially gradually-increased stress-inducing scenarios) does count. And I think anyone carrying a gun has a personal responsibility to get as much training as they can afford. And assuming a clean record, they should have the right to carry a gun, until they prove themselves criminal or incompetent.

In the "commons area" scenario outlined, it's not going to be pretty, but if there's a good guy with a gun, it's a fighting chance against the "shooting fish in a barrel" scenario you've got when none of the good guys have guns.

I don't advocate Rambo-ism or civilians acting like SWAT guys, but I do advocate them doing what they need to do to survive. Maybe instead of working to ban firearms for law-abiding citizens, the government should offer more avenues for gun safety and real-world civilian tactical training.

There was rudimentary controlled access in the form of chain-linked fences. After the attack, some hefty, reinforced fences were put in that lined the entire perimeter. Unfortunately, the student parking lot is still out back and the gate is left unsecured and that's where the driving students enter.

The problem is that people get lazy and annoyed by the inconveniences of security, so gates are left ajar, etc etc. In my civilian experiences, lax security and lack of real enforcement (and punishment for violations) seems to be a never-ending problem (in the military, it wasn't, you'd just get UCMJ'd ;)

Another key area was lack of information flow. As I said before, most folks on campus didn't really knew where the shooter was. And it appears, that for quite some time AFTER the shooter was subdued, staff and students were unaware and under the impression he was still running around loose. Complete pandemonium, tunnel vision, confusion, panic, etc, and all the psychological traits and sensory deception that go along with it.

They got lucky with a bum rush. One rusher was shot in the core area of his body and had life threatening injuries. It just happened to turn out good and he survived.

Sorry, by "me and my own" I meant children under my charge. I agree with you, here.

It should be said that my stance is not for allowing armed minors. The problem with gun restriction policies and laws (for adults) is that you only hurt the good guys. The bad guy coming with killing on his mind, isn't going to be concerned about gun laws (and this oversimplifies it in some ways, I know).

Thank you (Dozer & all) for your input and opinions, good discussion with some vastly different but respectful opinions.

I have no idea what a REO is. I would agree with the previous comments that the School Resource Officers I have interacted with (five of them) seem to be about one step above an armed security guard. In some active shooter cases, the SROs have not engaged, but have called in the incident and held positions outside. That strikes me as pretty much the definition of sheep.

Your continued characterizations and ad hominem attacks on those who would choose to protect themselves reflect a weak argument and prejudice. I have opted to take responsibility for protecting my family. To do that legally, I have complied with the law and received a permit. I am resentful of being lumped in with Barney Fife as you seem to believe all CCW holders are. I do not flash my gun, threaten people, keep my one bullet in my pocket, have NDs, leave my weapon in the restroom, drop it on the floor, shoot innocents,or any of the other cartoonish stereotypes you are attempting to portray. The vast majority of other CCW holders are likewise competent, especially in this area. The argument and attacks that you are making are right out of the anti-gunners' playbooks, attempting to make gun owners and CCW holders look like some sort of clownish buffoons. You seem to be opposed to the idea of citizens defending themselves. Did you also hop on the bandwagon when CCW was passed, concerned about shootouts at traffic lights and "Dodge City" incidents? What happened to those arguments? Those willing and able to be trained and licensed to safely carry a firearm should not be prevented from carrying it anywhere, as far as I am concerned. Those who cannot or who will not do so should not be permitted to. Simple.

A large part of the advantage of a viable licensing and CCW program is that like the FFDO, you never know when the door your force open may be your last. Not everyone has to be carrying. Those unwilling or unable to carry the burden do not have to. Those who are willing could serve as a deterrent to those who would invade our schools with ill-intent. I think you are overconfident in the ability of a teacher armed with a bat to defeat a determined individual with a firearm. Should you wish to try that out, I have a wiffle bat and some Sims we can test your theory with. My experience leads me to believe that you will lose. I also believe that the average teacher would do even more poorly against a shooter, even with a bat. OTOH, I suspect that my wife could probably hold a door against an armed intruder for an hour or two with a firearm.

Again, you attempt to paint CCW holders with a broad brush as incompetent, uneducated slobs. I think that most of us who have gotten a CCW understand that when LE arrives, you need to be identifying yourself, non-threatening, and the weapon needs to be secured. Is this this constant mischaracterization the sole basis for your arguments?

Well, I guess we could make school access look more like the airport, but I do not think most people will go for that. Controlled access to my weapon is in my holster. Bum rush? By a bunch of kids against an armed intruder? Certainly an option, if no other recourse exists. I prefer that an armed adult intervene before it comes to that. BTW, a police working dog is not a good choice in a school environment.

