上位 200 件のコメント表示する 500

[–]PWL73316 3300 ポイント3301 ポイント  (522子コメント)

There seems to be an immense amount of confusion here about why the school district is buying these things. I grew up in "Shawnee Mission" so I will explain.

The "Shawnee Mission" area covers over a dozen suburbs in northeast Johnson County, Kansas, from Shawnee, KS in the west to Mission, KS in the east. All of these suburbs have their own police forces, the Shawnee Police, Mission Police, etc.

Since the school district covers all of these different areas, the district itself has it's own Police Department for their school resource officers. It employs and equips these officers, who are real LEOs with all that that implies.

They bought these long guns, just like they would buy the handcuffs, uniforms, handguns, radios, all the equipment, because they are equipping a whole police force, albeit a small, special purpose one.

Right or wrong, police having long guns in cars is not unusual. As the article notes, the neighboring large suburb of Olathe has long guns locked in their cars, including the cars of school resource officers, but this is done through the Olathe Police Department because the district is organized differently.

Shawnee Mission has a unique organization where the school district itself is buying this equipment, otherwise this purchase would never have been noticed or commented on.

[–]dingle_dingle_dingle 1179 ポイント1180 ポイント  (365子コメント)

Long guns are more accurate than handguns. If I'm an innocent bystander in a shooting situation I would want all police using long guns.

[–]AtlasRune 572 ポイント573 ポイント  (234子コメント)

Who know how to use them.*

Edit: Your standard policeman is trained in guns s/he's expected to use. The pistol and the shotgun. These are vastly different than shooting a rifle, and in the situation presented in the comment above mine, I'd not feel safe if a bunch of dudes who just got issued a new rifle were brought to respond. Which, frankly, is what I'd assume from the given police district above.

[–]Zefirus 900 ポイント901 ポイント  (199子コメント)

A complete novice is WAYYYYY more accurate with a long gun than a handgun.

Source: First time shooting rifle, hit 500 yard target with iron sights. First time shooting handgun, missed 7 yard target with entire magazine.

There are a lot more ways to fuck up when aiming a handgun.

[–]PeachesBitch 330 ポイント331 ポイント  (35子コメント)

Can confirm. Shot guns for the first time last summer in Virginia. The rifles felt like they aimed themselves.

[–]apatheticviews 123 ポイント124 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Longer sight radius, generally located closer to the shooter's eyes. Makes Long guns "intuitive" compared to handguns which have a short sight radius and are held at arms length

[–]impossiblefork 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Relating to this: reflector, red dot and holographic sights. Do these provide rifle-like intuitiveness in handguns, seeing as the sight then appears infinitely far away?

[–]apatheticviews [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

"same effect" different "method."

Red dots on a handgun remove the "need" for sight alignment (which is why radius is important), but do not change "ergonomic" issues related to the handgun vs long gun debate.

[–]impossiblefork [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

I take that these ergonomic issues are mostly recoil related?

[–]samtravis [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

More about stability in general.

Get an iron and hold it out at arm's length and try to hold it as still as possible. Hell tape a laser pointer to it and aim it at something 30 feet away and watch how much the little dot moves. Then hold it braced on your shoulder and see how much more stable it is. A rifle or shotgun is braced against your shoulder, hands, and cheek, which allows much more stability than a handgun that is just held out at the end of your arms.

[–]NYG_5 40 ポイント41 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's like holding a football, 3 points of contact and the gun can't really sway when you're holding it. Handgun has two points of contact at most, and any subtle movement by your hand while pulling the trigger alters the trajectory.

[–]Eos42 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I shot long guns growing up through scouts and I was fairly ok at it. I tried out a handgun later and I was all kinds of terrible the first time, worse than the first time I shot the long gun at 10 or so.

[–]Ajax_IX 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I went camping with a former navy seal. I watched him drunkenly shoot my 2" wide lantern. Took him 3 shots with a .45 ruger pistol; sitting down, sideways, 20' away, in the dark, with a beer in one hand. He just said "hey, I still got it."

I guess it's all in the training.

[–]manofmonkey 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (11子コメント)

It is like anything else in life. If you practice enough then you'll eventually get good at it.

[–]KetchupIsABeverage 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (39子コメント)

What kind of rifle were you shooting, if I may ask?

[–]Zefirus 68 ポイント69 ポイント  (38子コメント)

A coworker's M1A, though we shot a lot of stuff that day.

