School Shooting at Virginia Tech

[Superluminal]

Policy around here is that teachers have to catch you in the act before anything is done. Great, eh?)

Yeah, especially since the teacher is likely see you when you hit back, and the bully can start crying, "hippie started it."

[hippietrekx]

Policy around here is that teachers have to catch you in the act before anything is done. Great, eh?)

Yeah, especially since the teacher is likely see you when you hit back, and the bully can start crying, "hippie started it."

Ha ha. You said hippie and hit in the same sentence. I couldn't fight even if I wanted to. I'd be mopped off the floor.

[Enzo]

I think that while we might prefer that 3 students are dead rather than 33, what becomes of the innocent student who inadvertently kills another while shooting at the bad guy? "Oh well it's OK, after all he was shooting at the bad guy, sorry he killed your daughter by mistake Mrs. SMith."

I am not lobbying for or against gun control. I am lobbying against calling guns a simple solution to anything.

Lance, I think your response confuses the weapon being an effective deterrent versus being an effective self-defense weapon. If knowing that some few are armed in the group causes a potential shooter to reconsider, that is a deterrent. Once he is already shooting, and you want to defend yourself, than your gun needs to be at hand or it is too late to use it. Two separate issues.


As to Wshington, DC, it is a poor place to study gun control issues. Unlike the issues in a large city like Denver, Dallas, Indianapolis etc. Washingtom is a tiny place wedged between other places. In DC, a five minute trip across one of the bridges puts you in ALexandria Virginia. VIrginia is a state they drive to from New York to buy guns from. DC cannot control its own guns. No one stops cars and inspects when driving in from Va or Md. DC is completely urban, having no suburbs to dilute the crime statistics. The suburbs of Washinton are in other states.

[pmcolt]

From the time most people are in pre-school, we are taught not to fight back. I can remember being told, "If someone hit's you and you hit back, your as bad as they are." I've always thought that was wrong. That encouraged bullies, even way back in elementary school.

For some reason, an episode of The Andy Griffith Show popped into my head while reading this post. Opie has been asking for extra milk money lately, and Deputy Fife discovers that it's because a bully has been stopping him on the way to school and taking his milk money. He informs Andy, who counsels Opie that fear is his biggest enemy, and he needs to stand up to the bully. Opie does so, and earns himself a black eye, but also beats up the bully, takes back his milk money, and overcomes his fear. Black-eyed Opie proudly proclaims, "You know what, paw? A sandwich sure tastes better with milk!" And they all live happily ever after.

Can you imagine that message being told to grade school kids today? I sure can't. When I was in grade school, the completely absurd instructions from our administration was: don't fight back. Don't even block, because it can look like fighting back. Just take the punches and wait for a school official to break the fight up. (Utter BS, by the way. If I'm attacked, I'm definitely blocking. My fist. Into my attacker's nose. Repeatedly. Nemo me impune lacessit.)

[Lonewulf]

I think that while we might prefer that 3 students are dead rather than 33, what becomes of the innocent student who inadvertently kills another while shooting at the bad guy? "Oh well it's OK, after all he was shooting at the bad guy, sorry he killed your daughter by mistake Mrs. SMith."

Well, that's why I say that instructing people that own guns how to fire guns is a good thing. Most people that have a firearm are unlikely to "fire wild" like you're suggesting. I know I certainly wouldn't.

I am not lobbying for or against gun control. I am lobbying against calling guns a simple solution to anything.

Okay, that's a fair given. There are many solutions to most problems, especially social problems.

If Cho was not given a firearm because of his mental insanity, he would not have had a firearm.

If the students were taught to resist in any other way, including throwing books at Cho, less people may have died.

If Cho had received the Special Care that he needed, he may never have snapped. (I don't know enough about mental health to comment, though).

Lance, I think your response confuses the weapon being an effective deterrent versus being an effective self-defense weapon. If knowing that some few are armed in the group causes a potential shooter to reconsider, that is a deterrent. Once he is already shooting, and you want to defend yourself, than your gun needs to be at hand or it is too late to use it. Two separate issues.

Right.

In this case, the firearm would not have been an effective deterrant against Cho; it possibly may have made Cho re-decide his "plan of action", but a deterrant? That's a different scenario. As for a self-defense weapon; certainly possible.

As to Wshington, DC, it is a poor place to study gun control issues. Unlike the issues in a large city like Denver, Dallas, Indianapolis etc. Washingtom is a tiny place wedged between other places. In DC, a five minute trip across one of the bridges puts you in ALexandria Virginia. VIrginia is a state they drive to from New York to buy guns from.

