TexasCHLforum.com

Douva wrote: EDITED TO ADD: As far as the Columbine incident goes, I'll concede that some of the Littleton/Denver police officers in higher ranking positions probably should have made the executive decision to forgo standard procedure and breech much sooner than they did; however, I have a real problem with those who want to fault hundreds of "beat cops" for following both their training and their orders.

Douva wrote:

Samurai Blur wrote:

Douva wrote:

Samurai Blur wrote:

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it's great that they use different tactics now, but it still doesn't change anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the things you have said does not make it right to have to always "leave it up to the professionals." To be quite honest, I still don't see any of that being a viable excuse. When the Austin sniper started shooting people, they didn't have SWAT and all that. It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets, to get to the top of the tower and stop this guy and that was many years before columbine. Sorry, I just don't see "tactics" as a good excuse for the fact that the police waited outside for 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. I see that as failure to do their job, and again, for that they should have been fired.

Great video, by the way.

I never suggested we should "leave it up to the professionals" (I wouldn't have written the handbook if that was my attitude). I did, however, suggest that you were wrong in blaming the Littleton/Denver police officers for the way the Columbine shooting was handled. These were real police officers, not movie cops or cowboys. They did their jobs as they were trained. Lashing out against law enforcement is no way to reach our goals.

Also, you're wrong about the facts of the UT sniper attack. Some of the facts of the attack will never be entirely clear, since many of the participants have different recollections of the course of the events, but none of the eye witness accounts include two police officers and a civilian armed with a shotgun punching across the lawn while dodging bullets.

The police officers gained access to the tower via the underground tunnels that connect buildings on the UT campus. There they encountered civilian Allen Crum, who was carrying a borrowed .30 caliber lever-action rifle, not a shotgun. When they reached the observation deck, Officer Ramiro Martinez left Crum to guard the deck entrance, while he proceeded north along the deck. As Officer Martinez slowly worked his way north, officer Houston McCoy caught up to him. At about that same time, officer Jerry Day and Allen Crum began working their way south along the deck. As they neared the southwest corner, Crum accidentally discharged his rifle (by some accounts narrowly missing Day). This apparently distracted the shooter long enough for Martinez and McCoy to get the drop on him.

Your rebuttal to my response is a classic example of what happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more enthusiastic than knowledgeable--they cite half-truths as facts and end up (if you'll excuse the pun) shooting themselves in the foot. If you were to cite your "It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets" argument while debating Paul Helmke on the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, he might just turn around and (depending on how well versed he is in the facts of the UT sniper attack) respond that the civilian's only real contribution to the assault on the observation deck was an accidental discharge that almost killed a police officer. Suddenly, you're left looking very stupid, and the president of the Brady Campaign is left looking very bright.

As also demonstrated by your rebuttal, another thing that happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more dogmatic than informed is that they end up attributing anti-gun (i.e., "leave it to the professionals") attitudes to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% (even the guy who wrote the pro-gun handbook that sparked the discussion in the first place).

Douva wrote:

Samurai Blur wrote:

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."