Hide, lock the door, and wait a half hour or more for armed response or or for the shooter to run out of ammo is no real plan, as far as I am concerned. Do we advocate that for fires as well? Hide, lockdown, and wait for the firemen? The odds of running into an armed teacher, administrator, or parent with a CCW presents another risk to any nutjob planning a hit at his school. That is currently the policy on airplanes, BTW, and it seems to be working.

I disagree. My kids do not lose their identy because you are their teacher, and I do not abrogate my parental responsibility either. Ultimately, I am responsible for the security of my kids, regardless of where they are or what your title might be. And I guess I will be illegal when I visit the campus, because I care about them, and your counterparts, and don't believe a radio, or a baseball bat against a gun are fair fights. I believe that I am responsible for my actions, that I can be trusted to know when and where an armed response is appropriate, that the police cannot be everywhere at once, or guarantee anyone's security, that there are bad people out there in this world who mean to harm the innocent, that there are other good people carrying of the same mindset and skills as I, and that ultimately, we have to do what we can to protect the sheep. If they want to initiate a training and licensing program, fine. If not, some will do what they believe is right, regardless.

OT, amigo, but if I could get a voucher to cover the taxes that I pay to educate my kids (and the kids of those who do not pay taxes), they would be in a private school already, and out of the warehouse for their kids that many people seem to use the public schools for.

I agree on that one. Please, show me where the Constitution prohibits armed adults from protecting innocnets and children, wherever they might be. You might want to refresh your Constitutional knowledge with a reread focusing on the 2nd and 10th Amendments, as well as the writings of the Founding Fathers (many of whom carried a weapon on a daily basis) and the Federalist Papers. Take a look at "More Guns, Less Crime", by John Lott, while you are at it.

Should be easy for a man with your skills and knowledge.

Have a nice day.

TR

Something to consider:

Back when I was teaching in The Grove - a pretty good percentage of our student's parents were gang-bangers and the only place they seemed to respect as being a 'neutral' NO WEAPONS turf in their area was on the school grounds. Maybe it was for the kids - don't know, but it was just that way. :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I have several questions. These questions assume a solution that reconciles the differing views between TR and Pete on the one hand and Richard and Dozer on the other.

• Would the members of a school's faculty and staff with CCW permits be a matter of public record? Or would the public record simply indicate that Ivanhoe Elementary was a certified campus on which some faculty and staff members might have fire arms?
• How would school districts mitigate the potential risks of a faculty member shooting a student accidentally? Would municipalities need to raise taxes to pay for increased insurance premiums?
• Would stakeholders, including parents, teachers' unions, students, area residents, and school boards ever sign off on allowing faculty members to have weapons on campus?

At "group session" this would be when someone would say, "Thank you for sharing.":rolleyes:

The debate on making CCW permits public record is taking place now. Luckily, the idea appears to be getting shot down in each locale.

In my eyes, making these stupid permits we're forced to get public record is just another slap in the face. It hurts the personal security of the law-abiding individual while also giving criminals a shopping list of which residences to loot for guns.

Good question! Especially in today's lawsuit-happy environment. I'd be interested in hearing Dozer's (and any other EDU folks') opinions on this.

For what it's worth, in many states its legal for CCW permit holders to CCW on a school campus and the schools can't do a damned thing about it other than "recommend" CCW holders don't CCW. Predictably, this is a highly-controversial topic and there are some differing legal opinions even between districts within a state.

This is a great topic and excellent food for (my) work-related thought. Keep em coming, if the powers-that-be are okay with it.

"De nada." ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Are our desks in a circle? :D

I just don't know, but from what I've been reading so far I have to agree with Dozer and Richard. Their arguments make a lot of sense to me..............;)

GB TFS :munchin

Increasing the actual rate of armed citizens is the best way to have someone available to counter a nihilistic rampage killer.
The fact that they seek out groups can be used against them.

If the actual armed rate were a mere 3%:
-In a random group of 23 people, it is more likely than not that at least 1 person is armed.
-In a random group of 100 people, there is a 95% probability that at least 1 person is armed.
-In a random group of 10 people, there is still a 1 in 4 chance that at least 1 person will be armed.


Finding an able and willing 3% is not a problem.
The problem is "defenseless victim" zones.