And DC has laws against importing firearms.

DC cannot control its own guns. No one stops cars and inspects when driving in from Va or Md. DC is completely urban, having no suburbs to dilute the crime statistics. The suburbs of Washinton are in other states.

Mmmh, I guess you have a point.

I still say that just attempting to control weapons doesn't guarantee anything. Most shootings happen to "No Guns Zones". Now, to me, a "No Guns Zone" is an area for free target practice if I wanted to shoot people up. I sneak a gun in, and I can be sure that most people in there won't have a firearm.

And then, the average person (according to what people are taught to do, apparently) is taught to "hide under their desks", and other insanity like that. I'm not saying that people should have "gone rambo" here, but even a little bit of resistance in a short amount of time could have helped.

[Enzo]

Well, that's why I say that instructing people that own guns how to fire guns is a good thing. Most people that have a firearm are unlikely to "fire wild" like you're suggesting. I know I certainly wouldn't.

Lonewulf, in all sincerity, setting aside any me versus you stuff, and in all kindness, I hope you are right. But until actually faced with life and death situations, until you are in mortal peril RIGHT NOW, no one knows how they will react. We know what we want ourselves to do, how we think we would react, but we won't know what will really happen until it does.

SOme people will rise to the occasion and surprise themselves and everyone else. They would have thought they would be paralyzed with fear and it turns out they maintained the presence of mind to do what was needed under fire. Other people who went through life expecting to be right there under any circumstances are shocked to find themselves frozen.

GUn education is a very good thing, yes, I just don't think it will make gun owners any better percentage wise overall than driver education makes car owners safe. Especially when in an emotionally charged state.

REmember the case a while back where police in I think New York shot an killed an immigrant man they were trying to arrest on his porch? He reached for his wallet to produce ID, and they shot him dead, wallet in hand. "I thought he had a gun." These are highly trained police officers. it was a tragic mistake of course.

Fire wild meaning spraying bullets just everywhere? Maybe not, but just how accurate do you think the average soul will be under fire? Have you ever tried the good guy/bad guy shooting test? They pop up various images and you have to either shoot them or not based upon whether the image is a bad guy with a gun or another uniformed police officer or mother with baby in arms. Clint Eastwood goes through one on a Dirty Harry movie - the one with Hal HOlbrook as the head vigilante. They make video games of this test. it is darn hard to get a perfect score.

In fact my mental image was not of someone firing wildly, it was of someone not realizing that an innocent was in line behind the bad guy, miss by an unch and bullet passes bad guy and hits student behind him. I see bullets bouncing off metal pipes and into someone. I see someone looking so intently at the bad guy, he doesn;t see the student running across the room to escape and who is about to pass in front of him as he pulls the trigger. It doesn't take a hysterical person to miss.

GUn control doesn't stop first degree murders, it is more likely to reduce second degree murders. No one sold the COlumbine kids the guns they used.

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf, in all sincerity, setting aside any me versus you stuff...

Yeah, what's up with that anyways?

...and in all kindness, I hope you are right. But until actually faced with life and death situations, until you are in mortal peril RIGHT NOW, no one knows how they will react. We know what we want ourselves to do, how we think we would react, but we won't know what will really happen until it does.

While that may be true, with adequate training, most of us have a greater chance to make wise decisions. That is why the military and police forces put their students through training; so that they will make the right decisions at the right times.

Sometimes it doesn't work, admittedly, but nothing's perfect.

SOme people will rise to the occasion and surprise themselves and everyone else. They would have thought they would be paralyzed with fear and it turns out they maintained the presence of mind to do what was needed under fire. Other people who went through life expecting to be right there under any circumstances are shocked to find themselves frozen.

But it isn't "freezing" that's the fear that you have. Nor is it being paralyzed. And nor is this new information to me.

GUn education is a very good thing, yes, I just don't think it will make gun owners any better percentage wise overall than driver education makes car owners safe. Especially when in an emotionally charged state.

Most gun owners do what they do because they underestimate the impact a car may have. I find it hard for a gun owner to do the same. Plus, even the worst of car owners that have an accident, say, once a month, do not have accidents the other 29 days of that month.

Owning and using a gun vs. owning and using a car are two totally different animals.