[–]MattBlumTheNuProject 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

500 yard target with an iron sight? 50 yards you mean?

[–]nikooo777 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't stress this enough! I brought my friend shooting for his first time on Saturday and he hit all 18 shots at 900ft (300m) with the long rifle and using iron sight, at 70ft (25m) he missed almost all the shots using the 9mm pistol

[–]galactus_one[🍰] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The trick with any gun is to pull the trigger without moving the gun or jerking ur hand. Once u get that down, life is easy

[–]Delinquent_ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yup, I was infantry for 4 years. Always Qualled with an m4 (and consider myself damn good), never really messed around with a handgun. 3 years in I'm doing a little familiarization before a conceal and carry class (using my friends glock 40) and man did I struggle with consistent shots at first. Rifles are soooo much better.

[–]bigsquirrel 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Your first​ time shooting you hit a Target at 500 yards with iron sights? That is professional competition level shooting.

[–]bincyvoss 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Hell I could hit a Target. The front of that store is probably 100 feet long.

[–]3ruid 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Really depends on the size of the target and the style of iron sights. I'd have no trouble hitting a silhouette out at 500 with magpul buis.

[–]Murfdirt 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I agree with a 308/7.62x51 at 500 yards has a ton of drop.

I don't know what target they were trying to hit but an 18" target would be less than 1/16 the front sight post. I am calling bs. I have trouble hitting a 10" target at 500 with a 4x16x50 vortex viper optic on my Remington 700 police edition.

[–]bigsquirrel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I mean it's possible but honestly it strains belief. Shit I was an Expert Marksman (Granted, it was Navy don't hate) that is a hard shot.

Honestly I'm shocked at the response, I think it goes to show how many people think what's easy in a video game is easy in real life.

[–]Dallas257 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Professional competition level shooting.

What does that even mean? There are many types of "professional competition level shooting" not to mention 500 yards is the max effective range of the military version of that rifle, which is assuming they shot with no bipod or rest

Source: FM 23-8 for the M14, the military version of the rifle used for this pro shot.

[–]bigsquirrel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I mean, there are professional competitions to shoot a target with iron sights at 500 yards with consistency and iron sights, and it's rare for anyone outside of someone with practice and training to make a shot like that.

Shit the Marines use a scope for their quals at 500 yards. A target at 500 yards to the naked eye looks like a very tiny dot.

Pretty familiar with shooting. That's a hard damn shot. I didn't say you didn't make it your first time out, expecting anyone to make a 500 yard shot their first time out with iron sights on any weapon is absolutely incredible. Using at as a reference for how easy it is to shoot a rifle is ridiculous. Shit I'd be amazed at someone with a scope hitting it their first time out.

[–]golemsheppard2 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Rifles are way easier to shoot than a handgun though. So if someone needs to shoot a bad guy who is actively committing a violent felony endangering the lives of others, I'd want them using a rifle. Take any novice to the range with a rifle and a handgun. I guarantee you they are less accurate with the handgun at 25 yards.

[–]rtothewin 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I've never known(and its not really possible) a police officer who didn't have training in using their firearms. All of the ones I've known personally did plenty of shooting in their own time and shot guns as a hobby in addition to needing them for work.

[–]DyNaStY2059 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's kind of the great thing about these guns. They're incredibly easy to use.

[–]deepfeels96 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd argue most police know how to use them.

[–]SicariusXLVII 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Officers are trained in firearms, both handguns and rifles. So they all know how to use them

[–]Bigred2989 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It varies from place to place. The NYPD is notorious for low firearm handling standards and has a policy that every duty handgun has to have a 12 lb trigger like a double action revolver.

[–]CrazyLeprechaun 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is implied, all police officers are extensively trained in the use of long-arms in this day and age. If anything, handgun training is much more specialized and much more difficult to achieve even basic proficiency with. You can put an AR-15 in the hands of someone with next to zero exposure to firearms and expect them to hit a man-sized target at 100 yards with a high degree of consistency, whereas a highly trained officer with a glock 17 will miss at least 1/10 shots at that range, probably more under pressure, certainly more once you start introducing environmental factors.

[–]yowangmang 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (10子コメント)

More accurate but the rounds also have more penetration. It's sort of a trade off in a shootout or self-defense situation

[–]dingle_dingle_dingle 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That is true. I'm surprised pistol caliber carbines aren't used more in America.

