What safety procedures does your school use? - Page 3

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by pek64 

Maybe bullet proof glass is not possible in all schools, but at that particular school, he shot out the glass in the door to gain entry. Bullet proof glass would have prevented that. However, since his mother worked there (I believe I read that), he would have known about other possible entry points. It's hard to say for sure until there's been time to process what happened. In the meantime, however, schools are expected to continue to function and parents want their children to be kept safe.

In recent days since the incident it was revealed that in fact his mom did not work at the school & his reasons for choosing it are unknown at this point.

[bmcneal]

We are a fairly small community ~3000 people, and at least at our elementary school, you have to be buzzed in at the front, then they ask you to sign in, and ask (politely) what you are needing/why you are there. I'm not sure what other kinds of safety measures they take. I'm still trying to figure out how to approach this with DD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lauren 

I wonder if they are concerned right now about copycat crimes? There have been several arrests in the U.S. the last couple of days involving people who were allegedly "planning" a similar crime as the CT crime. Perhaps in your school's situation, it will calm down in a little while and get back to normal.
 

There have been two incidents of threatened "copycat crimes" near here. Allegedly, one of them claimed to want to "break the record" with regards to number of casualties in the Sandy Hook case.

Originally Posted by lauren 

One of the things I keep wondering is if there is some kind of 'new normal' emerging; where society has kind of tipped a balance in the wrong direction and these types of incidents might be less rare. It is kind of a disturbing thought.

I'm limiting my media exposure to Newtown because it is hard to take in so much sadness and distress. :(
 

Me too. Every time something comes on, I have to change the channel, and pass by FB posts about it, etc. This morning, I took DD to the bus stop. When the bus came, I gave her a hug and kiss, told her I love her and to have a good day, and she went and got on the bus. On the walk back home, I started crying, and thinking about how all those parents did the exact same thing, thinking they would get to see their babies again, with no idea they'd not get to see them again. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

In recent days since the incident it was revealed that in fact his mom did not work at the school & his reasons for choosing it are unknown at this point.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive-sandy-hook/1779475/

they have reported she had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school

[Fillyjonk]

Ok to preface my comments, I am British, I went to British schools and although my kids are homeschooled/Waldorf kindergarten, I'm familiar with our local school set ups. My mum is also a teacher so I know more than a little about security in schools from a British teachers pov. 

I'll be honest, I find it amazing that kids and communities are having to accept these incredibly restrictive situations, school districts having to consider spending money on bullet proof glass, little kids needing to know what to do in the event of a shooting-I couldn't believe that Sandy Hook Elementary, a school in a quiet commuter suburb, had rehearsed what to do in the event of a shooting. 

In the past 30 years we've had around three mass shootings in the UK, total. If someone goes on the rampage with a gun-even if they don't actually kill anyone-, it is national news. If someone is shot with a gun it is national news. The UK is a seriously flawed country with serious social issues, please don't get me wrong, but very, very few people die from gunshot wounds, leading to, I believe, a correspondingly lower homicide rate. The difference is that in the UK, guns are difficult to obtain and it is not straightforward to obtain a licence for them. Gun owners are screened, and the licence has to be renewed every few years. You also need to show that you have a good reason for needing a gun (this would be, for example, hunting. It would not be self-defence), and you cannot conceal or disguise it. Its also virtually impossible for a civilian to get a licence for a semi-automatic, basically because its not possible for a civilian to show good reason for needing to own a semi-automatic.. This means that in the heat of the moment there just isn't that option to reach for a gun. The same day as the Sandy Hook shootings, a man went on the rampage in China with a knife-horrible, but no deaths. You just can't do the same amount of damage with a knife as with a semi-automatic.

I find it amazing that people would want to have guns, particularly those whose only purpose can be to kill lots of people quickly (semi-automatics are not hunting weapons), but still more that this right is allowed to trump the right of little kids, and ordinary people, to live without fear. The evidence is that massively restricting gun ownership will make a place far safer, for those with perhaps most right to expect safety. I cannot believe that it is right that powerful lobbies like the NRA should be able to argue that their desire to own a killing tool is more important and justified than the right of kids to grow up.

Edited by Fillyjonk - 12/20/12 at 7:19am

[lauren]

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk 

Ok to preface my comments, I am British, I went to British schools and although my kids are homeschooled/Waldorf kindergarten, I'm familiar with our local school set ups. My mum is also a teacher so I know more than a little about security in schools from a British teachers pov. 