Fire wild meaning spraying bullets just everywhere? Maybe not, but just how accurate do you think the average soul will be under fire? Have you ever tried the good guy/bad guy shooting test? They pop up various images and you have to either shoot them or not based upon whether the image is a bad guy with a gun or another uniformed police officer or mother with baby in arms. Clint Eastwood goes through one on a Dirty Harry movie - the one with Hal HOlbrook as the head vigilante. They make video games of this test. it is darn hard to get a perfect score.

Okay, I have a real question for you, Enzo:

How many situations will the average person have to go through where there will be random "bad guys" (as in, more than one) that will pop up out of nowhere? Seriously?

The "good guy/bad guy test" is more of a training tool, especially for a uniformed cop, moreso than it is for the average person knowing how to defend themself. If a man mugs you down a dark alleyway, you *know* who the "bad guy" is. To suggest that the same man will suddenly be down a random alleyway with bad guys suddenly jumping out of nowhere is a bit silly.

In fact my mental image was not of someone firing wildly, it was of someone not realizing that an innocent was in line behind the bad guy, miss by an unch and bullet passes bad guy and hits student behind him.

Is that your main worry? I have a solution for that: Hollowpoint bullets rarely pass through the person shot, and frangible rounds break up inside of the body. Boom badda boom, case closed. Use the right ammunition, and blow-throughs aren't as much a problem.

I see bullets bouncing off metal pipes and into someone.

Frangibles can prevent ricochets. Not sure about hollowpoints, though.

I see someone looking so intently at the bad guy, he doesn;t see the student running across the room to escape and who is about to pass in front of him as he pulls the trigger. It doesn't take a hysterical person to miss.

That may be true, but I don't see why a student would be running in the direction of the shooter, and then pass through the two. That sounds like you're making up a scenario that's pretty darn unlikely.

But even if that was a problem, in spite of all of this: Is it still okay to FORCE a person to be defenseless?

GUn control doesn't stop first degree murders, it is more likely to reduce second degree murders.

And I question that. Sure, if you get rid of guns, no one can kill each other with guns; they just do so with knives.

No one sold the COlumbine kids the guns they used.

Partly wrong, partly right. According to Wikipedia:

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in a straw purchase in December 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson.[13]

This could be a case for attempting to prevent "straw purchases". That's where someone buys a firearm for you.

Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes. Manes was jailed after the massacre for the offense of selling a handgun to a minor,[14] as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes.[15]

So yes, a firearm WAS sold to them, but by someone else.

With instructions from the Internet, they also built 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes.

This is the part that I'm hung up on... they built 99 improvised explosives, and no one notices? That's the part that I just can't understand.

But yes, how would you prevent someone from being able to buy an explosive with seemingly ordinary materials? It's damn difficult to.

(Though, admittedly, only a handful of those explosives actually worked, thanks to being used with homemade detonators; but the explosives were said to have been "masterfully" made)

They also sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns in order to make them easier to conceal. The two perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.

They broke many Gun Control laws... they *broke* those laws.

[Lance]

In fact my mental image was not of someone firing wildly, it was of someone not realizing that an innocent was in line behind the bad guy, miss by an unch and bullet passes bad guy and hits student behind him.

Is that your main worry? I have a solution for that: Hollowpoint bullets rarely pass through the person shot, and frangible rounds break up inside of the body. Boom badda boom, case closed. Use the right ammunition, and blow-throughs aren't as much a problem.

I think he meant pass by, not pass through.

Frangibles can prevent ricochets. Not sure about hollowpoints, though.

Hollow points still ricochet.

[Lonewulf]

I think he meant pass by, not pass through.

Ah hah.

Hollow points still ricochet.

Frangibles, then.

By the way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ... w_shooting

A case where firearms helped save the day.

Received little press time, for some reason.

The intriguing part is this: The guys had to retrieve their firearms from their vehicle. I wonder if any more lives could have been saved if that time interval between not having firearms and having firearms was erased.

[Superluminal]

This is the part that I'm hung up on... they built 99 improvised explosives, and no one notices? That's the part that I just can't understand.

IIRC, they worked for a fireworks vendor and requested to be paid in fireworks instead of money.

[Lonewulf]

IIRC, they worked for a fireworks vendor and requested to be paid in fireworks instead of money.

Well, thanks for the information, but I wasn't asking where they got the material. Finding material to construct bombs isn't that difficult; even simple diesel fuel or the like can make an improvised explosive.

My question was where they constructed the bombs.

[Heid the Ba]

I couldn't find any statistics; does anyone know how many US cops (on or off duty, but armed) are shot each year? I'm not trying to make any point, simply curious.

