Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[ladajo]

It amuses me to hear how many folks think that Tasers are invincible and the best answer.

Tasers come in two flavors, one is a knife fight, the other is a one shot good deal. If you mess it up, you are screwed. The nice thing about a gun, is that you get multiple tries. The other nice thing about a gun is the big boom that comes out the little hole in the end. Even if you mess it up it still gets the other guy's attention and fear. With these mass shooter freaks, you scare them and invariably they fold. They are not stone cold machines, they only think they are while they are not challenged. Most can not even face being shot by a cop so they shoot themselves. King of the World don't you know.

[choff]

and if you put one armed guard in every school, and the assailant has the element of surprise and kills him first, there's no plan B. If the armed guard fires and misses a ricochet can kill the wrong people.

With the taser it boils down to 20 people with 1 shot versus 1 person with 20 shots. At least if you do put a single guard in the taser option makes a good plan B. The assailant has to gather any tasers from each of the 20 people he shoots first, otherwise somebody else can pick them up to try again.

An early report from Sandy Hook said the Bushmaster was found in the car, apparently all victims were killed by the long gun, Lanza wore a bulletproof vest, yet used a sidearm to off himself? I assume these inconsistencies are cleared up.

[GIThruster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

[GIThruster]

With the taser it boils down to 20 people with 1 shot versus 1 person with 20 shots.

No really, it doesn't. Tasers for non-military, non-law enforcement use are restricted to 15' range. Most people can hit another person with a handgun at 3X that distance. Also you would not likely get 20 people carrying tasers all day, and because they are non-lethal people tend to play with them and fire them when they shouldn't.

I still haven't seen a decent reason to not allow teachers and school workers carry concealed on the job. That's the obvious solution.

[ladajo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Nice link. Thanks.

Definately reinforces the point that Critical Thinking is a lost art and bias rules the day. I found myself thinking that amid the widespread abuse in argumentive methodology I have found myself sinking in standards and being drawn into poor practice as an easy way out in an effort to use "accuracy by volume" techniques to counter thoughtless spamming of misrepresented facts. I will need to pay more attention.

Propaganda can be a powerful tool when well used. Never has the public en mass been so susceptible to this than these times of information saturation technological means. Bakc in the day it took time to print posters and leaflets and hold rallies and distribution drives. Nowadays, we have Falsepithy Viral video and memes that can cross the nation and world in hours. It is scary that there is no real mechanism to hold folks accountable for spreading falsehoods. Congress and Media seem to capitalize on this in particular. For example, who goes back and hammers Hollywood for presenting a ficitious blockbuster film as actual history? The little disclaimer buried at the end is a total joke.
How many average Joe's walk around every day with agenda laden movies bouncing around in their heads thinking that it was what really happened?

House of cards. In the end we all will get cought in the collapse because we all live in it.

[ladajo]

and if you put one armed guard in every school, and the assailant has the element of surprise and kills him first, there's no plan B. If the armed guard fires and misses a ricochet can kill the wrong people.

Why have just one? Why advertise how many? The point is to make it look like work and a hard target. If the asshole does not know what he is going to face, he is less likely to try. These "things" are cowards. The biggest thing they fear is failure. That is what got them to the point they are at. That is why they pick easy victims. Too succeed. It is no accident that there has not been another US hijacking since 911. The assholes know that there are armed Air Marshalls, Armed Aircrew, and armored cockpits. That is risk that they do not wish to face.
I can also tell you have little to no real experience with tactical issues. For the record, in a gunfight, everyone misses. You are much more likely to be hit with spalling or fragments from same side or the other guy than an actual round. But I can guarantee that if you are in a gunfight without a gun, the spalling and frag stats pretty much go away, and the full up round becomes the main risk. If you can't shoot at me, I am simply going to walk up to you and shoot you. Do you get it? If you wave a Taser at me, I am going to shoot you long before you can Tase me. If the door is closed, and you are hiding behind it to ambush me with the Taser, I am going to shoot the door and around it before I enter. Get it? I do not care what I hit, that is the whole point.

With the taser it boils down to 20 people with 1 shot versus 1 person with 20 shots. At least if you do put a single guard in the taser option makes a good plan B. The assailant has to gather any tasers from each of the 20 people he shoots first, otherwise somebody else can pick them up to try again.