I'll be honest, I find it amazing that kids and communities are having to accept these incredibly restrictive situations, school districts having to consider spending money on bullet proof glass, little kids needing to know what to do in the event of a shooting-I couldn't believe that Sandy Hook Elementary, a school in a quiet commuter suburb, had rehearsed what to do in the event of a shooting. 

In the past 30 years we've had around three mass shootings in the UK, total. If someone goes on the rampage with a gun-even if they don't actually kill anyone-, it is national news. If someone is shot with a gun it is national news. The UK is a seriously flawed country with serious social issues, please don't get me wrong, but very, very few people die from gunshot wounds, leading to, I believe, a correspondingly lower homicide rate. The difference is that in the UK, guns are difficult to obtain and it is not straightforward to obtain a licence for them. Gun owners are screened, and the licence has to be renewed every few years. You also need to show that you have a good reason for needing a gun (this would be, for example, hunting. It would not be self-defence), and you cannot conceal or disguise it. Its also virtually impossible for a civilian to get a licence for a semi-automatic, basically because its not possible for a civilian to show good reason for needing to own a semi-automatic.. This means that in the heat of the moment there just isn't that option to reach for a gun. The same day as the Sandy Hook shootings, a man went on the rampage in China with a knife-horrible, but no deaths. You just can't do the same amount of damage with a knife as with a semi-automatic.

I find it amazing that people would want to have guns, particularly those whose only purpose can be to kill lots of people quickly (semi-automatics are not hunting weapons), but still more that this right is allowed to trump the right of little kids, and ordinary people, to live without fear. The evidence is that massively restricting gun ownership will make a place far safer, for those with perhaps most right to expect safety. I cannot believe that it is right that powerful lobbies like the NRA should be able to argue that their desire to own a killing tool is more important and justified than the right of kids to grow up.

This is pretty interesting Fillyjonk. The pro gun people always cite research that appears to show that countries with more gun restriction actually have more gun related violence. Perchance have you looked at those types of statistics and drawn any conclusions? Later I'll try to provide a link to that data, but I'm running out the door right now!

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by lauren 

The pro gun people always cite research that appears to show that countries with more gun restriction actually have more gun related violence. 

As a Canadian, I've certainly never encountered any evidence like that. The statistics I've seen resoundingly support gun restrictions. Sounds like the gun lobby twisting statistics to me. Perhaps there's more violence *per gun*? Meaning if a nation has 10 guns, and one shooting, that's a 10% per-gun violence rate, whereas a nation with 200 million guns has 200,000 shootings, that's a 1% per-gun violence rate? But I'd choose the 1-shooting country over the 200,000-shootings country.

I'll be interested to read what you post.

Miranda

[Fillyjonk]

yeah please do, that would make interesting reading.

The important thing for me is that I think we are as a country about as screwed up as the US. Ok we currently have a marginally better welfare safety net and we do have free-at-the-point-of-need healthcare, including support for mental health problems, but at the same time the service is chronically underfunded and so, with mental health in particular, often reactive rather than proactive. The UK seldom ranks high on the list of desirable places to list, unlike, say, Canada. We have a lot of the same problems that the US does, which I think means that its fair to compare the two countries.

I've just checked wiki and the UK intentional homicide rate is something like 1.2 per 100, 000, the US rate is something like 4.2 per 100,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) Gun-related death is almost negligible in the UK (0.25 per 100,000 as opposed to 10.2 for the US-I think the reason there are more gun deaths than intentional homicides must be that some gun deaths are unintentional).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate . Our police are also not routinely armed-only a minority carry or are trained to carry firearms,

My understanding is that other countries, eg Canada and Switzerland, also have relatively high levels of gun ownership and yet don't have high levels of gun crime. (ETA though note both have death rates from gun crime significantly in excess of the UK, at around 3 or 4 per 100,000 people) I don't know why this is. I just know that if you don't have access to guns, you cannot kill people with them, so if your society is already pretty troubled, not to mention engaged in mass slaughter of foreign children and civilians quite routinely, (the US and the UK are both guilty here), if you want to stop your civilians shooting at each other, limiting access to weapons that make this incredibly easy seems like a good first step. 

Just ETA to add one more thing. I'm guessing the real reason for not getting rid of guns in the US is is a form of game theory: with such high levels of gun ownership, a lot of people feel that the only way to be safe is to own a gun. That is tough. The figures I've read suggest its erroneous and that you are still safer not having a gun, but I understand the way that the thinking would go. What I'd say though is that you'd struggle to find a British person who wanted the right to have a gun. No one has them, and no one wants them. Like I say, even our police are mainly unarmed.