[Мастер]

I couldn't find any statistics; does anyone know how many US cops (on or off duty, but armed) are shot each year? I'm not trying to make any point, simply curious.

Do you mean "shot and killed," or just "shot"? (I don't have statistics for either, but if I see any. . .)

[Heid the Ba]

Either would do, since the latter would usually lead to incapacity. Though perhaps it would be more analogous to look at friendly fire incidents in combat, since that may be a similarly confused situation.

[pmcolt]

That's a tough one. These were the only stats I could find off of a quick search.

http://www.nleomf.org/TheMemorial/Facts/daifacts.htm

Averages:
165 deaths/yr.
56,292 assaults/yr.
16,138 injuries/yr.

But no breakdown by cause of death or type of assault.


http://www.copadorer.com/2006stats.htm

142 officers lost in 2006 in the line of duty. This page lists 160 because it also lists 2 K9 officers and officers who died not in the line of duty. Most common cause of death was motor vehicle accident. 59 died in shooting deaths, including 1 who shot himself "accidentally" while drinking (go Darwin), 1 shot by a corrections officer, and 1 shot during a training exercise.


Can anyone find stats for shootings of officers that don't lead to death?

[Enzo]

Not to belabor it, but...

In a classroom, a typical classroom with a front and rear door along the hallway wall, the bad guy is in the corner up front, I am armed citizen in center of rear row, and I am bringing up my weapon to shoot the guy. A student cowering in the row ahead of me and to the side a couple seats, decides to make a break for it in a momentary lull. The rear door to the classroom is to my other side.

The student doesn't know I am about to shoot, he is focused on the door. He runs for it right in front of me. Not towards the bad guy. All it takes is my line of fire crossing the path between the student and the exit.

Everyone involved has to "think fast" and that does not bring out the best in people.

[Lonewulf]

Not to belabor it, but...

In a classroom, a typical classroom with a front and rear door along the hallway wall, the bad guy is in the corner up front, I am armed citizen in center of rear row, and I am bringing up my weapon to shoot the guy. A student cowering in the row ahead of me and to the side a couple seats, decides to make a break for it in a momentary lull. The rear door to the classroom is to my other side.

The student doesn't know I am about to shoot, he is focused on the door. He runs for it right in front of me. Not towards the bad guy. All it takes is my line of fire crossing the path between the student and the exit.

Everyone involved has to "think fast" and that does not bring out the best in people.

Once more, you seem to be making up an unlikely scenario. I mean, it's certainly possible, but I don't see it as particularly likely.

And even if it were, it doesn't seem to be anything that can't be circumvented with the appropriate amount of training, to reduce the chances of probability that it will occur. If the students were taught what to do in the event of a school shooting, for instance, the same as with fire drills and bombing drills, then that may have significantly improved the chances of survival for the students.

I'll admit that there is never any "one" solution to a problem or a scenario, and the solution usually is never an easy one. In this particular case, more training and more preparation would have been far better than none at all.

[Heid the Ba]

Horse dead, flogging continues . . .

To take Enzo's point about how people react under stress. I understand there is to be an enquiry into how Pat Tillman came to be shot by someone in his own unit. If a US Ranger can shoot the most famous person in the unit, when they are standing in the open, wearing the same uniform as he is, then to expect good fire discipline from a civilian in an unexpected crisis is surely unrealistic?

[Lonewulf]

Horse dead, flogging continues . . .

To take Enzo's point about how people react under stress. I understand there is to be an enquiry into how Pat Tillman came to be shot by someone in his own unit. If a US Ranger can shoot the most famous person in the unit, when they are standing in the open, wearing the same uniform as he is, then to expect good fire discipline from a civilian in an unexpected crisis is surely unrealistic?

But how common is it to shoot your own ally? You can bring up anecdotal examples all you want, but it doesn't really sell the idea much if you don't look at the much larger picture.

[Heid the Ba]

But how common is it to shoot your own ally?

All too common. In Iraq, US pilots (who were not under fire) shot up a British armoured convoy despite knowing the insurgents have no armoured vehicles.

You can bring up anecdotal examples all you want, but it doesn't really sell the idea much if you don't look at the much larger picture.

I didn't think there was much doubt how Tillman died. The US investigation says it was friendly fire, hardly anecdotal.

My point remains, if highly trained professionals can get it wrong, civilians will get it wrong more often.

Edit to fix tags.