Tasers verses guns are silly. The first rule of a gunfight is "bring a gun", the second rule is "bring friends with guns". I would be more than happy to take you on with my gun if you bring a Taser. At a minimum, I know that if in the unlikely event I do fail, I will get to come back sometime and try again. Thanks legal system...
Having a mix of Tasers and guns in school could be ok. But I would still argue that statistically folks with Tasers are going to suffer way more than those with guns. By the way, Tasers are also fairly easy to defeat it you take the time to figure it out (try google). Bullets are much harder, and even if you have armor, getting shot is not Hollywood. It friggin hurts and probably does damage, you primarily only escape the hole getting poked in you and the blood pressure issue. And do not forget the "big boom" factor. When they come pointed at you, they are hard to ignore.

An early report from Sandy Hook said the Bushmaster was found in the car, apparently all victims were killed by the long gun, Lanza wore a bulletproof vest, yet used a sidearm to off himself? I assume these inconsistencies are cleared up.

I have not seen anything that said the asshole was wearing armor, not that it matters. I saw that it was wearing "tactical gear", like a utility vest or rig to carry ammo. It is also my understanding that the entry was made with the AR, and they found a shotgun in the car. Not that it matters again.

These "things" are not Hollywood Imagined killing machines (even though they want to think they are) that walk calmly down hallways in a storm of countering gunfire systematically blowing away victims and defenders. No matter what the media tries to portray them as, they simply are not. They follow very standard patterns. Soft Target selection, excessive hardware, target rich environment, no chance of defenders, quick entry, systematic shooting of "herded" targets, until...something does not go to the "master plan". Ie. Empty room, locked doors, someone fights back, alarms sound, etc, etc. Then typically, they shoot themselves rather than violate the master plan of "success". Once confronted with the possibilty of "failure" they opt out, and think that is means success. Very rarely you get a complete loon like Manson or the Norway Nutball who have an imagined agenda, and those are the ones that best make the argument to be able to be dropped on the spot by a defender. They want to live, they want to get the "rest of my life Pulpet" to preach about what they did in support of the "agenda". Those are the ones that need to be shot on sight especially. No gun, no shot.

[choff]

Here's the problem, there are tens of thousands of schools you want to protect against something that will happen to .01% of them. A dedicated armed guard will go crazy from boredom and the fear of job loss from redundancy, it becomes a catch-22. We had a situation in one Canadian high school where the security guards were selling drugs to students.

Also, while a taser doesn't have the range of a handgun in most school situations it won't need it. If human shields are used what would you rather fire, a taser or a gun. The assailant needs to get centre of mass/head shot/gun hand shot to stop person from fiirng a taser, the taser only needs to connect.

[paperburn1]

sorrry wrong quote.

I am surprised you have not brought up hammers. 426 people were killed with hammers last year. but seriously an armed response is better than no response and the teacher that from my understanding attacked the shooter bearhanded lost her life but saved her class. Imagine if she had a taser or a gun.

[ladajo]

Here's the problem, there are tens of thousands of schools you want to protect against something that will happen to .01% of them. A dedicated armed guard will go crazy from boredom and the fear of job loss from redundancy, it becomes a catch-22. We had a situation in one Canadian high school where the security guards were selling drugs to students.

Also, while a taser doesn't have the range of a handgun in most school situations it won't need it. If human shields are used what would you rather fire, a taser or a gun. The assailant needs to get centre of mass/head shot/gun hand shot to stop person from fiirng a taser, the taser only needs to connect.

It is cheaper and more effective to let the permanent staff of the 130,000ish schools in the United States to have the option to be trained and arm themselves than to hire professional security or police. The absolute most effective would be to give the arming option AND mandate a random police presence supported by the local PD and Sheriff's. The random presence MUST be advertised and must remain completely random.
Giving the staff the option to be trained and armed is key. But this also needs to be made well known. Big sign out front, "This school is part of the self protection program and includes armed staff." or some such. This guarantees in the would-be shooters mind that he will face something and make it much less likely for him to try due to fear of failure.

Back to Tasers and tactical use. Dude, Tasers are not magical. They are meant for use against unarmed folks. Tasing someone with a gun is pure Hollywood. In use-of-force methodology a Taser goes away when facing armed opponents. You ask about risk to Human Shields, well try this one on: If face with a suicide bomber rushing your position from a crowd or group, shielded by folks and with folks next to and behind him, what do you do? You shoot him until he drops. If you have to shoot through folks to hit him then that is what you do. If you hit folks next to him or behind him, then so be it. But you shoot until he drops. Period.
If I am facing a mass shooter that grabs a shield, if I am alone, and it is still trying to shoot folks, more than likely I am going to shoot. It will not be fun, but it will be neccessary. If its weapon move towards or points at me, I will shoot without hesitation. "Human Shields" do not actually work that well, only in Hollywood. More realistic is "The Human Shield" and that one tends to go away VERY fast once rounds fly. Most typically, one big boom, and things change drastically. If you have a partner, then Human Shield becomes absolutely pointless, they are afterall only good on one line.
You are still trying to think this where the shooter survives. That can not be an option. It has to be clear the system is structured to stop them soon and decisively. "Failure is Certain" if you will.

