Gunman kills 19 children in Texas school shooting - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15230229
wat0n wrote:It also seems these aren't driven by expats, since the landowners usually need to be Thai citizens.
Bangkok. Not generally something that's common in the rest of Thailand. Cherry-picking is your argument, now?

wat0n wrote:Really? :eh:

Maybe it's a cultural difference. Not between Canadians and Americans, but between Canadians and Latin Americans. I still remember I'd get yelled if I didn't lock the door as a kid, even when living in a safe community (which wasn't always the case).
In Canada I locked my doors, most of the time. It wasn't really necessary, but it was a habit.

I feared having my car stolen. I had to good reason to as I'd have my car stolen and my girlfriend had hers stolen. having your car stolen in the Vancouver area was more common than it should have been. In Edmonton, I never feared having my car stolen(car theft was rare), so I often left the doors unlocked.

Where I live, property theft is all but unknown. People know their neighbours, and look out for each other.

Schools are NOT in the middle of town, so people don't really wander into them, either.

wat0n wrote:I am actually surprised when I see how little security the average house has around here (Chicago, not the safest city ever). It's not just schools. But then, there are those who really prefer to go all the way and live in a gated community, which I personally don't like (too inconvenient, just lock the door and have a fence, plus I prefer to live in the city - granted, I also prefer living in an apartment).
Personal preferences are just that, but don't project your fears. Most of Thailand is absolutely NOT like Chicago.

If I lived in Bangkok, I'd use more security.

In short, people prepare and defend against things that are legitimate threats, and not ones that are not. It's called common sense.

@wat0n A PELLET gun! :lol: He could have put an eye out with that. I am pretty sure that's not a good comparison to 21 kids killed in a USA school shooting.
#15230230
Godstud wrote:Bangkok. Not generally something that's common in the rest of Thailand. Cherry-picking is your argument, now?


Just searched for gated communities in Thailand. Either way, they do exist, with security and all.

Godstud wrote: In Canada I locked my doors, most of the time. It wasn't really necessary, but it was a habit.

I feared having my car stolen. I had to good reason to as I'd have my car stolen and my girlfriend had hers stolen. having your car stolen in the Vancouver area was more common than it should have been. In Edmonton, I never feared having my car stolen(car theft was rare), so I often left the doors unlocked.

Where I live, property theft is all but unknown. People know their neighbours, and look out for each other.

Schools are NOT in the middle of town, so people don't really wander into them, either.


Where are schools usually located at?

Would you support fencing them if they were in the middle of town?

And most importantly, wouldn't that make some unknown guy wandering into school even more suspicious?

Godstud wrote: Personal preferences are just that, but don't project your fears. Most of Thailand is absolutely NOT like Chicago.

If I lived in Bangkok, I'd use more security.


And yet most houses here don't have fences. I guess they do leave their doors locked.

But that's about it. People aren't as paranoid about security as you implied. That's part of the problem maybe if they were, there would also be more gun control. But they aren't and realistically speaking gun control measures aren't going to tighten anytime soon.

You may say people are dumb for not doing so, but I'm looking for more realistic alternatives given the preferences of many on the matter of gun control. I'd guess putting a fence and gates around schools to control access would be far less controversial and more likely to be implemented then a major federal overhaul of gun control.

You may say the American system is broken if nothing happens, or there's just too many idiots. Maybe but that doesn't change anything and the proposal isn't particularly insane nor it has any fundamental conflict with the other measures usually mentioned (gun control, figuring out why shootings happen to begin with, screening potential shooters, etc). And this one in particular can be useful to prevent other potential problems down the line.

Godstud wrote:In short, people prepare and defend against things that are legitimate threats, and not ones that are not. It's called common sense.

@wat0n A PELLET gun! :lol: He could have put an eye out with that.


So if a school was in the middle of town or inside a large city like Bangkok, would you be okay with building physical obstacles for limiting access to strangers?

