Why doesn't lockdown work?

[sorrowmonkey]

Today, a lunatic with a gun and a backpack was given complete control of a public school in Colorado. Now he is dead. Unfortunately, so is a "bubbly" 16-year old girl, killed as the SWAT team breached. The news currently claims that she was killed by the lunatic, but based on how much detail really seems to be available, I think it is just as plausible that she got hit by the SWAT guys. Does it really matter?

Apparently, the school was placed "on lockdown" and the bulk of the students were evacuated because the guy claimed he had a bomb. Did he really? Does that matter?

While the school was "on lockdown" he kicked out all the boys, and slowly let the girls go until he was down to two.

The high school here in West Haven, CT has been "on lockdown" twice in the past two days, due to bomb threats. Apparently, some 15 males are being held for making the threats. Did putting the school "on lockdown" change anything? Would it have, if there really was a bomb?

In about sixty seconds (or about five hours ago, probably) the gun grabbers are going to start pointing to the latest Colorado shooting as yet another example of why the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It will be "guns are bad, m'kay?" all over again. If the guy had a bomb, or a knife, or a nuke, would it have made a difference?

We have this Great Thing(tm) here (and it's not "on lockdown" if you were wondering), called "Gun Free School Zones". Basically, it is a crime for just about anyone to have a firearm within 500 ft of a school. Did that keep the lunatic from doing it? The average criminal? Did it protect that 16-year old "bubbly" girl?

Personally, I think "lockdown" is just the newest fad in CYA tactics by school administrators. It may marginally improve some situations, but it is not a solution to the problem. The bomb situation is not a good situation: any bomb situations yields to considering the "worst case scenario" and "acceptable losses"; that's pretty painful when we're talking about children. However, disarming the teachers, administrators, parents, pedestrians, and anyone else within 500' of a school seems to just declare the school as safe workplace for terrorists, criminals, and lunatics.

Honestly, now... "lockdown"... are these schools? ...or prisons?

Comments

[baronessmartha.livejournal.com]

what does lockdown mean for a school?
does that mean "trapped inside"? that is what it sounds like...

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

I am by no means an authority on this, but my understand is that is exactly what it means. I believe that "lockdown" is supposed to mean that everyone stays in the classrooms with the doors locked, presumably to maintain order.

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's exactly what it means. The students are prohibited from leaving, and parents may not come and get them. This is also sometimes referred to as <ahem> "defend in place".

I invite you to imagine Pam's reaction when this policy was first explained to us by local administrators.

[nrawling.livejournal.com]

As I predicted, USA Today has already made the leap from the shooting in Colorado to the NRA-backed BATF reforms. They claim that it will be harder than ever for the BATF to prosecute bad dealers, when actually it creates new penalties which weren't available before.