I guess a reaction from me about the Connecticut shooting was inevitable. my only hope is to apply logic, and not emotion to
this situation. Emotions have their place, but here, I believe, is
not it.
I'm not here to question who, or what, or why. I'm here to add logic, and process to the discussion. I'm not
going to try and tell you what to think, I'm going to ask you to consider
what I have to say, and hopefully include it in your discussions.
Point of entry.
How did the attacker get into the
school? I'm not asking this question flippantly, or accusingly. There
is a very serious set of implications associated with this. First of
all, I have heard several reports that the school was locked from the
inside to control outside access. Having working security at public
schools myself, I find this highly likely and relatively
easy to accomplish.
Understand, there are a lot of really
good reasons to lock doors at a school, even before you talk about
something horrid like a shooting. Not the least of which is just
general durability; exterior doors take a lot of punishment on a day
to day basis, so something durable is important. Also, when dealing
with the safety and custody of children, it just makes sense to
control who has access to the building. With custody disputes,
divorces, and other things now an accepted reality in this country,
public schools need to take reasonable measures to regulate who gets into the school, especially elementary school students.
Its obvious that in Connecticut, the
guy got in. My question is “how?” Did he kick the door open? Was
he let in? Did someone leave a door unlocked? Was there a door that
was always left open?
I don't know any of this, and I'm not
pretending to. Also, I don't think the answers to any of those
questions absolve the gunmen of his crimes, or incriminate anyone
else for the same.
That being said, if something was
amiss, or if somewhat was done deliberately that was exploited to
grant entry for him, we need to look at that and learn. We need to
say to ourselves, “maybe we should lock the doors at school,”
for example. Doors that can be locked on one side, and allow free
exit in an emergency are standard on almost all public schools theses
days, I'm not talking about an added cost, just properly using what
is there.
No, I don't know of any school with a
bullet proof door, but how long do you think it would take someone to
shoot out the glass, knock it out of the way, and then open the door?
Maybe a minute, maybe more, but that's time to lock other doors, and
call law enforcement. No, locking a door would not have stopped the
shooting outright, but it might well have reshaped the course of
events, even if only a little.
Procedures
I'm probably going to make people angry
with this, but it is what it is.
I've heard two news reports so far that
said the school did lock down when the shooting started. Classrooms
were locked, doors barricaded, people hid. As sickening as it might
be to say this, from what I have heard, such procedures are the
reason that we only have 29 deaths. We won't know for sure for
months, but the police, with the help of a likely army of specialists,
will go over this aspect of the event in detail, and will probably
make a formal report to the local school district and the sheriff
sometime next year.
But my point here isn't to say what
should, or shouldn't have happened, but to look at what did, and
look at what we might do differently in the future.
And let me say again, based on what I
have heard... lives were saved through the lock-down. Yes, we lost
many, but many, many more are still with us. In event's like this, we
don’t' talk about failure and success in absolutes, we talk about
what worked, and what didn't, and what we can do differently going
forward.
The Weapons:
I certainly have my opinions about
guns, but here, I am going to honestly try and keep those out of the
conversation. As an engineer, I need to evaluate facts.
Basic reports right now (barely three
days after the shooting) are talking about four sidearms and a long-arm (rifle) with conflicting reports as to which were used and
which weren't.
In short, the sidearms have been
particularly identified as Sig, or Glock type weapons. Both are
reputable, high quality sidearms, with magazine capacities ranging
between 10 and 19 rounds, depending on the model or type in question.
So far, all of the pistols in question have been called 9 mm, which
is not unlikely. I myself carry a 9mm, and it is an effective and
inexpensive round.
Knowing what I do about both the Glock
and the Sig series of pistols, I can say that the technology behind
them is nothing new. They are well made, and high end, but their
fundamental working principle dates back to the short-recoil action
of the American model 1911 pistol, which is over a century old. This
basic engineering design is used internationally in civilian,
military and law enforcement roles every day. The vast majority of
civilian sidearms in the United States today are likely very, very
similar to the designs of the Glock and Sig pistols in their basic
function.
Also, one last fact, with four pistols
recovered, even if each weapon were only carrying 10 rounds (the
maximum capacity under the “assault weapons ban” of the 1990s)
the assailant would still have had 40 rounds of ammunition available
to him without having to reload.
The “AR-15” type rifle at the scene
bares a little more explaining. First, the “A” in AR does not
stand for “assault”. It stands for ArmaLite, the name of the
company to first design the rifle that would become the M-16 for the
military. The corporate designation was AR-15, an abbreviation of
“ArmaLite Rifle (model)- 15” Now, I don't know anything about the
specific weapon recovered at the scene of the crime, but I can say
that the AR-15 “family” of weapons (which includes clones built
by countless companies) are .223 caliber rifles sold for hunting,
competitive shooting and personal protection all across the United
States. Their are models available with 3-round-burst and / or full
automatic settings, but these require a class 3 license issued by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
My point here is that I
don't want people looking at the letters “AR-15” and
automatically thinking of a fully automatic, fully “militarized”
killing machine. This is a dependable, versatile firing platform with
lots of options associated with it. Before we say anything about the
one in Connecticut, lets wait and see what it could do, couldn't do, and what it did do, if anything at all.
A little bit of history for you. Take
this for what it's worth, if anything.
You are going to hear the words
“assault rifle” in the future. Regardless of if the rifle in
Connecticut was used, the subject comes up frequently, and almost
always after a shooting related crime.