Sorry, just want to understand where you are coming from here.
#15230235
wat0n wrote:Would you support fencing them if they were in the middle of town?
The schools in this area are not fenced. Even the one in the town centre(which I forgot about) It's not a big city. In a big city I am saying it might be justified. It is not, here.

wat0n wrote:And most importantly, wouldn't that make some unknown guy wandering into school even more suspicious?
No one is wandering into schools, and so this isn't an issue. YET AGAIN, you are fabricating a problem that does not exist, in an attempt to push your fucked up agenda where you think school security is the problem and NOT the guns.

wat0n wrote: I'd guess putting a fence and gates around schools to control access would be far less controversial and more likely to be implemented then a major federal overhaul of gun control.
If it's not a problem in a certain areas(country where school shootings aren't a weekly occurrence), why address it? Why can you not apply critical thinking and common sense to anything in this regard?

The American school where 21 kids were murdered already had these security measures. They. Did. Not. Work.

wat0n wrote:So if a school was in the middle of town or inside a large city like Bangkok, would you be okay with building physical obstacles for limiting access to strangers?
If it's a problem, then you address it. If it is not, then you don't How fucking dumb are you, that you can't understand the most basic common sense explanation? :eh:

@wat0n You're fucking nuts. Everyone else needs to protect themselves from non-existent threats because you live in a shit-hole country where people value guns over children.
#15230252
Retrofitting schools to make them impregnable to assailants is not economically feasible, since even a functional wall would be about 20 times the entire school budget.

Here is a radical idea: spend some of that money on studies looking at the root causes of mass shootings and then address those.
#15230253
Pants-of-dog wrote: spend some of that money on studies looking at the root causes of mass shootings and then address those.



This has already been done. The problem is there is no will to do anything to address these issues. Some of the solution involves regulating guns, and the pro-gun crowd generally has a "no comprise" attitude in America.

- Domestic violence is one big one.
- Another is that at age 18, young boys/men still don't have their pre-frontal cortex developed. Further, those young boys and men that have had a lot of trauma (experienced domestic violence or constantly witnessed it (like dad beating up mom)), have their pre-frontal cortex even less developed.
- It's also too easy to get a gun
- There's social media that has actual made us more isolated and depressed than ever before.


I'm sure just address the few things above is enough to make a big different.

That said, I don't see the problem with locking up school doors during school hours. This is very feasible and not expensive. Why can't we take a multi-factor approach?
#15230269
Godstud wrote: No one is wandering into schools, and so this isn't an issue. YET AGAIN, you are fabricating a problem that does not exist, in an attempt to push your fucked up agenda where you think school security is the problem and NOT the guns.


I was clear that I don't think the gun issue will be addressed anytime soon. That's not an option. Furthermore, the measures are not mutually exclusive and if anything stakeholders and security experts agree with me.

I'd rather prevent problems from ever happening to begin with than deal with them ex-post.

Godstud wrote:
If it's not a problem in a certain areas(country where school shootings aren't a weekly occurrence), why address it? Why can you not apply critical thinking and common sense to anything in this regard?


Preventing problems before they happen is an application of critical thinking.

Godstud wrote:
The American school where 21 kids were murdered already had these security measures. They. Did. Not. Work.


No, it did not. I even posted a Street View link so you can see the fencing was low and very easy to jump, and it was also easy to access from outside.

Godstud wrote:
If it's a problem, then you address it. If it is not, then you don't How fucking dumb are you, that you can't understand the most basic common sense explanation? :eh:

@wat0n You're fucking nuts. Everyone else needs to protect themselves from non-existent threats because you live in a shit-hole country where people value guns over children.


It's not dumb to invest in physical security. Even the upscale Thais who live in gated communities realize that. Not being risk averse when it comes to the physical security of children doesn't make you smart.

@Pants-of-dog so what have those studies trying to figure out why do school shooters even exist found?

Thus far there are suggestions schools should invest in screening for mental health issues in the community and for states to pass "extreme risk laws" that would make it illegal for these people to have access to guns. But if the screening fails and these people are never found, or if the shooter has nothing to do with the school community (as it happens from time to time) or if the shooting isn't due to mental health issues to begin with (e.g. like those motivated by crime, including gang-related crime). Hence those suggestions also include buffing up the physical security of schools, including building fences around them so there's a single point of access that can be locked to delay or stop an attacker because an attacker can have all sorts of reasons to do what it's doing.

Even a cheap fence/wall can pay for itself over the years, if the initial investment is too high then the federal government can step in. And it seems to be materially feasible to have them since some schools districts use them already.