[–]Dysfunxn 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They're not as accurate as actual rifles, and handgun munitions tend to penetrate materials more than rifle rounds. 9mm vs .223 for example. 9mm will punch through walls, after exiting, .223 starts to tumble upon entrance, and loses velocity. It may leave the body, but with far less velocity and power. http://www.guns.com/2015/09/17/self-defense-inside-the-home-avoiding-over-penetratio/

Most PD's started to go away from handgun caliber carbines after the 90's bank robberies. The LAPD had to get rifles from pawn shops/gun stores, in order to penetrate the robbers' body armor.

Body armor is cheap to make, and cheap to buy in the US. I don't think officers should move towards carbines, without specific CQB concerns being the reason.

[–]JBlitzen 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not necessarily true at all. 5.56 was designed to be weak enough to fragment when yawing in human tissue.

That means it tends to fall apart into weaker components when penetrating anything including wood framing.

Pistol bullets tend to hold together.

This is one benefit of police moving to AR's from subguns over the years; 9mm is weaker but actually penetrates walls better, which you don't want.

[–]DestructiveLemon 63 ポイント64 ポイント  (15子コメント)

The article could have explained this in better detail, but then of course the "controversy" would be less exciting. This is an issue of police firepower, not school purchasing decisions.

Edit: I use the word "issue" not because I have a negative opinion about such equipment, but because that's really where the public concern is at. "Debate" would have been a more accurate term.

[–]Stereogravy 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You'd think that. But even though it was explained in the comments. I've seen a 50/50 reaction to the purchase.

Top commenter said they were for the purchase (claiming they Are from the area), second top comment (also claiming they are from the area) was saying that the police only need hand guns.

So it seems that even though people know exactly what it was for, it's still controversial.

[–]sericatus 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, honestly it is not even that.

This is an issue with a slow news day, readership numbers and sensationalism.

[–]tomdarch 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, that was totally clear from the article. The issue is that these folks are security exclusively for a school system, and not everyone agrees that they should be using these weapons in that specific circumstance.

[–]Rodic87 42 ポイント43 ポイント  (15子コメント)

That makes sense. I definitely want any police who are shooting near me using the most accurate guns possible. Pistols are a method for fighting your way back to the rifle you left behind.

[–]capornicus 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Respectable, but as a criminal, I want any police who are shooting near me using the least accurate guns possible. This upgrade is both unfair and unsafe for the criminals

[–]watts99 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Since the school district covers all of these different areas, the district itself has it's own Police Department for their school resource officers.

Is no one going to question this part of it? Why aren't the school resource officers a member of the police force for the town or city the school is in? Is that really that difficult to accomplish?

I don't want a school system administering a police force. That's nonsensical.

[–]AmicableApostate 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The district is spread across two separate cities. Shawnee and Mission have separate police departments. Having a police department for the school district ensures consistent policies and coordination across the district, which they wouldn't get if they used city police.

[–]LimestoneLandGrant [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Its actually more than two cities.

SMSouth is in Overland Park, SMeast is in Prairie Village, SMNorth is in Mission. I think West is in OP or mission.

[–]LionPandaTiger 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This would involve 4 different police departments just to cover the district's high schools. I'm not sure what benefit that would give other than reassuring people that they were "real" police, even though they already are. Combined, they'll all have the same training and be able to evenly cover each school, regardless of the size of their city's police force.

Edit for a few more details. The high schools are in Overland Park, Shawnee, Prairie Village, and Mission. Elementary and middle schools add Leawood, Lenexa, Merriam, and Westwood. AFAIK they all have their own police, although they share jurisdiction in some ways like PV does traffic tickets in Leawood. Even if they shared covering the schools too, I can't see how it would work with fewer than 3-4 different police departments. The high schools alone are spaced out from each other, so only the alternative school and SMNorth could easily use the same police covering them, but they're in different cities (Overland Park and Mission)

[–]way2lazy2care 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why aren't the school resource officers a member of the police force for the town or city the school is in?

Alternatively, why should they be? If the district is big enough to justify a department of resource officers, it makes sense for them to be involved with the district they serve rather than having to constantly ping back and forth between the dozen police departments in the district.

[–]Soonergriff 80 ポイント81 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Always nice to have things explained properly.

Lord knows we can't expect that from the journalists themselves these days.

[–]ReallyForeverAlone 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I got PTSD from shooting an AR-15 siege weapon though.

