The shootings took about 10 minutes and Adam Lanza shot himself as the first units were arriving.

Bear in mind that the first unit would likely be a single patrol officer in a squad car. SWAT would take a lot longer to mobilize.

Would a single patrol officer go into the building? Waiting for SWAT is not an option unless it is a hostage situation. Good chance a single responder (or even two like the Sikh temple) would get shot, but if you don't go in then you are just there to put the yellow tape around the crime scene.

Most cops don't actually stop crime in progress- its unrealistic to believe they can without teleporter technology

the killing was continuing while some officers waited outside (not sure if that is true). I am not criticizing the police. The officers in the Sikh temple were incredibly brave. I can't imagine going in alone against someone armed with a semiautomatic rifle (or even a handgun).

Some police official, I don't remember who, later said that the priority during that incident was to minimize police casualties. That made a lot of people angry, as you can imagine.

He might be a little cautious until a second officer arrived.

before he got into the building. Not criticizing that decision. I would not go in unless my kid was in the building (and I would promptly get killed for my trouble).

Officers have been told not to wait for SWAT....They are to go right in after the shooter.....

you can listen to the unedited police radio traffic here: ( with time markers )

...but when you get in the practice of constantly reporting lies as facts, I can see why this story is such a big challenge for them.

To make their story more gruesome

in regard to this story

sloppy, reckless reporting all around

Affluent community. What else are the police doing at the time.

While folks still have guns, it says something about having one yourself.

I have been giving some thought to the idea of arming teachers. I am not saying that it is effective (armed and well trained marshall, police officer, or security guard would be better), but what would it hurt to allow CCW holders to carry their guns into the school (teachers, administrators, etc.). The argument is right that a sign positing Gun Free Zone is a joke. The first accidental shooting in a school would force reexamination of the policy. If a teacher decided one day to unload on his/her class, would it be any different than illegally carrying the gun into the school. The one caveat is the opportunity for a student to disarm a teacher and use the gun. If the gun comes out of the holster without a recognizable threat, then it should be an immediate firing and prosecution. No guns carried in purses or backpacks. It would have to be in a holster on the teacher's person at all times.

it would not be unreasonable to consider a system similar to the one the FAA uses to regulate pilots who carry guns.

Would be giving the teachers or administrators the option of having a weapon in a biometric-coded safe properly secured with concrete anchors. It eliminates most of the risk associated with carrying when your job is to be in close contact with kids.

If there's an LEO assigned to the school his job is different and he can be focused on threats and weapon retention, teachers really can't.

It's not so much the "need guns to deal with guns" argument but the idea that we shouldn't legally create situations where the perp knows he's not going to meet any effective resistance to his murder spree until police arrive and track him down.

The OR mall shooter was apparently stopped by a CCW.

to make a difference?

I think the armed LEO in the school is the best option.

I think armed LEO is best too, but I don't think it's possible to have an LEO in every place people are vulnerable at all times.

I use a biometric handgun safe at home, it's extremely fast to get into (just press my fingers onto the pad and it pops open) and very secure, combined with locked doors and security measures I believe it's a viable option, it's what they do on planes too.

... but if the shooter(s) are reasonably bright (and that seems to be generally the case) and have any kind of a plan, the LEO will merely be the first victim, probably from ambush.

I am particularly interested in this at this time. My son is the head of technology at a local Jr High School. He is in charge of all computers, networks, HVAC controls, and security systems, including alarms and surveillance cameras. The local school district has had 9 bomb threats and shooter threats in the last week. Three at my son's school. My son has been working nights and yesterday (Sat) to beef up the security systems. There is no armed presence at the school unless the police are called after a threat is received.

Oregon mall shooter shot himself

When his other option was to be shot or apprehended by the guy pointing a pistol at him.

These "people" don't want to live with the consequences of their actions.

Just lots of Fox Nation and gun nut blogs.

I'll believe it when I see independent testimony or surveillance video

I'm calling out NRA talking points

If you do not like my answers what are yours? Steps that can be taken to protect our children right now.
The Idea that they are going to take firearms out of our society is crazy and any answer for protecting our children now that depends on that happening is just right down stupid.
I do not belong to the NRA nor am I a conservative or a liberal. I'm a declared moderate and proud of the fact that I don't follow either flavor of sheeple.
So step forward and give us your answers. NOT BS WANNA BE JUNK, but things that can make a difference right now.
I'm listening for ever constructive idea I can hear that will work and we can do now.
No politics please that approach has already given us the situation we are in now.
Answers that work and work now and can legally be done now.

Not all teachers are terrified of guns, but a lot of them are. "But what if we get into an argument and she shoots me?"

As someone who is involved in the emergency services I can tell you that police response time is much slower than one would think. This might not hold true for departments like the NYPD (whose size can actually be related to other nation's armed forces) but holds true for many local PDs. The truth is that most police agencies can only handle one major incident at a time (large auto accident, shooting, etc). While this might not be the case in that situation, it is quite reasonable that all officers on patrol might have been assigned to other incidents before the shooting occured. That is assuming though that the 911 and PD dispatch were working 100% efficiently- that is not always the case. I've had instances where 911 operators took over 5 min to get information over to dispatchers on a possible house fire with people trapped.

Consider the hit on 58th street a few days ago. The perp walks up behing the target, shoots him in the head, calmly walks to the waiting car, and they drive off making a clean getaway.

Consider also the case maybe a week ago where the homeless guy pushed the Korean guy off the platform into the oncoming subway.

WTF that has to do with this discussion is beyond me.

and we have no law enforcement officer of our own but rely on the county sheriff's office. I think that response time may be true for those living in urban or suburban areas, but for rural towns here not so much.

Our police department closes from Midnight to 8am, and the county handles all calls.

There were no automatic weapons present at this shooting. Please do not try and sell us a watermelon for a grape. It is not honest. It you do not know the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi automatic weapon please do your research before you comment further.

YOUR progun bias is showing. Go away. We can see through you and we don't want you here.

but seriously, an automatic weapon is a weapon that fires multiple rounds out of a single barrel with one pull of the trigger. If we used your definition, 3 double barreled shotguns welded together with a stick between the triggers would be considered and automatic weapon

People are dead, and they are dead because of guns. I want people talking about what we can do to stop gun violence and just because someone confuses the type of gun that was used does not mean that they should stop talking about the problem of gun violence, because let's be clear when people are dying in large numbers there is a problem and it needs to be addressed. I am sick of the gun lovers trying to split hairs about what types of guns are used, I am sick of the tired talking point demanding to know the definition of an assault weapons yet refusing to accept any definition that is given to them, all I want is for people to stop dying and guns are taking away too many lives. Semi-automatic weapons are taking too many lives and just because someone called them automatic instead of semi-automatic doesn't change that.

mainly just set up a perimeter and let the bloodshed continue. The perps usually kill themselves when they are finished. Only recently have their been talks of a more aggressive approach to active shooters.