Edited by Fillyjonk - 12/20/12 at 9:00am

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by FarmerBeth 

 I (and most of my neighbours) regularly have unexpected visitors walk directly in my unlocked home or across my property.  I wouldn't even think of having a gun ready in case of intruders.  However, most of the community hunts and has access to guns. 

Interesting you should mention this. I live in a relatively comfortable, quiet, middle-class suburb of a city. Until recently, I often left our doors unlocked when I went out. We have a large dog and I figured he was a pretty good deterrent. I would even leave the doors unlocked when I walked him around the neighbourhood. Then a few weeks ago, the neighbours were abuzz about some break-ins and either a robbery or home invasion at gunpoint. It's unclear whether the perpetrators - there were 3, with at least one gun - robbed someone in the driveway (wallet, car etc.) or entered the house and proceeded with the robbery. Anyway, since then, I've been locking our doors. Dd has found herself locked out a couple of times in the past 2 weeks because she isn't used to carrying her keys.

Locked doors and sign-in/sign-out procedures at school are definitely inconvenient. It's a pain to struggle with arms full of heavy supplies up to the door closest to the parking lot, only to find it locked and have to go around to the front door. I've always thought that sign-in procedures had as much to do with identifying who might be in the school and where they might be located in case of emergencies like a fire rather than any kind of deterrent against crime. When I first encountered locked doors, sign in/out policies and volunteer badges, I didn't like any of it - it seemed like a lot of rigamarole. I guess I've become used to it over the years.  

[moominmamma]

Definitely time for me to watch Bowling for Columbine again. Culture of fear. Yes, that's it. That's what bothers me so much about our school's reaction: it plays into all that fear business. We also live in an area where doors are left unlocked and anyone can show up anytime without fear. We don't even have a lockable front door. A few years ago we had a family staying here for 10 days while we were away; they were from South Africa and couldn't sleep with the door unlocked, so they installed a lockset. But we promptly misplaced the key, and it hasn't been locked since. People leave their keys in their vehicles here. Let their kids roam the neighbourhoods and chop firewood. This is why we moved here, and turned off the TV: to escape the culture of fear. 

I looked for impartial statistics on gun deaths internationally and found www.gunpolicy.org, a clearing-house for international statistics and research. It seems to be moderately pro-firearms in terms of its bias, but the numbers and articles seem objective. 

I compared rates in the US, the UK and Canada, the three countries that are represented within this thread. 2001 was the year I chose because most statistics seemed to be available for all countries for that year, and if not precisely that year, then I chose the next closest year. The simplest clearest comparisons seem to come from the following stats:

Gun ownership (guns per 100 persons) UK=6.7, Canada=24, US=89

Gun deaths (per 100,000) UK=0.31, Canada=2.66, US=9.14

Regulatory policy: UK=very restrictive, Canada=restrictive, US=permissive

Miranda

[serenbat]

Quote:

I compared rates in the US, the UK and Canada, the three countries that are represented within this thread. 2001 was the year I chose because most statistics seemed to be available for all countries for that year, and if not precisely that year, then I chose the next closest year. The simplest clearest comparisons seem to come from the following stats:

Gun ownership (guns per 100 persons) UK=6.7, Canada=24, US=89

Gun deaths (per 100,000) UK=0.31, Canada=2.66, US=9.14

Regulatory policy: UK=very restrictive, Canada=restrictive, US=permissive

we as far as US you don't have the rates right......because they are really being kept from us! 

This was really good and it talks a lot about what info we are not being given  - from Fresh Air today

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market

[TCMoulton]

Actually the story is pretty vague regarding if she volunteered at the school:

" Two law unnamed enforcement officials told the website they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Foxnews.com, citing unnamed sources, said most of Lanza's victims were first-graders whom they believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year."

So it certainly isn't confirmed that she had any recent involvement with Sandy Hook (although I'm certain she did when Adam was a student years ago there)

[Fillyjonk]

"This was really good and it talks a lot about what info we are not being given  - from Fresh Air today

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market"

Sorry, I can't see where in the article it gives information about what we are not hearing. Could you link through more specifically? 

Maybe I'm missing something but surely the relevant figures are just firearm related death, which would be generated by coroners reports I'm assuming, and number, and type of licensed firearms. Wikipedia has this information, so do other sources but they seem quite consistent. The US has the most liberal gun laws, the most guns and the most deaths, the UK the least of all three and Canada somewhere in the middle for both. Seems pretty straightforward to me. If guns are easy to obtain and normalised within your society, more people will die from gunshot wounds, both intentional and non-intentional. Crucially, there isn't any evidence that people are simply using ^other^ murder weapons-the UK has a significantly lower homicide rate than the US, regardless of murder weapon used.