[–]GoTzMaDsKiTTLez 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I once fired a .22lr and accidentally leveled a city

[–]Papa_Hemingway_ 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're not supposed to use ratshot within a 25 mile radius of any structures

[–]Coziestpigeon2 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is a school district owning/operating their own police force a normal thing in that area? In the United States as a whole?

[–]CaptainTechnical 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Good point. These are real cops and this isn't unusual.

“ 'I don’t fully believe one person with a bigger, badder gun is really going to make a huge difference in an active shooter situation in a school,' parent Lisa Veglahn said. “Why did they feel it was necessary over other types of weapons?' "

Because compared to handguns they're more accurate and more powerful.

[–]Lokitusaborg 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Thanks for using the term long gun. That is what they are. Assault Rifle is a political football.

[–]Rumzdizzle 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, this purchase makes complete sense. Seems like a clickbate news story. If we allow public sale/ownership of these riffles than LEO should sure as hell be able to equip them too. Also in KC.

[–]Blurgas 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And here I was hoping the district was going to offer a firearms safety course

[–]BotheredToResearch 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here I thought it was for bears.

Thanks for real explanation!

[–]CashewsOfFury 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I think equipping LEOs with long rifles is absolutely fine. But in any school shooting scenario, you want officers to respond as fast as possible to the threat. So the idea of them running to their office or car to grab a rifle just seems counter productive to me. Unless Shawnee Mission is designed with a number of 300 meter hallways or advantageous high ground positions.

[–]reloaderx 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Assuming that the district police arrive by car to a scene in progress, there is little extra time added here. If you think that long guns are only meant for 300 yard shots you are gravely mistaken. In a 15 yard situation I would choose a long gun over a handgun any day.

[–]dirt-reynolds 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

but they're black and menacing looking!

[–]jgandfeed 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not sure if racist or gun control advocate

[–]sericatus 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Your amateur ignorant tactical considerations have been noted and appropriately ignored by people with training and experience.

Imagine that.

[–]reloaderx 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that there are just a lot of people that can't imagine that there are other school districts that are different from their own. The school district I live in covers 252 square miles and has its own police force as well. The officers are true LEO and have the same authorities as local police. Arming them like regular police seems like a no brainer since they can be called to assist local police in active events outside of the district they regularly patrol.

[–]VR_is_the_future 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Awesome post, thanks for sharing and clearing up confusion. Looks like a completely legit and sensible purchase. And fuck the sensational article headlines that is trying to misinform and misdirect people.

[–]Jedi_Cop 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a LEO who has worked in both Johnson County and Wyandotte, the long guns are standard, I think the most parents are all worried about the district police having them in grade schools. I'm certain they will be secured in case of an active shooter/threat situations and mainly shot during range training. No real issues helicopter parents overly worried.

[–]KrisBook 267 ポイント268 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Began reading the article as if it were a joke, however it's actually not that bad.

The guns will sit in the officers' trunks - this is really common with regular cops. Hopefully won't ever need to be used but I'm sure the parents will be glad about the purchase if the guns ever see action.

[–]pro_tool 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think the problem comes from that the school districts money was used to buy the rifles. It is very common for police to have these locked in their vehicles for counter-shooter type situations, but this specific police force had to use school district funds to equip their officers because they are a unique police force that is funded b the school district for some reason- so people are mad because teachers need the money for their classrooms and stuff.

[–]bunka77 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This really just speaks to the dumb way schools are funded. Shawnee Mission and neighboring districts have more money than they know what to do with, (Olathe just finished this school) at a time where other Kansas schools are in the midst of a funding crisis.

When schools get 1/2 of their funding from property tax, and home buyers want to live in "good school districts" the rich get richer quickly.

[–]KJ6BWB 69 ポイント70 ポイント  (16子コメント)

“It was kind of enlightening for me as a parent this week to think that the nice guy who buzzes me in at my kid’s school is armed,”

Wait, the actual academy-trained police officer embedded in the school is armed? This really never occurred to her before?

[–]BetterLivingThru 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (15子コメント)

To be fair, it would be unusual for police officers, especially in that kind of environment, to carry guns in a number of other countries. The idea that US schools employ resident police officers at all makes no sense to me, why would the level of risk be so high as to warrant constant all day police protection?

[–]eNonsense 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (1子コメント)

why would the level of risk be so high as to warrant constant all day police protection?

It's security theater designed to make people feel better. Kinda like the TSA.