[paperburn1]

That is one thing that needs to be made certain. You perform these crimes against innocence the outcome is not survival but your death. you have violated a basic rule of civilization and no longer qualify to be a part. There are literally dozens of mass murders and rampage killers still alive in the prison system. My question is why? There is no question they performed the crimes.

[Stubby]

I don't think he is advocating that the shooter(s) be killed at all costs. You just don't hesitate to kill them if necessary. Yes innocents might get hurt but in far less numbers than if you did nothing.

If I was not concerned about PTSD, I would suggest bringing home the troops and hiring them as teachers.

[ladajo]

That is one thing that needs to be made certain. You perform these crimes against innocence the outcome is not survival but your death. you have violated a basic rule of civilization and no longer qualify to be a part. There are literally dozens of mass murders and rampage killers still alive in the prison system. My question is why? There is no question they performed the crimes.

Yup.

(Que the "but what if he is innocent dramas...", and the "and when it is certain he is not counters....")

IMHO the major fallacy we face today is that the idea of "Reasonable Doubt" has been twisted wrongly into meaning "Any Doubt no matter how unreasonable". It goes with our greater cultural imperative of "Not my fault".

[choff]

Here's the problem, there are tens of thousands of schools you want to protect against something that will happen to .01% of them. A dedicated armed guard will go crazy from boredom and the fear of job loss from redundancy, it becomes a catch-22. We had a situation in one Canadian high school where the security guards were selling drugs to students.

Also, while a taser doesn't have the range of a handgun in most school situations it won't need it. If human shields are used what would you rather fire, a taser or a gun. The assailant needs to get centre of mass/head shot/gun hand shot to stop person from fiirng a taser, the taser only needs to connect.

It is cheaper and more effective to let the permanent staff of the 130,000ish schools in the United States to have the option to be trained and arm themselves than to hire professional security or police. The absolute most effective would be to give the arming option AND mandate a random police presence supported by the local PD and Sheriff's. The random presence MUST be advertised and must remain completely random.
Giving the staff the option to be trained and armed is key. But this also needs to be made well known. Big sign out front, "This school is part of the self protection program and includes armed staff." or some such. This guarantees in the would-be shooters mind that he will face something and make it much less likely for him to try due to fear of failure.

Back to Tasers and tactical use. Dude, Tasers are not magical. They are meant for use against unarmed folks. Tasing someone with a gun is pure Hollywood. In use-of-force methodology a Taser goes away when facing armed opponents. You ask about risk to Human Shields, well try this one on: If face with a suicide bomber rushing your position from a crowd or group, shielded by folks and with folks next to and behind him, what do you do? You shoot him until he drops. If you have to shoot through folks to hit him then that is what you do. If you hit folks next to him or behind him, then so be it. But you shoot until he drops. Period.
If I am facing a mass shooter that grabs a shield, if I am alone, and it is still trying to shoot folks, more than likely I am going to shoot. It will not be fun, but it will be neccessary. If its weapon move towards or points at me, I will shoot without hesitation. "Human Shields" do not actually work that well, only in Hollywood. More realistic is "The Human Shield" and that one tends to go away VERY fast once rounds fly. Most typically, one big boom, and things change drastically. If you have a partner, then Human Shield becomes absolutely pointless, they are afterall only good on one line.
You are still trying to think this where the shooter survives. That can not be an option. It has to be clear the system is structured to stop them soon and decisively. "Failure is Certain" if you will.

By this line of reasoning we should never have provided WW2 infantry with PIATs. If an assailant grabs a human shield and you taser the human shield the assailant gets zapped as well. There are military 3 shot tasers out there with triple the range of civilian ones.

One problem with handguns is people who have never fired on a human being before are liable to hesitate before pulling the trigger, fatal in a school shooting situation. No hesitation problem with a taser since it doesn't likely kill.