[Lonewulf]

All too common. In Iraq, US pilots (who were not under fire) shot up a British armoured convoy despite knowing the insurgents have no armoured vehicles.

First of all: Bad example. You're talking about pilots, not people on the ground, within a short distance. The scenario is completely different in that respect.

Also, the US pilots and British armor crew probably had no communication with one another.

Second of all: Another anecdotal example. Anecdotes do not denote evidence; statistics would aid your position more than anecdotes.

Explaining the exceptional cases does nothing to illustrate a point. A rare occurance of shooting allies, coupled with a rare occurance of school shootings in the first place, does little to engender fear in anyone except those that already agree with you in the first place.

I didn't think there was much doubt how Tillman died. The US investigation says it was friendly fire, hardly anecdotal.

Anecdotal does not mean "false". Anecdotal means that it is a single example.

You are arguing an argument of probability. Your example is good enough to prove that it is possible, but it is not an argument that it is probable. Someone like Enzo, who already has a tendency to agree with your point, might buy your argument as valid (or not, I don't know, I don't mean to judge you or anything, I'm just illustrating a point). Those that disagree with your assessment, however, would prefer to have something more concrete or valid.

If you want to discuss probability, a single example isn't very convincing.

My point remains, if highly trained professionals can get it wrong, civilians will get it wrong more often.

Technically, that can easily be true and still not be of concern. if 0.00001% of soldiers get it wrong, that just means that 0.001% of civilians can get it wrong; that's ONE HUNDRED TIMES the amount, and yet it's still not a figure that would cause me too much concern.

I go through more fear of getting hit by a car than I do of being shot by a firearm. The same for this scenario.

[Heid the Ba]

First of all: Bad example. You're talking about pilots, not people on the ground, within a short distance. The scenario is completely different in that respect.

Further away but a much bigger target so the same thing. And a target that they knew rationally could not be the enemy.

Also, the US pilots and British armor crew probably had no communication with one another.

Apart from the air recognition panels and their ground controllers telling them the convoy was British.

Second of all: Another anecdotal example. Anecdotes do not denote evidence; statistics would aid your position more than anecdotes.

This may be differing meanings of "anecdote", here it means a story, without evidential value, not a single incident, which is why I presented the WaPo report of the US investigation, I do not consider that to be anecdotal. You would prefer me to find statistics on the web to back up my point. My knowledge of stats is shaky but without knowing the full background of how they were obtained and interpreted I don't think they would be of any value.

Explaining the exceptional cases does nothing to illustrate a point. A rare occurance of shooting allies, coupled with a rare occurance of school shootings in the first place, does little to engender fear in anyone except those that already agree with you in the first place.

Why do you think I am trying to engender fear?

Anecdotal does not mean "false". Anecdotal means that it is a single example.

See above.

You are arguing an argument of probability. Your example is good enough to prove that it is possible, but it is not an argument that it is probable.

I disagree, for it to be probable ask yourself the following:
1. Were any of the students or staff at VT as well trained as a US Ranger?
2. Were any of the students or staff as psychologically ready for a firefight as the US Rangers in the Tillman incident?
3. Were the innocent at VT as clearly indentifiable as a colleague wearing the same uniform?

If you want to discuss probability, a single example isn't very convincing.

pmcolt lists 61 incidents including one cop shot while training and one by a corrections officer.

My point remains, if highly trained professionals can get it wrong, civilians will get it wrong more often.

Technically, that can easily be true and still not be of concern. if 0.00001% of soldiers get it wrong, that just means that 0.001% of civilians can get it wrong; that's ONE HUNDRED TIMES the amount, and yet it's still not a figure that would cause me too much concern.

Is it not worth trying to reduce the ONE HUNDRED TIMES to say, FIFTY?

I go through more fear of getting hit by a car than I do of being shot by a firearm. The same for this scenario.

We agree on this, I no longer fear friendly fire.

[Lonewulf]

Further away but a much bigger target so the same thing.

No it is not. Humans are not vehicles, and a school environment does not involve planes attacking from a height.

And a target that they knew rationally could not be the enemy.

And yet, they attacked them. Makes me think that you're accusing some people of murder or manslaughter more than accidental shooting.

Apart from the air recognition panels and their ground controllers telling them the convoy was British.

When will you realize that plane shooting runs do not school environments make?

It's a bad example.

This may be differing meanings of "anecdote", here it means a story, without evidential value, not a single incident, which is why I presented the WaPo report of the US investigation, I do not consider that to be anecdotal. You would prefer me to find statistics on the web to back up my point. My knowledge of stats is shaky but without knowing the full background of how they were obtained and interpreted I don't think they would be of any value.