And I'm thinking the problem is best posited in your aptly chosen avatar. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The Wagons are!:p:D

Then by extension, it would make sense to outlaw CCW permits altogether for similar reasons. The danger presented to innocent bystanders by an "untrained, non-professional" armed citizen as characterized by some in this thread, combined with the potential for confusion over who is the actual criminal by other armed citizens looking to help or law enforcement response units makes supporting a person's right to carry a concealed weapon, or any weapon for that matter, far too dangerous to the general public. What makes a school any different? If we're concerned about public safety due to the reasons listed in this thread regarding concealed weapons carry, then that concern shouldn't stop at the edge of the playground.

I couldn't agree more, and I don't think it could have been put better than you did, well done! :)

Might as well take the rest of our God-given rights away as well. The 4th hinders the government from arresting criminals. The 5th hinders the government from prosecuting criminals. Speech can be quite dangerous, see Hitler, Stalin... Obama :D

People have to learn to think about, and be held responsible for their actions. This shouldn't even be up to the government, it's not one of their rights.

Respectfully,
Per

keep it up. . . :D
don't make me come back there:rolleyes:

In all seriousness...let's suppose, purely for the sake of discussion, that the law is enacted and CCW holders can carry firearms on school campuses.

Have you any thoughts on what additional training (at a practical level) might somewhat reduce your concerns?

Razor, with respect, I disagree with this 'by extension' argument.

Just because a municipality will not allow an establishment offering various forms of adult entertainment, gas stations, parking structures, liquor stores or other land uses near schools doesn't mean that the city in question is against free speech, favors prohibition, or opposes commercial enterprises.

As I write this, the argument on second amendment rights is being rolled out on PBS Ch.21. I think what you will be treated to it what is being presented on this show.
Pro Gun control person: very articulate, well dressed, with reasoned responses.
The representive of 2nd amendment: the complete opposite
The show begins with a documentary style presentation of gun violence since columbine ten years ago. It escalates and the questions start with the NRA guy to defend his/our second amendment rights, it was embarrassing to watch.

One district in North Texas does allow that. Harrold's lone campus, a 30-minute drive from the nearest Sheriff's Office and next to a highway, was worried about leaving students and teachers without adequate protection so the trustees approved a CCW policy change for district employees last year.

To carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations; and must use approved ammunition designed to minimize the risk of ricocheting bullets.

Officials researched the policy and considered other options for about a year before approving the policy change, and they also have other measures in place to prevent a school shooting.

Texas law outlaws firearms at schools unless specific institutions allow them.

The district does not disclose how many of the 50 or so teachers and staff members are armed to keep it from students or potential attackers. ;)

Common sense lives in Texas. What a concept. :lifter

Richard's $.02 :munchin

I'm a big believer in taking on all comers when it comes to discussing differing viewpoints. Yet, I don't understand the logic of participating in discussions where you can pretty much realize you're being set up from the get go.

The link to the show: All I can say is wow they are ready for this fight...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ine_04-16.html

What if the same city council were to outlaw public demonstrations in the city park because of the increased likelihood of car/pedestrian accidents, or that Wiccans were not allowed to hold outdoor religious ceremonies within city limits "for their own safety", in case their Christian neighbors took offense and decided to violently break up the ceremony? I find none of the above, nor the potential danger to school children from adults legally carrying a concealed weapon to even begin to approach the standard of yelling 'fire' in a theater.

Looks like they took a page from the Brady Campaign......

Thank you, Sir.

Truth be told, additional training is something I think is almost always worthwhile. If anything, I would think that weapon retention should be taught. Also, I would be inclined to believe that weapon holders should learn to never, ever give their weapon to a bad guy - even in a hostage situation.

All IMHO, and recognizing that my knowledge about weapons and the handling thereof is meager among the good people of this forum.

Razor--

For better or worse, the City of Los Angeles requires demonstrators to obtain permits from the LAPD before having public events <<LINK>>. The LAPD has used the absence of required permits to shut down counter-demonstrations for their own safety.

At this point in time, should advocates of a civil right risk the political and cultural fall out that might ensue from advocating such a controversial public policy option?

I'm no lawyer, but reading the attached municipal ordinances, it appears that if a group is not using a powered amplification device (bullhorn, speaker system, etc.), it would not be breaking any laws if it decided to assemble off a street or thoroughfare. I would be interested to see the result of a legal challenge to the police breaking up or arresting a group assembling in a city park, off any road or street, and not using a powered sound amplifier. I'd say the permit requirement is probably balancing a very fine line between civil rights and public safety, and could fall under intense legal scrutiny if enforced too rigorously. What do you believe would happen if the city were to not approve a GLAD demonstration simply because of the potential for violence?

