Amidst all the hoopla, partisan wrangling, and attempts to jam square pegs into round holes, I heard what sounded like some pretty serious wheat coming out of the chaff via a Facebook post from Lowell blogger Renee Aste.
She raised the issue of non-lethal measures, which I'm surprised isn't being thrown around more in the post-Newtown debate.
I'll leave the specifics out of this post (can only justify so much procrastination today) BUT think about it...non-lethal measures can save the lives of would-be victims, avoid the problems of collateral damage and training requirements that come with the 'just arm everyone' solutions, and allow us to gain better insight into why these things happen (presuming here that the would-be shooter will survive until the cavalry can arrive and arrest him).
Some of the obvious non-lethals include things like Mace and Tasers, but there are way more interesting and sophisticated options that school security personnel could use. With Mace and Tasers there are issues about stand-off (in other words, how do you get close enough to effectively use it without exposing yourself to too much risk?), but as I said, there's way more on the palette than just those. Believe me, the US military is VERY interested in these sorts of things...
Many would serve a "just enough" sort of purpose -- they would incapacitate an aggressor "just enough" to keep things steady until a more heavy-handed response (i.e. law enforcement) was possible .
She raised the issue of non-lethal measures, which I'm surprised isn't being thrown around more in the post-Newtown debate.
I'll leave the specifics out of this post (can only justify so much procrastination today) BUT think about it...non-lethal measures can save the lives of would-be victims, avoid the problems of collateral damage and training requirements that come with the 'just arm everyone' solutions, and allow us to gain better insight into why these things happen (presuming here that the would-be shooter will survive until the cavalry can arrive and arrest him).
Some of the obvious non-lethals include things like Mace and Tasers, but there are way more interesting and sophisticated options that school security personnel could use. With Mace and Tasers there are issues about stand-off (in other words, how do you get close enough to effectively use it without exposing yourself to too much risk?), but as I said, there's way more on the palette than just those. Believe me, the US military is VERY interested in these sorts of things...
Many would serve a "just enough" sort of purpose -- they would incapacitate an aggressor "just enough" to keep things steady until a more heavy-handed response (i.e. law enforcement) was possible .
1 comment:
A comment from the Free Range Kids blog on what you should REALLY do to keep your children safe.
"Minor as the act of holding a door open for a parent right behind you (especially one with a baby in an infant carrier) may seem, it is a moment to care or be cared for. It eases the hassles of parenthood and makes us feel welcome and connected. Sometimes it starts us talking. At the very least it gets us to take a good look at one another, allowing us to recognize which parents belong with which children. It sets us up to be an extra set of eyes to protect those children."
"To ask me to slam the door in the face of a parent I recognize breaks down that community. And to what end? The shooter at Sandy Hook faced a similar security system. He was not let in, he shot his way in. Moreover, even when protecting military secrets I am not asked to shut the door on someone I know belongs in there.
Post a Comment