[–]KJ6BWB 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The goal is that it hopefully breaks down barriers between kids and law enforcement officers.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/school-resource-officers/ is a fun article:

Editor’s note: After a video of a South Carolina school resource officer (SRO) forcefully removing a student from her desk went viral, a debate about the presence of law enforcement officers in schools lit up on social media. The officer, Deputy Ben Fields, was fired and federal authorities have since opened a civil rights investigation into the incident.

In response, school resource officer Justin Schlottman of Cedar Crest High School in Pennsylvania shares his thoughts on why he became an SRO and how he seeks to build a safe and trusting school environment.

https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/school-resource-officers/ said:

Although law enforcement has traditionally had some involvement with schools (think Officer Friendly, McGruff the Crime Dog, and stranger danger), it has not been until the last couple of decades that officers have been assigned to work in and patrol schools. During this period of increased police presence and security measures, violence at schools has generally declined.

However, it is difficult to say definitively whether increased security measures, including the presence of SROs, caused the decrease in school crime, or if it is simply following an overall trend of decreasing crime in the U.S. And considering the hundreds of millions of federal dollars that have funded school resource officer programs, there is a surprising lack of comprehensive research on the efficacy of SROs for preventing crime in schools.

So, if the officer is there in the school, they might as well be ready to respond to an armed shooting incident, however, as the latter article points out:

While it is possible that an armed police officer may serve as a deterrent to a potential shooter or may encourage students and/or teachers to report suspicious behavior, there is little empirical evidence to that effect. In fact, Columbine High School had an armed police officer on campus and another one nearby in 1999 when two students shot and killed 13 people.

Now, the number of people who were killed might have been much higher than 13 if an armed officer wasn't there. However:

Critics of SROs argue that the cost to students, especially minority, low-income, and students with disabilities, is too high. In some cases, disciplinary actions that once would have been handled by teachers, a trip to the principal’s office, or detention are resulting in arrests and entrance into the criminal justice system—a path often called the “School-to-Prison Pipeline.”

So it may or may not be a nice idea, and apparently nobody seems to be entirely certain whether or not it's actually working.

[–]Lockerd 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

people like peace of mind. With the fact that we've had dozens of school shootings, it's a peace of mind measure to have the police actually at the school instead of too far away to act quickly.

Even if the threat isn't likely (let's be honest here...newtown wasn't exactly a likely place for this to happen either) there's always a chance.

getting rid of guns isn't going to work right now, and the notion just causes massive political bullshit storms. So this is the next best thing.

[–]SuggestAPhotoProject 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's not warranted at all, but they're there because of all of the "won't puhlease somebody think of the children," nonsense. These students have a greater chance of being struck by lightening than being involved in a mass shooting, and even if there was a mass shooting, these "officers" don't tend to make much of a difference. Columbine had an armed officer, and that didn't seem to help at all.

[–]P-01S 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not really fair to compare pre- and post-Columbine. The Columbine shooting had a very large impact on how police think about mass shootings. The thought at the time was to take time to assemble backup before going in. It went... poorly. The thinking now is to get anyone available on scene as fast as possible.

[–]PBandJames [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Absolutely correct. For example, GSG 9 formed after the Munich massacre. LAPD issues long rifles after the North Hollywood shootout. Police should always be evaluating their abilities to respond to different types of incidents.

[–]Meior 182 ポイント183 ポイント  (64子コメント)

Not going to comment on the need of this, as I'm not familiar with the area, or indeed, even from the US, but...

“Why did they feel it was necessary over other types of weapons?”

Uhm.. could she inform us on what "other types of weapons" she means? She most likely doesn't know. This is a scary AR15 to her, and she wants it gone. She has no notion or knowledge or why, but she wants it gone.

I can understand if parents think it's too much to purchase rifles for school police, and I might on some levels be inclined to agree, but know your arguments.

[–]CaptainNapalm22 62 ポイント63 ポイント  (34子コメント)

Completely agree. I will listen happily to your valid arguments about why guns shouldn't be in schools. I would probably agree with many of your points myself. But I can't tolerate banning something on principle without any level of understanding what it actually is.

[–]i_make_song 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Guns shouldn't be in schools, but in this case it's police officers using those guns which are far more accurate than handguns.

It's also those exact guns that will defend other people in the case of an active attacker, etc.

[–]Wensleydale_Gaming 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Depends on who's carrying them.