Razor--

The anti- Proposition 8 crowd has had numerous demonstrations and the LAPD and other interested law enforcement agencies let them do their thing, without permits.

IMHO, the LAPD and the L.A. County Sheriff's Department do good work when balancing public safety and civil rights. So much so that when things got out of hand on 1 May 2007, there was a lot of confidence that the police department would figure out what went wrong and fix it.

We've all learned and grown from the Rodney King incident and the Rampart Division scandal. The North Hollywood shoot-out greatly accelerated the reconciliation process. NBC's Life is popular in L.A. for more reasons than just Sarah Shahi.:cool:

Just my two cents (and back on topic). I want a re-boot of the Second Amendment movement that steps away temporarily from arguments based on the Constitution and statistical evidence and instead focuses on the diversity of Americans who own firearms.

I think the gun control crowd tries to demonize all gun owners. That practice will be harder for them when they realize that American gun owners come from all walks of life--including those who oppose Proposition 8 for very personal reasons and those who voted for the current president.

I think you're right about that one. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

The argument that there are too many whack jobs that carry guns and are more likely to cause problems than to end a problem ignores the many, many incidents in which an armed citizen does end bad situations before it gets worse. To say that only extremely trained people- like cops:rolleyes: - should carry guns, is silly.

I was a cop in the small town of Granger, Wyoming where the nearest l.e. help was twenty minutes away. I was grateful for the armed populace that I knew would back me up if I needed it.

A lady in Texas was in a "gun free" zone. A restaurant when a nut with a gun entered and killed her parents. Her legally owned firearm was in the car. Could she have ended the situation? Quite possibly. A distracted gunman trying to focus on a large group of people while one of those people decide to take an aimed practiced shot from behind concealment? At the very worst, if she'd been shot by the badguy, at least she would have died trying to do the right thing.

"Active Shooter"
 

A few have mentioned "Active Shooter".

For the others

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30283811/

Interesting material. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

10 years later, the real story behind Columbine
Greg Toppo, USA Today, 17 Apr 2009

They weren't goths or loners.

The two teenagers who killed 13 people and themselves at suburban Denver's Columbine High School 10 years ago next week weren't in the "Trenchcoat Mafia," disaffected videogamers who wore cowboy dusters. The killings ignited a national debate over bullying, but the record now shows Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold hadn't been bullied — in fact, they had bragged in diaries about picking on freshmen and "fags."

Their rampage put schools on alert for "enemies lists" made by troubled students, but the enemies on their list had graduated from Columbine a year earlier. Contrary to early reports, Harris and Klebold weren't on antidepressant medication and didn't target jocks, blacks or Christians, police now say, citing the killers' journals and witness accounts. That story about a student being shot in the head after she said she believed in God? Never happened, the FBI says now.

A decade after Harris and Klebold made Columbine a synonym for rage, new information — including several books that analyze the tragedy through diaries, e-mails, appointment books, videotape, police affidavits and interviews with witnesses, friends and survivors — indicate that much of what the public has been told about the shootings is wrong.

"He was so bad at wiring those bombs, apparently they weren't even close to working," says Dave Cullen, author of Columbine, a new account of the attack.

So whom did they hope to kill?

Everyone — including friends.

What's left, after peeling away a decade of myths, is perhaps more comforting than the "good kids harassed into retaliation" narrative — or perhaps not.

It's a portrait of Harris and Klebold as a sort of In Cold Blood criminal duo — a deeply disturbed, suicidal pair who over more than a year psyched each other up for an Oklahoma City-style terrorist bombing, an apolitical, over-the-top revenge fantasy against years of snubs, slights and cruelties, real and imagined.

Along the way, they saved money from after-school jobs, took Advanced Placement classes, assembled a small arsenal and fooled everyone — friends, parents, teachers, psychologists, cops and judges.

"These are not ordinary kids who were bullied into retaliation," psychologist Peter Langman writes in his new book, Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. "These are not ordinary kids who played too many video games. These are not ordinary kids who just wanted to be famous. These are simply not ordinary kids. These are kids with serious psychological problems."

Harris, who conceived the attacks, was more than just troubled. He was, psychologists now say, a cold-blooded, predatory psychopath — a smart, charming liar with "a preposterously grand superiority complex, a revulsion for authority and an excruciating need for control," Cullen writes.

Harris, a senior, read voraciously and got good grades when he tried, pleasing his teachers with dazzling prose — then writing in his journal about killing thousands.