None of this conflicts with tightening gun laws, screening the school community for mental health issues or changing policing strategies in general. But none of these measures are infallible, gun attacks have taken place even in countries with strong gun control, good education, good healthcare, etc. Finland was touted as an example of this type of country yet it has had school shootings too, just not as frequently as the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting
Last edited by wat0n on 28 May 2022 17:07, edited 1 time in total.
#15230271
@wat0n

You have two habits that you should address:

1. You ask leading questions instead of making arguments or rebuttals.

2. You do not read the posts of others very well.

Now, rather than answer your questions that are based on a misreading of my posts, I will simply say that addressing the causes of these shootings would be a far more effective solution than architecture that costs more than the entire school budget.
#15230284
wat0n wrote:So what have those studies yielded @Pants-of-dog?


This is a good example of you asking a leading question instead of providing an argument or a rebuttal.

Why should one spend money on studies that may yield nothing conclusive instead of spending it on solutions even experts are recommending?


This is another example.

If you wanted to support your argument that architectural retrofits are the best solution, then you should minimally present a case study.

Why wouldn't there be a federal interest in making schools more physically secure?


This is an example of both your problems: i.e. it is a leading question and shows that you have not read my posts carefully enough.
#15230299
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog I already posted evidence that experts recommend putting physical obstacles such as fences and gates on schools.

By the way, how did you arrive to your cost estimates?


Yes, you showed that other people had the same idea, and this is because it is not a bad one.

But a case study goes beyond that. In this case, it would be a school or school district that retrofitted its building(s) with some or all of these recommendations with the purpose of protecting students and staff from an armed assailant, and showing how these recommendations have worked or not.

The one thing that seems to work and does not cost much is getting students and staff out of the line of sight. Many school shooters simply walk by closed doors with no windows or blinds over the windows, but they do shoot through windows.
#15230301
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you showed that other people had the same idea, and this is because it is not a bad one.

But a case study goes beyond that. In this case, it would be a school or school district that retrofitted its building(s) with some or all of these recommendations with the purpose of protecting students and staff from an armed assailant, and showing how these recommendations have worked or not.

The one thing that seems to work and does not cost much is getting students and staff out of the line of sight. Many school shooters simply walk by closed doors with no windows or blinds over the windows, but they do shoot through windows.


The latter would necessitate retrofitting schools too, wouldn't it?

So where's your cost estimate? How did you come up with the number?
#15230302
@wat0n

I feel that it makes no sense to address your leading questions.

If you want to argue that retrofitting schools to address line of sight issues will cost about the same as all the fortifications you suggested, please do so.

Is there some sort of case study? As far as I can tell, there is no verifiable data showing how effective these policies are. So, while many of these policies make sense, and we should implement those that have little cost or drawback (because why not), it is unfeasible to do major retrofits to most schools in unproven hopes of protection.

Meanwhile, finding out and addressing the root causes of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence seems like a more practical way to get effective solutions.
#15230309
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

I feel that it makes no sense to address your leading questions.

If you want to argue that retrofitting schools to address line of sight issues will cost about the same as all the fortifications you suggested, please do so.

Is there some sort of case study? As far as I can tell, there is no verifiable data showing how effective these policies are. So, while many of these policies make sense, and we should implement those that have little cost or drawback (because why not), it is unfeasible to do major retrofits to most schools in unproven hopes of protection.

Meanwhile, finding out and addressing the root causes of mass shootings and other forms of gun violence seems like a more practical way to get effective solutions.


Yes, there are case studies. Let me repost this joint report from Every Town (a gun control advocacy organization), AFT and NEA (major teachers/educators unions) that mentions some:

Every Town Research, AFT & NEA - Keeping our Schools Safe wrote:...

Implement Basic Security Upgrades

In 2017, as the sound of gunshots echoed across campus, school administrators at Rancho Tehama Elementary School in Rancho Tehama Reserve located in Tehama County, California, made a critical decision. They immediately put their campus on lockdown, ushering students and teachers inside, locking internal doors, and locking out anyone who would try to enter.79 As a shooter approached, crashing through an external gate, he was unable to access the school building. Frustrated, he gave up and left school grounds before ultimately being stopped by law enforcement.80

Physical security is a critical intervention point to keep guns out of schools. The most effective physical security measures—the ones that are agreed on by most experts—are access control measures that keep shooters out of schools in the first place. As a secondary measure, internal door locks, which enable teachers to lock doors from the inside, can work to deter active shooters who do achieve access, protecting students and allowing law enforcement time to neutralize any potential threat.