I think parents and faculty should be able to as well as cops.

[–]P-01S 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Seriously. AR-15s? This is 50 year old technology we're talking about. Would they rather police stick to firearm designs from 100 years ago? 150 years ago?

[–]lt_dagg 104 ポイント105 ポイント  (8子コメント)

“I don’t fully believe one person with a bigger, badder gun is really going to make a huge difference in an active shooter situation in a school"- yes it fucking does, the last thing you want is an even playing field for the shooter

[–]rein00 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

While watching the first season of Blindspot, the FBI kept getting into firefights using handguns at a few hundred feet against terrorists with long rifles. It annoyed the hell out of me, and I kept rhetorically asking my cat where the hell their rifles were.

By the second season they started carrying them in their cars, but there were a few situations where they'd get into firefights with handguns.

The "use rifles vs rifles" has been a common thing for LEOs since the 1920s. The range and penetration power isn't comparable.

[–]rePostApocalypse 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I absolutely face-palmed when I read that, like wait, no... thats EXACTLY how that works.

[–]SjettepetJR 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

it's pretty much the same as saying 'I don't think the police officer having a handgun would help against an attacker with a knife.'

[–]Traumaticdata 69 ポイント70 ポイント  (10子コメント)

This a good thing, many people drastically overestimate the effectiveness of handguns. These rifles will greatly increase the police officers ability to keep the children attending the school safe.

[–]Oh_God_its_Jesus 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Many people need to stop getting their information regarding small arms handling and effectiveness from Hollywood.

[–]scherlock79 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Maybe, maybe not. In the article, it says the rifles are kept in the officer's trunk. So, in a school shooter situation, the officer would need to leave the building, possible by getting past or go around the shooter, get the rifle, then re-enter the building, find and identify the shooter, then engage with them. That seems like it would take a fair bit of time, especially in a situation where seconds count.

I'd imagine it would be better for the office to stay on the scene, identify the shooter, try to contain them while communicating with dispatch so other officers (who may not be familiar with the campus), with rifles, can quickly find them and assist.

[–]Hawklet98 142 ポイント143 ポイント  (168子コメント)

When I was a kid an "assault rifle" was a rifle which could shoot in bursts of full auto (aka a machine gun). Then I started hearing about "assault weapons," which are just semi-auto rifles woth certain aesthetic features. This article contains the first reference I've ever seen about an "assault-style weapon." Just what the hell is an assault-style weapon? I assume it's kinda like an assault weapon, which itself is kinda like an assault rifle, except very different.

[–]Poops_McYolo 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Assault weapon = assault style weapon.

Both are made up words, but I think that the article does a decent job at differentiating between semi auto and full auto without going into so much detail that half the article clarifies what is or isn't an assault weapon or assault rifle.

"A semi-automatic rifle can be considered an assault-style weapon — a broad term used often to describe semi-automatics and automatic weapons used by both police and military officers. Semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, while automatic weapons or machine guns continuously fire if the trigger is held down."

For more information check out the wikipedia or just google it yourself and there's tons of information out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[–]Interpol90210 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (7子コメント)

As a cop, I agree with the purchase. Makes a big difference in an IARD situation.

[–]Work2death 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Seriously. There are a lot of people on this thread who believe too much of what they see come out of hollywood. Next they'll expect officers to make 100 yd headshots with a pistol while curving the bullet around people.

[–]CaptainNapalm22 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It's frustrating to me that people keep referring to "Semi-Automatic" guns as "Assault Weapons". Semi-Automatic means you get one bullet per pull of the trigger, until the clip/magazine runs out. Then you reload. Doesn't imply the weapon has a high number of shots per minute, and certainly doesn't indicate that the weapon is military grade. The majority of handguns, especially those used in law enforcement, are semi-automatic. So purchasing more "semi-automatic" weapons doesn't necessarily men you are getting anything different than you already had. What the school did do, was purchase a set of rifles, for the express purpose of being able to take down a criminal from farther away than a handgun could safely and accurately reach. Which, from how the article makes it sound, was something they needed.

[–]lebbe 103 ポイント104 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Turns out the parents are upset by the lack of firepower. They want the school to fire some teachers and use the savings to buy surplus military equipments: tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, machine guns, night vision goggles, bazooka, mines, etc.

They are tough on crime.

[–]vbevan 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (10子コメント)

You forgot flame throwers...to de-ice the driveways.