"I referred to him — and I'm dating myself — as the Eddie Haskel of Columbine High School," says Principal Frank DeAngelis, referring to the deceptively polite teen on the 1950s and '60s sitcom Leave it to Beaver. "He was the type of kid who, when he was in front of adults, he'd tell you what you wanted to hear."

When he wasn't, he mixed napalm in the kitchen.

According to Cullen, one of Harris' last journal entries read: "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't … say, 'Well that's your fault,' because it isn't, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. No no no don't let the weird-looking Eric KID come along."

As he walked into the school the morning of April 20, Harris' T-shirt read: Natural Selection.

Klebold, on the other hand, was anxious and lovelorn, summing up his life at one point in his journal as "the most miserable existence in the history of time," Langman notes.

Harris drew swastikas in his journal; Klebold drew hearts.

As laid out in their writings, the contrast was stark.

Harris seemed to feel superior to everyone — he once wrote, "I feel like God and I wish I was, having everyone being OFFICIALLY lower than me" — while Klebold was suicidally depressed and getting angrier all the time. "Me is a god, a god of sadness," he wrote in September 1997, around his 16th birthday.

Klebold also was paranoid. "I have always been hated, by everyone and everything," he wrote.

On the day of the attacks, his T-shirt read: Wrath.

Columbine wasn't the first K-12 school shooting. But at the time it was by far the worst, and the first to play out largely on live television.

The U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Education Department soon began studying school shooters. In 2002, researchers presented their first findings: School shooters, they said, followed no set profile, but most were depressed and felt persecuted.

Princeton sociologist Katherine Newman, co-author of the 2004 book Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, says young people such as Harris and Klebold are not loners — they're just not accepted by the kids who count. "Getting attention by becoming notorious is better than being a failure."

The Secret Service found that school shooters usually tell other kids about their plans.

"Other students often even egg them on," says Newman, who led a congressionally mandated study on school shootings. "Then they end up with this escalating commitment. It's not a sudden snapping."

Langman, whose book profiles 10 shooters, including Harris and Klebold, found that nine suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts, a "potentially dangerous" combination, he says. "It is hard to prevent murder when killers do not care if they live or die. It is like trying to stop a suicide bomber."

At the time, Columbine became a kind of giant national Rorschach test. Observers saw its genesis in just about everything: lax parenting, lax gun laws, progressive schooling, repressive school culture, violent video games, antidepressant drugs and rock 'n' roll, for starters.

Many of the Columbine myths emerged before the shooting stopped, as rumors, misunderstandings and wishful thinking swirled in an echo chamber among witnesses, survivors, officials and the news media.

Police contributed to the mess by talking to reporters before they knew facts — a hastily called news conference by the Jefferson County sheriff that afternoon produced the first headline: "Twenty-five dead in Colorado."

A few inaccuracies took hours to clear up, but others took weeks or months — sometimes years — as authorities reluctantly set the record straight.

Former Rocky Mountain News reporter Jeff Kass, author of a new book, Columbine: A True Crime Story, says police played a game of "Open Records charades."

In one case, county officials took five years just to acknowledge that they had met in secret after the attacks to discuss a 1998 affidavit for a search warrant on Harris' home — it was the result of a complaint against him by the mother of a former friend. Harris had threatened her son on his website and bragged that he had been building bombs.

Police already had found a small bomb matching Harris' description near his home — but investigators never presented the affidavit to a judge.

They also apparently didn't know that Harris and Klebold were on probation after having been arrested in January 1998 for breaking into a van and stealing electronics.

The search finally took place, but only after the shootings.

What's now beyond dispute — largely from the killers' journals, which have been released over the past few years, is this: Harris and Klebold killed 13 and wounded 24, but they had hoped to kill thousands.

The pair planned the attacks for more than a year, building 100 bombs and persuading friends to buy them guns. Just after 11 a.m. on April 20, they lugged a pair of duffel bags containing propane-tank bombs into Columbine's crowded cafeteria and another into the kitchen, then stepped outside and waited.

Had the bombs exploded, they'd have killed virtually everyone eating lunch and brought the school's second-story library down atop the cafeteria, police say. Armed with a pistol, a rifle and two sawed-off shotguns, the pair planned to pick off survivors fleeing the carnage.

As a last terrorist act, a pair of gasoline bombs planted in Harris' Honda and Klebold's BMW had been rigged apparently to kill police, rescue teams, journalists and parents who rushed to the school — long after the pair expected they would be dead.