Of course, one of the biggest challenges with security upgrades is maintaining a welcoming school environment. Schools cannot become prisons. Everytown, AFT, and NEA endorse basic security measures universally recommended by school safety experts, like access control and internal door locks, while recommending that schools also consider other expert-endorsed security measures based on local conditions.

ACCESS CONTROL

In 2018, as the shooter arrived on the campus of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, several critical access control failures gave him easy access to the school. He was dropped off outside of a perimeter fence. This fence had a gate that was open and left unstaffed.81 The shooter took advantage of this and entered the school campus. As he entered Building 12, where the shooting happened, he exploited another critical safety failure, as the door was left unlocked and accessible to all.82 In fact, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Commission found that “The overall lack of uniform and mandated physical site security requirements resulted in voids that allowed [the shooter] initial access to MSDHS and is a system failure.”83

Most experts, including the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission and the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, agree that access control should be a component of any school security plan.84 Preventing unauthorized access to schools through fencing, single access points, and by simply ensuring doors are locked can keep shooters out of schools. State legislatures should provide funding for access control measures for schools to make sure that would-be shooters cannot have easy access.

INTERIOR DOOR LOCKS

In the shootings at both Sandy Hook Elementary School and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, teachers had to step outside of their classrooms while the shooting was underway in order to lock their doors. This exposed the educators and students to danger. Doors that were left unlocked were unsecured and vulnerable. That is why school safety experts, like the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, agree that schools should make sure that classroom doors lock from the inside as well as the outside.85 Interior door locks can mean the difference between life and death in an active shooter situation. Everytown, AFT, and NEA recommend that all schools equip doors with interior door locks to help prevent shooters from gaining access to classrooms.

...


So how did you come up with the cost?

This California Dept of Education guide recommends sizing a senior high school serving 2,400 students at 52.7 acres. This would amount to a little under 2.3m sqft, if the site is a square then it would amount to around 6,060 linear feet of a security fence. This site says a "high-end" security fence costs $100-$400 per linear foot, so just taking the cheapest would mean a very large high school require some $600k for high-end security fencing.

The Uvalde Consolidated School District has 10 schools so taking this estimate would amount to devoting ~$6m for fencing 10 large high schools each serving 2,400 students. The only school in UCSD I could find information about was Uvalde High, which has an enrollment of 1,250 students so chances are it would be substantially cheaper than @BlutoSays's estimate of $75m to fence all the schools in the district unless I'm missing something.

If we took Texas' minimum recommended area site from the American Planning Association of 15 acres for high schools costs obviously come down proportionally, and if we stopped assuming they're all high schools (only 3 out of 10 are) then costs come down by even more. Same if we take CA's guide keeping actual enrollment for each school into account.

A full-blown wall would probably be better, yes, but a security fence would probably suffice for stopping an external shooter from entering the classrooms and killing 20 people in a single go. And no, it doesn't cost $75m, it probably costs far less than $6m, maybe even less than $2m. According to the District's last budget (the budgets are available here), the federal government is contributing a bit over $1.9m to the current one.
#15230316
@wat0n

Please note that one of the case studies showed that a security fence was easily bypassed because a gate was left unstaffed.

And this ignores times when shooters shot through windows to unlock doors. Moreover, lock systems that are remotely controlled can be quite expensive while ones that are not are often eft unlocked leaving students and staff vulnerable.

Also note that your estimate is only slightly higher than mine. I took my fence length from satellite photos of the school.

And yes you are missing many things. One thing is grading, which is the slopes of the land and resulting water runoff, which needs to be accounted for. You and I are currently assuming a perfectly level and perfectly drained land that requires no intervention, which is an unreasonable assumption.

And again, maintenance costs.

And again, soft costs.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 33

Sandzak. Have you any idea the rabbit hole you’ve […]

As I pointed out, in what I think was a very simil[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So none. Russia has that. It needs refineries a[…]

Which bureaucrat? Biden? The current spike in i[…]