Then, without adequate statistical data, you have nothing to back up the claim of what is likely. Merely what you consider to be likely, given a handful of examples.

Why do you think I am trying to engender fear?

Okay, bad phrasing. I meant it in the same sense as making others feel that it is likely for someone to be accidentally shot.

"Fear of people getting shot by accident", let's put it.

I disagree, for it to be probable ask yourself the following:
1. Were any of the students or staff at VT as well trained as a US Ranger?

No. But, for reasons explained earlier, it is irrelevant. There are far more rangers that aren't shot, compared to those that are. And students do not continually use their firearms; those who make it their job to continually use their firearms make it more likely that there will be accidentally shootings. They use their firearms almost daily, for cryin' out loud.

2. Were any of the students or staff as psychologically ready for a firefight as the US Rangers in the Tillman incident?

They could have been. I'm for schools teaching students about how to handle potential terrorist or psycho shootings, the same as they have bomb drills or fire drills.

3. Were the innocent at VT as clearly indentifiable as a colleague wearing the same uniform?

No. And?

pmcolt lists 61 incidents including one cop shot while training and one by a corrections officer.

Let's see... I don't have much time. I'm going to assume that that wasn't all in a single year?

What's the population of all cops and law enforcement in the U.S.? And how many times does each individual use a firearm in the course of their work and training?

The average citizen does not use their firearm as often, and also there are so many police officers that aren't accidentally shot. So once more, the point fails to impress me.

Is it not worth trying to reduce the ONE HUNDRED TIMES to say, FIFTY?

Through adequate training? Yes.

[Heid the Ba]

Further away but a much bigger target so the same thing.

No it is not. Humans are not vehicles, and a school environment does not involve planes attacking from a height.

My original (and current) point is that people react unpredicably under stress. Professional pilots in A10s shot up armour they knew could not be the enemy. They are trained to attack vehicles the same as police etc. are trained to shoot people. It was a textbook attack at textbook distances.

And a target that they knew rationally could not be the enemy.

And yet, they attacked them. Makes me think that you're accusing some people of murder or manslaughter more than accidental shooting.

The Oxford coroner accused them of that. My point remains that people react unpredictably under stress.

Apart from the air recognition panels and their ground controllers telling them the convoy was British.

When will you realize that plane shooting runs do not school environments make?

Some time ago. My point remains etc. etc.

I disagree, for it to be probable ask yourself the following:
1. Were any of the students or staff at VT as well trained as a US Ranger?

No. But, for reasons explained earlier, it is irrelevant. There are far more rangers that aren't shot, compared to those that are. And students do not continually use their firearms; those who make it their job to continually use their firearms make it more likely that there will be accidentally shootings. They use their firearms almost daily, for cryin' out loud.

Surely continual use would mean fewer accidental shootings as people become more proficient?

2. Were any of the students or staff as psychologically ready for a firefight as the US Rangers in the Tillman incident?

They could have been. I'm for schools teaching students about how to handle potential terrorist or psycho shootings, the same as they have bomb drills or fire drills.

On the other hand my money would be on the professionals being psychologically better. What you want to happen isn't necessarily the current position.

3. Were the innocent at VT as clearly indentifiable as a colleague wearing the same uniform?

No. And?

Under stress a trained professional failed to identify and shot a uniformed platoonmate. Despite continous years of training people react unpredictably under stress.

pmcolt lists 61 incidents including one cop shot while training and one by a corrections officer.

Let's see... I don't have much time. I'm going to assume that that wasn't all in a single year?

Assume what you like but pmcolt says all in 2006.

Is it not worth trying to reduce the ONE HUNDRED TIMES to say, FIFTY?

Through adequate training? Yes.

The implication in your previous post is that as long as it is a small percentage you are unconcerned by the likelyhood.

[Lance]

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Lonewulf here, but I think you guys are debating the wrong question.

"If some of the VT students were armed, could bad things have happened?" Yeah, sure. Students could have been victims of "friendly fire". So what?

The bad thing was already happening. The real questions is "Would armed students have made it worse?" And I feel strongly that he answer is no. Even if an armed student in the first classroom took out 5 innocents before taking out the bad guy, it still would have been a far better outcome than what actually happened.

When SWAT teams storm a hostage situation, sometimes some of the hostages get hurt or killed. It happens. The real lesson is to avoid becoming a hostage in the first place.