The pair had parked the cars about 100 yards apart in the student lot. The bombs didn't go off.

Since 1999, many people have looked to the boys' parents for answers, but a transcript of their 2003 court-ordered deposition to the victims' parents remains sealed until 2027.

The Klebolds spoke to New York Times columnist David Brooks in 2004 and impressed Brooks as "a well-educated, reflective, highly intelligent couple" who spent plenty of time with their son. They said they had no clues about Dylan's mental state and regretted not seeing that he was suicidal.

Could the parents have prevented the massacre? The FBI special agent in charge of the investigation has gone on record as having "the utmost sympathy" for the Harris and Klebold families.

"They have been vilified without information," retired supervisory special agent Dwayne Fuselier tells Cullen.

For one thing, he notes, Harris' parents "knew they had a problem — they thought they were dealing with it. What kind of parent is going to think, 'Well, maybe Eric's a mass murderer.' You just don't go there."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ne-myths_N.htm

Some current trends information which I know a lot of schools practice in this area with a great deal of success. ;)

Richad's $.02 :munchin

Post-Columbine programs help prevent rampages
Marilyn Elias, USA Today, 17 Apr 2009

Even as experts agree there's no certain way to prevent another Columbine, researchers are discovering how schools can minimize violence, and a rising number have launched programs to head off shootings.

Jeff Daniels, a counseling psychologist at West Virginia University, has studied schools that foiled rampage killings. They share a few key qualities:

•There was a lot of informal, respectful contact between staff and students. "You'd go into the school cafeteria, and almost every table had a teacher interacting with kids, really visiting with them," Daniels says.

•The schools assured students they could turn to an adult if danger surfaced, without being a traitor. Assemblies emphasized the difference between snitching and getting help in a crisis.

•Staff took rumors seriously.

•There were anti-bullying programs with staff training.

School shooters almost always tell classmates of their plans, so schools should provide "confidential avenues for reporting what they hear," says Princeton sociologist Katherine Newman, who co-authored Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings. It's tough to get teenagers to "tell," since creating a social culture apart from adults is so important to adolescent development, Newman says. But if adults guarantee confidentiality, results can be dramatic. Examples:

•Colorado has a Safe2Tell anonymous tipline that covers any potential threat to safety. The program also includes anonymous and encrypted Web-tipping, says Susan Payne, special agent in charge of school safety and homeland security for the state. In the past 4½ years, the line has prevented 28 planned school attacks, she says. In one incident, there were 33 weapons found. About two-thirds of the calls come from kids, Payne says. "All of us have seen these unspeakable tragedies. I can't think of one that could not have been prevented."

•Safe School Ambassadors is a program created by the non-profit Community Matters in 2000. It has trained staff at more than 650 schools in 23 states on how to set up so-called ambassadors — influential student leaders of varied cliques who learn how to squelch minor fires of bullying and other behaviors, and to report potential rampages.

Kevin Crider, 58, was a counselor at Gardena High School in Los Angeles three years ago, when he saw potential violence averted because of the action of an ambassador. There had been racially based brawls just before the incident. Then a student ambassador told a police officer early one morning that he had seen a boy put a gun in his locker. Police arrested the boy.

"Things started to calm down a lot more after that. It was like, 'We're not going to tolerate it on this campus,' " Crider says.

Since the Columbine incident, many schools have set up anonymous methods to report potential rampages, says Jim Larson, school psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. There's also more staff training on how to spot possible shooters.

And school-based health clinics are popping up rapidly, with mental health the fastest growing service. There were 1,709 centers in 2004-05, more than triple the number in the early '90s. Almost half of the centers do violence-prevention activities, says Laura Hurwitz of the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.

Despite heightened awareness and preventive actions, few veterans in the field doubt another rampage could occur tomorrow. "Relatively few schools still are putting into action the strategies we know are important for preventing violence," says Shane Jimerson, school psychology professor at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

Says Linda Kanan, director of the Colorado School Safety Resource Center, "I'm feeling encouraged by the positive steps, but I think we still have a long way to go."

Margaret Bledsoe, science teacher at Heath High in Paducah, Ky., is a realist about the future. In 1997, Michael Carneal, 14, killed three classmates and injured five. Newman interviewed Bledsoe for her study and quotes her in Rampage: "I think getting inside their heart and heads is the only chance you have. … But it only takes one kid. … I know full well that this can happen here again. Even with all the things that we've tried to do … a kid can still slip through the cracks."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...-schools_N.htm