[–]ghostintheshed 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (5子コメント)

My Gf's dad uses a homemade flamethrower on weeds. I live 30 mins from Shawnee Mission in MO.

[–]Justanordinaryday199 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Local hardware store near me sells a small flamethrower for weed killing. Not uncommon at all.

[–]wjruth 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Weed burner or asphalt torch are the same thing. It connects to a propane tank and allows large flames to shoot out. Works quite well.

[–]NDaveT 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a Minnesotan this seems practical to me.

[–]colin8651 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And C4 for the pesky gophers digging up the football field.

[–]AndroidIsAwesome 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't forget the roof mounted sentry guns, predator drones, claymores at the doors of the building, and why not remove that useless football field to install a nuclear warhead launch site too...

[–]cinders_edm 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't get why people are freaking out about this. I live in Shawnee mission and the resource officers have shotguns in their cars. It makes sense why they are getting rifles because a shotgun or a pistol isn't going to do much good in a 300 foot long hallway.

[–]kenji213 201 ポイント202 ポイント  (173子コメント)

I thought that they bought like a set of rifles for a school sharpshooting team or something and thought it was a cool idea.

Then I read the article.

What the fuck, Kansas?

[–]floridacopper 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (3子コメント)

To be clear, you're good with the district paying for rifles that would be used for fun by the students. You're not okay with an expenditure on rifles which would be meant to stop someone murdering students and teachers.

[–]GoldenGod86 53 ポイント54 ポイント  (165子コメント)

Live in KC on the Missouri side. Can confirm Kansas is fucking weird right now.

[–]rainydayfox 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (160子コメント)

Live in Lawrence where you can conceal carry on campus starting in July, can confim Kansas is fucking weird right now

[–]Tigerjunky 60 ポイント61 ポイント  (136子コメント)

Call me crazy but I'm actually ok with this one.

[–]Bleda412 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

After students at my school have been robbed, assaulted, and shot (probably raped too), I think my school needs to allow concealed carry on campus. The campus is basically an island in a ghetto, and it pretty much sucks. The school itself isn't so bad, but they can't just turn a blind eye when shit like this happens nearly every day.

[–]EveryTrueSon 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (49子コメント)

ok, Crazy.

[–]Tigerjunky 52 ポイント53 ポイント  (48子コメント)

Idk, I feel like if more campus rapists, robbers, and mass murderers start getting popped then maybe things would get better. After all, if you are already breaking the law then the obviously don't care about the no gun rule. So in theory, aren't you just disarming responsible law abiding citizens?

Edit: this is a legit question and me sharing my opinion. Downvote me if you want I guess but I wouldn't mind hearing your side of the story.

[–]DirectlyDisturbed 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Disarming people on campus that are not police makes people with weapons stand out and become more noticeable. I think the idea is, "Hey, there are not supposed to be any weapons anywhere near campus. If you see a gun of any kind, contact police immediately and let them deal with it."

[–]Poles_Apart 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except he said concealed carry is legal and the whole point of concealed carry is that you don't see who has a gun and who doesn't. Meaning you treat everyone as if they had a gun. Which makes life difficult for criminals.

[–]Tigerjunky 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Good point sir. Makes it harder for someone with bad intentions to get away with it! Never thought of that. What about allowing people with with background checks and proper training at least to conceal and carry?

[–]DirectlyDisturbed 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have no problem with that. I'm more of a pro-gun than anti-gun person anyway. But I'm not zealous about it one way or the other. I was just explaining what I assume is the point of that kind of legislation

[–]ktam1212 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I'm going to KU next semester and appreciate that I won't have to lock my gun up while I'm at school.

[–]PM_ME_OR_PM_ME 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Campus carry only makes sense. Especially in places where you otherwise can carry.

It is stupid to think that I can be at McDonalds and legally carry, then cross the street onto school property and be arrested for a felony for just standing there.

[–]Georgeisnotamonkey 386 ポイント387 ポイント  (229子コメント)

From KC and pretty familiar with the neighborhood - WTF? They don't need rifles for their security. This is just wasteful spending and a stupid decision.

Most schools there have a liaison officer hanging out with a handgun 90% of the time and that's more than what they need on a daily basis.

[–]Mortico 311 ポイント312 ポイント  (57子コメント)

Isn't Kansas in a budget crisis and closing schools left and right? Couldn't they use that $7500 for, I dunno, books?