It seems reasonably clear to me that the right to bear arms has a huge price in terms of death toll. In the UK we don't have anarchy, we don't have a high crime rate and we don't have a high murder rate and yet not only are our civilians overwhelmingly unarmed, our police do not routinely carry firearms and only a minority are trained to shoot.

Edited by Fillyjonk - 12/21/12 at 12:19am

[pek64]

What I read tonight said she had volunteered the past several years with the kindergartners. There were also conflicting reports about whether he had a habit of playing violent video games. Also not clear is if his mother was planning to move them or have him committed. She apparently had returned the night before from a two day trip, while he had been home alone.

One really weird thing bothers me. The sole surviving child spoke of *two* shooters. She supposedly said she saw someone angry and somebody mad.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121216/sandy-hook-shooting-girl-6-was-sole-survivor-her

[serenbat]

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market"

Sorry, I can't see where in the article it gives information about what we are not hearing. Could you link through more specifically? 

you need to hear it or real the whole transcript- he talks about the Tiahrt Amendment and the shut down of data getting out. - the transcript is here - http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=167694808

We forbid the Center for Disease Control and Injury in Atlanta, part of the public health service, from actually researching gun safety. So we have seen terror as a great evil, and we've started a war on terror.

The direct answer to your question is, because the gun industry and the National Rifle Association have been so very successful in shutting down federal sources of data - for example, from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and basically shutting down cogent research from the Centers for Disease Control and Injury - we don't really know the extent of the use of these guns in crime, because we cannot get even the generic aggregate data. It's been shut down. What we learned from are simply - for example, at the Violence Policy Center we do a lot of anecdotal research. I, for example, did a study about assault weapons a couple years ago, but I had to rely entirely on what I could derive from news reports and other public sources.You cannot get that information from government sources because of something called the Tiahrt Amendment, which has basically shut down ATF from releasing data. 

GROSS: So this amendment prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from releasing information about what guns have been used in crimes. Do I have that right?DIAZ: You have that exactly right. It's interesting, you know, I used to work on the Hill for Congress Schumer back during the early '90s, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms routinely released aggregate data. We're not talking about specific investigative files here. We're talking about useful data about what types of gun are used in what types of crime.The gun industry realized that it really loses every argument where you can have facts. So they got Congressman Todd Tiahrt from Kansas to sponsor what are called riders. You put them on appropriations bills. And it basically says, ATF, you cannot spend any money to release any of this data.So immediately we're shut down. ATF collects by make, model, caliber - data about the guns and the type of crimes they're used in. So we could, for example, were ATF able to release this data, we could say we want to look at Bushmaster. How many of these Bushmasters have been used in how many crimes and where in the United States over the last, what, 10 years? Take your pick.That data is available in the files of ATF, but it cannot release it. It is forbidden by law from releasing it.

  there is more if you read this section----just think how much money is spent to keep this info out of the hands of us vs how much we need to have spent on schools

[Fillyjonk]

Ah so you believe the figure to be even higher than 10 deaths per 100,000? Wow, ok.

Can I ask about the Tiahrt Ammendment, because I'm not clear how it works. I understand that it means that a lot of records relating to gun ownership are destroyed-is that correct? However does it affect collation of data about actual gun death? If a verdict of death due to gunshot wound, or whatever is recorded on a death certificate, do you believe that that would be kept out of the official figures for firearm related death? Or do you believe that the figures are not being accurately recorded, presumably as a result of the influence of the NRA?

I can see how this could affect, say, data on whether a particular type of gun was disproportionately being used to kill, or was giving rise to a lot of accidents, and also that it might affect whether an incident was recorded as a murder or a manslaughter (especially as I THINK your manslaughter laws actually would operate more favourably to gun owners-self defence isn't really an arguement in manslaughter trials in the UK but it is in the US I believe) but I'm not sure how this would affect data on how many actual firearm related deaths there were. Enlighten me!

Edited by Fillyjonk - 12/21/12 at 5:38am

[danielnathan]

In South Africa, we have deaths in schools nearly on a weekly basis. But learners killing each other. Stabbings etc. No fun. They have metal detectors for that in schools, but I also agree, a person who is determined would get in, no matter what. Such a sad thing to have happened!

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by Fillyjonk 

It seems reasonably clear to me that the right to bear arms has a huge price in terms of death toll. In the UK we don't have anarchy, we don't have a high crime rate and we don't have a high murder rate and yet not only are our civilians overwhelmingly unarmed, our police do not routinely carry firearms and only a minority are trained to shoot.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Although things are peaceful there right now, The Troubles wasn't so long ago, and happened in spite of extremely strict gun laws. Terrorist smuggled guns, and found other ways to kill to people.

