When Seconds Count…The Police Are Minutes Away

As the debate rages on about “doing something to protect the children” in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting a lot of schools are rushing to spend many many thousands of dollars on camera systems, door locks and in some instances various types of ‘panic buttons’ to notify the police when something happens.

In other words, exactly the type of system that failed so tragically at Sandy Hook.

Passive, time-buying systems by themselves do not work because the police simply can not get there in time

Adam Lanza killed 26 people inside Sandy Hook Elementary School and took his own life within five minutes of shooting his way into the building, State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III said in a statement accompanying the release of the warrants in the Dec. 14 massacre.

Five minutes. That’s all it took.

When you’re in a “Gun-Free Zone” five minutes is an eternity.

12 Responses to “When Seconds Count…The Police Are Minutes Away”

  1. JeffS says:

    In designing security systems, the process is “deter, detect, delay, respond”, where delay time should equal response time.

    That’s the “detect” you describe, Mr. Bingley. Which is the least effort possible, not even a band aid solution. All this rush to “protect” the children does no good because ALL of the the Four D’s must be in place for there to be any semblance of “security”.

    Instead, we design schools that are architecturally friendly, easy on the eyes, (hopefully) conducive to education … … and at minimum cost.

    We accept the costs to build schools that are fire resistant, and children don’t die in school fires. We do not build schools to be secure against psychopaths … … and children are routinely murdered.

    Lefties and politicians should ponder that comparison. If their cognitive dissonance on this subject does not cause their heads to explode.

  2. Kathy Kinsley says:

    “If their cognitive dissonance on this subject does not cause their heads to explode.”

    One may hope it does. Leaving saner heads to explore your 3 D’s and an R… (I’d change Respond to “destroy invader” if you want 4 d’s…) 😉

  3. JeffS says:

    Heh! The fourth “D” is at the end of “respond”, Kathy. 😀

  4. aelfheld says:

    When you’re in a “Gun-Free Zone” five minutes may well see you off to eternity.

  5. Greg Newson says:

    There were two SWAT teams at Columbine discussing logistics for an hour while the killings continued.Maybe we needed three so they could have a staff meeting while you’re being killed.

  6. NJSue says:

    Unless we are prepared to build our schools to resemble supermax prisons (with the aim of keeping people out rather than in), then there is no way structural precautions will prevent mass murders. We should think very carefully about the educational environment will lose if we go down that road, though. If you want to prevent all human risk, your society is like a Gulag. Not worth it.

  7. Mr. Bingley says:

    Greg, that’s exactly right. Look also at the horrific videos from Virginia Tech: I’ve seen ones showing VTPD officers talking on their radios and crouching behind cars while you can hears shots being fired inside. They did nothing.

    Look also at the case of the Petit home invasion. It is sickening. The police WASTED 30 minutes setting up a by-the-book “perimeter” to protect themselves while the family was being raped and murdered. It is beyond disgusting.

  8. Kathy Kinsley says:

    @jeff S.
    OK, I’ll accept that.
    But I do think Destroy is better. 😛

  9. Kathy Kinsley says:

    @aefhld. Ain’t no such thing as a Gun-Free Zone” – which is what we all seem to be arguing about.

    Question” should we let only the criminals have guns, or should we let law-abiding citizens have them, as well?

    That’s what the question is, and don’t let anyone ever tell you otherwise.

    Because the criminals are going to have them. We can choose to passively die. Or actively fight. The latter gives us a chance. The former gives us a well, “moral imperative”, which I think is anti-human.

  10. Gunslinger says:

    ‘Gun Control’ has exactly “jack” and “squat” to do with public safety or law and order. It exists to facilitate the eventual confiscation of not just a tool of survival but our innate sense of self preservation and self control.

    It especially seeks to place that power into the hands of suits that already behave as though they are natural bornrulers.

  11. major dad says:

    I don’t think you have to make schools like a super max prison to make them safe. Almost every school now requires single point entry and I can pretty much assure you that if the nut job thinks someone might just have a weapon they won’t attack that target, hence the attacks on gun free zones. College campuses are more difficult of course but if someone wants to kill people there are other and more lethal methods than with a firearm.

  12. JeffS says:

    Deterrence is the most efficient option, Major Dad. That’s why the NRA called for armed security guards in schools. You and I know this because our military careers were the direct result of the policy of deterrence. Lefties wallowing in their white guilt and communist propaganda, not so much.

    That said, being the engineer that I am, there are structural options that do not look like a high security feature. Simple things that make it harder for armed nut cases to enter a building, like bullet proof or impact resistant glass on and around doors. Or no glass at all, metal only.

Image | WordPress Themes