“Assault rifle” is not, as some
would say, a media-invented term, nor was it coined by the US
military. The fact of the matter was that the concept was first
created by the German army in 1944 with the invention and deployment
of the StG 44 rifle. This was the first weapon in the world that
would give the individual soldier the ability to accurately fire a
rifle round, and then switch to a fully automatic fire setting in a
controllable, lightweight platform. The Germans called it the
Sturmgewehr, or “storm rifle”. In this case “storm” being
used in the sense of 'storming the ramparts”. The term was
translated to the native languages of each nation that later adopted
the concept from themselves, “assault” being the selected term in
the United States.
As the Germans used it, an assault
rifle was able to fire in single-shot and fully automatic mode. The
United States later developed the AR-15 with included a 3-round-burst
as an intermediary option. No one has ever set down a legal, or
ethical definition of what an assault rifle is specifically supposed
to encompass. And the question of what is an assault rifle is even
further complicated by the fact that the US military itself removed
the automatic setting on their rifles in the late 70s through the mid
90s before giving it back to their troops.
Weather or not you call something an
“assault rifle” is your decision, I honestly have no stance on
the subject in this post. But I do ask that when you talk about
rifles, you understand what the implications are of using the word,
and also asking yourself if the weapon you are talking about actually
lives up to those abilities.
Backing up a few steps, I wanted to
close the weapon's portion of this with one more point.
Again, with the information we have on
hand, it looks like all of the weapons involved were legally
purchased and owned by the assailant's mother, who was reportedly his
first victim that day. I know nothing about the home, the living
situation, the family dynamic or the personalities involved. However,
another common question that is asked with these types of situations
(and rightfully so) is how did the attacker get the weapons. In this
case, we (at least partially) know that much, and it looks like the
first law broken there was when he took the life of the gun owner.
“I could have stopped it”
I'm going to deviate from my purely
logical, engineering goal for a moment here, but I feel this is still
important to say.
Within hours of the news breaking, my
Facebook feed was flooded with people saying “I could have stopped
it if I were there with my gun”.
Honestly, I am skeptical of that.
You would have been another civilian,
with another gun, in another hallway, in the midst of a firefight. We
don't know what the hallways looked like, what don't know if there
was chaos, or terrified calm, we don't know if there was some
semblance of order, or if madness took over. But what I can tell you
if that if you, or anyone had gone out in the hall, you would just
been another target, another person with a gun for everyone else to
sort out, evaluate and device if you are friend or foe.
That's not to say you would not have
stopped this. But you also might have gotten hurt or killed yourself.
You might have hesitated at the wrong moment, asking yourself “is
he on my side?” when you saw a familiar face with a gun in hand,
only to be answered with a hail of gunfire. Or you might have acted
as best you could, taking the shot you had, with the evidence you
had... only to have killed a fellow “sheepdog” trying to do the
same thing you were doing.
Members of police SWAT teams, as well
as military counter-terrorism and special operations units train
daily to make those split second decisions. Whole thought processes
have been programed into muscle memory with them so that they can
react in a fraction of the time that your or I could to a threat.
They have weapons and ammunition meant to engage people at close rage
with extreme accuracy. They have armor and shields that are meant to
buy them that extra second of time they might need make the
life-or-death call of weather or not to pull the trigger on a target.
They do this every day, for a living.
And most of the time, they do it well.
Chances are, you don't.
Now, I'm not saying that an armed
teacher doesn't have merit. Hunkered down in your classroom, you
would have the option to drawn down on and kill anyone who tried to
force their way in. There would be time to hear him coming, time to
aim, time to shout warning, time to take cover. Tactically, a man
with a pistol hidden in a room is the type of nightmare that a fully
equipped SWAT team dreads going after. It is ground of your choosing,
on your terms. The odds are heavily in your favor.
Personally, I believe that allowing
teachers with concealed carry permits to have their weapons on school
grounds is an argument that should be discussed further.
But my point here is that the
knee-jerk, heroic image of a fellow teacher storming out into the
hallway, concealed weapon in hand, to actively track down and stop a
school shooter is unrealistic.
“Where were the police?”
Now, I am NOT, in any way shape for
form, accusing, or even implying that the law enforcement agencies of
the town were lax in their duties in any way.
That being said, we need to look at
where they were, where they weren't, how long it took them to respond
to the situation, and then ask ourselves “could they have changed
the course of events” and if so, “how?”
And I don't ask that first question
lightly. Not knowing anything about the details of the shooting right
now, I honestly don't know if a cop could have done anything to have
stopped the shooting. As a former armed security office myself, I am
fully aware of how fast things can happen. There were many times in
my four year career where a fight or argument was started, blows were
thrown, and then it was over and people walked away in a matter of
seconds. By the time I got there, the people left were spectators who
knew little more than I did.
And I'm NOT saying that is the case
here, I don't know. I just want to steer away from the knee-jerk mindset that says
“a cop is at the school; everything will be fine”. There have
been several incidents where police officers were forced to retreat
to cover when outgunned by a more aggressive opponent with better
positioning. Even having a cop on site might not have stopped this.
But we can look at the facts, ask
logical questions, and make logical, factual decisions about how to
go forward.
Okay, I'm done.
No, I didn't answer any questions, or at least I didn't try to, anyway.
No, I didn't say we needed to train every teacher how to soot.
And no, I didn't say we needed to get rid
of guns outright.
What I am saying is that if we don't
look at this objectively in the days, weeks and months to come, we
stand to loose valuable, factual information that might well serve to
stop something like this from happening again, or at least help to.
But if we don't stop, if we don't look,
if we don't put our emotions aside just for a little bit and think
about this logically, then we run the very real risk of not learning
anything. In that environment, we degenerate back to two camps; one
screaming to "Save our children", and another shouting
back, just as loud, “come and take them from out cold dead hands!”
Realistically, I don't think we really win either
way there.