[serenbat]

Quote:

Ah so you believe the figure to be even higher than 10 deaths per 100,000? Wow, ok.

Can I ask about the Tiahrt Ammendment, because I'm not clear how it works. I understand that it means that a lot of records relating to gun ownership are destroyed-is that correct? However does it affect collation of data about actual gun death? If a verdict of death due to gunshot wound, or whatever is recorded on a death certificate, do you believe that that would be kept out of the official figures for firearm related death? Or do you believe that the figures are not being accurately recorded, presumably as a result of the influence of the NRA?

I can see how this could affect, say, data on whether a particular type of gun was disproportionately being used to kill, or was giving rise to a lot of accidents, and also that it might affect whether an incident was recorded as a murder or a manslaughter (especially as I THINK your manslaughter laws actually would operate more favourably to gun owners-self defence isn't really an arguement in manslaughter trials in the UK but it is in the US I believe) but I'm not sure how this would affect data on how many actual firearm related deaths there were. Enlighten me!

 

As I understand it (not a scholar on it!)- and as the man stated in the interview, CDC records "cause" of deaths- ex he gave... tires, we know what brand causes a problem and it's deal with (it should happen this way) with guns, the CDC does not really collect this info and let the public know, also, the ATF does BUT can not release it (per the Tiahrt) so that means we (here in the US) really do not know exact numbers--ex. if you die via accidental / self inflected / by murder, etc. the ATF should be notified (they did state they reported the in CT to ATF) - ATF knows what brand did what but that info is not released to the public, thus we really don't know the real numbers--------thinking being if we knew (per NRA) we (maybe some of us???) would be having a fit!

As it was stated we really don't have hard numbers----we can't say this may really are killed by this means and with this type of gun because the Tiahrt does not allow it..........that means the NRA lobbied hard to make us not know.  

As with CDC, it is hard to get lots of info, not just this- some is easy other is not.

The NRA spends $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ each elections cycle, even in non Washington elections- small local state elections are about guns too!!! 

The disproportionate use of certain guns is what many are concerned about- clearly not for hunting unless you don't want to eat what you shoot- they are human killer guns- this info we do not have! We have no clue how many guns are even here. They (news) have reported there has be an increase in gun sales since CT- this seems to happen often after a big kill and it was very big prior to the elections and right after it.

In CT (as I understand it) the mother was the owners (all in her name) and all was legal with her ownership.

I know we may never know, but what deeply concerns me, is a person (the mother) IF IT IS TRUE, she did something with the children there (for that matter any school) and felt so (what ever the term-insecure or paranoid, etc) that she needed this many and these type of guns, yet no one thought hey, maybe she is not all there and should not be around kids...but I highly doubt we will talk about that or find out the reason for her "collection". I hate that the "talk" seems to be going towards mental health in the news, this was a family that appears to have means and could have had help if they wanted it......but again, a school can only do so much if the parent isn't stable enough to see there is a problems. IMO- anyone not stable should not be in a home with guns. 

When I hear about "arming" teachers this makes me sick. There are lots of people that come in contact with children in schools, how many are tested to see how stable they are? I know one school near me that has several teachers in the news for drugs (hard stuff-heroin), while we test student athletics we are not doing routine tests on teachers or support staff, etc. I really wonder how stable some are, I really don't wish to arm them to find out-IMO  

[Fillyjonk]

Northern Ireland is part of the UK but has separate gun laws and armed police officers. IIRC its the only area of the UK where During that period Northern Ireland was essentially a country engaged in civil war. I don't think that that is the situation in America at this time. Therefore I think that the better comparison is to the UK as a whole now, which, like America, if not fighting a war within itself. Additionally, while a majority of deaths did occur due to firearms, a significant minority even in Northern Ireland itself were bomb-related.

I think its pretty obvious that a country involved in conflict, especially where this confflict is between the state and an armed, funded militia, is going to have a high death rate from firearms. Like I say though I don't see this as being the situation in America at this time.

[ollyoxenfree]

I've been reading about school security in different countries and regions. Just noticed this story that the government of Canada's largest province, Ontario, has announced that all of its elementary schools will implement a locked door policy. 

Also of interest, according to the report: 

Every Ontario school board is required to have a local police-school board protocol, which requires they have a lockdown plan in place that is practised at least twice a year. The government has arranged for professional development and training for school and board staff and local police services to implement the protocol at both the elementary and secondary levels.

It appears that local school officials are having to comply with government demands, in Ontario at least.