Remember, you're trying to stop the assailant, you can have him executed later, but the other reason for the taser is psychological. Think of the effect on future school shooters if a 65 year old 4 foot 10 inch granny school marm takes down a 6 foot 4 inch assailant armed with an AR15, handguns and bombs, all with a taser. The whole berserker myth gets totally busted, these losers are forced to live with even greater fear of failure and humiliation if they go down that road. Maybe they finally realize they have to suck it up and get help for their problems instead.

[ladajo]

By this line of reasoning we should never have provided WW2 infantry with PIATs. If an assailant grabs a human shield and you taser the human shield the assailant gets zapped as well. There are military 3 shot tasers out there with triple the range of civilian ones.

What do Anti-Tank rockets have to do with this? Are you trying to say, "Why would we give a anti-tank weapon to a guy fighting tank? Why not give him a tank?" If the anti-tank weapon is good enough to kill the tank then so be it. A Taser is not nearly as reliable as you think it is. Especially when facing a gun armed opponent. It would be more akin to sending infantry against a tank with a pistol or hand-grenade. Yes, sometimes they may pull it off, but odds are not.
For the record, again you demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about. Touching or holding someone who gets Tased will not get you Tased. You must get "between the probes". I can pretty much guarantee that if you grab a Human Shield and I take a shot, you are going to lose control of the Human Shield whether or not I hit them or you. And if I do hit them, odds are I am going to hit you with the same round. And then my next rounds are only going to hit you.

As for Taser ranges, the average civilian model goes about 15 feet (although I would not trust that tactically. The average "government" model that can be acquired is good for about 20 feet. There is a "shotgun round" version (XREP ECD) tested out to about 100 feet max effective, and of note with a 15 foot minimum use range) but it is no longer supported by Taseer Inc. for a number of reasons.
But again, most Tasers still available are single shot wonders good for under 15 feet. So think this in your head, or better yet, stand up and pace out 5 paces. That is Taser range. Now decide if a guy with a gun needs to be that close to get you.

Now lets talk about how to protect yourself against a Taser.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XvABQOfcO4

It is not hard. And that is but one method.

One problem with handguns is people who have never fired on a human being before are liable to hesitate before pulling the trigger, fatal in a school shooting situation. No hesitation problem with a taser since it doesn't likely kill.

Your logic here is that the average Joe is more willing to use a non-lethal weapon than a lethal? I think a more accurate argument would be the one based on the average Joe being willing or not to defend his or another's life against attack. People in mortal danger are more willing than not to try anything to live. Give them a weapon, they will try and use it. Matters not what it is. Give them some training, and they are magnitudes more likely to try and use it, and when they do, they will be magnitudes more effective. I think you really do not understand the fight/flight instincts in people. I also think you have never directly faced a mortal situation, nor been in any profession or position to be trained for it. Wrecking your bike does not count.

Remember, you're trying to stop the assailant, you can have him executed later, but the other reason for the taser is psychological. Think of the effect on future school shooters if a 65 year old 4 foot 10 inch granny school marm takes down a 6 foot 4 inch assailant armed with an AR15, handguns and bombs, all with a taser. The whole berserker myth gets totally busted, these losers are forced to live with even greater fear of failure and humiliation if they go down that road. Maybe they finally realize they have to suck it up and get help for their problems instead.

Gramma is more than likely going to die a heroically stupid death.
I have no trouble with adding Tasers to the mix for those who want them. I do have a problem if that is the only option. Personally I would go the gun route. Again, my basic reasoning being that after a few go-arounds, the Taser users will statisically fair more worse than the gun armed. You want to add Tasers as an option, as I said before, fine. But it can not be the only "option", and it is certainly not the solution. And I will not be the guy picking it, I will choose the gun. And odds are I will take him down given that I do have professional tactical training and experience, where odds are he does not. I am also willing to say that there are plenty of professional trainers that would be more than happy to train school staff for free every year. Carrying a gun on the job is not as scary as you think. Having carried guns on and off the job, I can assure you it is really okay.

Tasers are not magical. They are very fallible. Guns are not magical either, but they are way less fallible and certainly more effective.

[paperburn1]

I don't think he is advocating that the shooter(s) be killed at all costs. You just don't hesitate to kill them if necessary. Yes innocents might get hurt but in far less numbers than if you did nothing.

If I was not concerned about PTSD, I would suggest bringing home the troops and hiring them as teachers.

No I mean kill him, even if he surrenders, judge jury and execute .
Back in the early america they had a term called outlaw. Due to modern film and television its lost its impact and was glorified but back then an outlaw (outside the law) had no protections of society and if you killed one then nobody was held liable as they were outside the law. I think they should bring back this punishment.