[–]Onatu 229 ポイント230 ポイント  (19子コメント)

What budget crisis? We just opened a new multi million dollar, top of the line high school that is a complete waste of resources, why would you ever think we could be running low on money for our schools that hardly have money to pay teachers even close to what they should get?

[–]urcomentscks 151 ポイント152 ポイント  (10子コメント)

It's too bad. Our local elementary school is 70 years old, in a tsunami zone, had nonfunctional plumbing in some places, cracked foundation, and is sinking into the marshland it was built on. A local bond measure just recently failed because everyone assumes school waste vast amounts of money. Our local district might, if they had money. People also don't know the buildings aren't paid for by state and federal funding. They are community owned structures and it's the communities responsibility to maintain or rebuild. Kudos to the propaganda machine that has tricked the population into cutting their own throats.

[–]EndotheGreat 64 ポイント65 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That last sentence is the worst part. It's even worse than what's happening.

I've witnessed my fellow Americans go all in on an emotional pyramid scheme, and they still haven't realised their check is never coming.

[–]TheBringerofDarknsse 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (4子コメント)

That check will never come, and it'll always be someone else's fault for them not receiving it....

[–]gingerbeardn 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What is a top of the line school.

[–]vbevan 71 ポイント72 ポイント  (14子コメント)

What budget crisis? Small business owners are expected to inject all their saved tax into the economy anyday now...anyday now...

[–]goodtimesKC 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I mean.. have you seen the houses out that way? I think it's obvious where that excess is landing first.

[–]Excal2 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Contracting subsidies is my guess. That area has exploded in the past ten years.

[–]elaphros 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (7子コメント)

These are the small business owners. You guys heard Kansas and thought this was a bunch of yokels. This is one of the largest and richest school districts for thousands of miles. The unemployment rate in this area is 2% below the national average. As far as they're concerned, everyone else is just whining about nothing.

[–]ThePorcupineWizard 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And big business. That's why they keep getting bailed out, right? So they'll trickle it down? When is that supposed to start?

[–]elaphros 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is Johnson County on the southwest side of Kansas City. They have money. Lots of money. There was a lawsuit a few decades back that sued to get the state to divvy up the schools money based on a per student calculation instead of by what each precinct was contributing, just to extract money out of these districts. This is not the droid you're looking for.

[–]jdmgf5 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not Johnson county. One of the richest counties in the country.

[–]miz_misanthrope 53 ポイント54 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Books are bad they're full of facts. Only book you need is the Bible but then don't actually read it-use only the parts that justify what you want.

[–]MartyFreeze 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And when people won't listen, you use your semi-automatic rifles!

[–]completepratt 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sounds like it's all figured out then

[–]Foofnarr 53 ポイント54 ポイント  (7子コメント)

In this topic: People who have never gone and compared the difference between a rifle and a handgun at a range.

The article specifically mentions that the length of school hallways are a potential issue when it comes to a school shooter situation. A rifle makes it significantly easier to fire off stable shots at longer ranges. Plus these are semi-autos, not like the cops can go Rambo with it.

I understand people are concerned about our police getting excessive budgets or being militarized, but I think in this case it's a justifiable safeguard to have on hand.

[–]EatsDirtWithPassion 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (6子コメント)

A rifle is also much, much more effective at stopping someone.

[–]Cosmonut2211 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is my problem. Education funding in Kansas is ass and SMSD can barely afford to retain good teachers. What are they doing dropping so much money on rifles?

[–]Azurealy 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (6子コメント)

if i heard that my high school was buying these when i was in high school, my first thought would be that they are probably going to have a guns class. which would be really good. in fact if i was a superintendent or a principle id make it almost mandatory for my students to take that class. learn gun safety and how to handle a weapon. people who handle weapons have much more respect for weapons in my experience. if done right. this could help a whole lot of people.

[–]nico_suave11 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I went to Shawnee Mission and would like to share that the law enforcement is highly trusted, professional, and appreciated. These officers protect students that represent a wide range of social classes and race each and every day. We see them in the halls, they know us, we know them. I never saw a cop taking things too far in a way that would make me weary of this story. I'd rather these guns be locked in their police vehicles than sold to buyers with less rapport and training. The officers at my school made me feel safe, and now they have higher performance and more accurate equipment accessible if, god forbid, it is needed.

[–]FIightRisk 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gotta say that I appreciate the fact that the title doesn't use the term "assault" rifle.

[–]rftaylor26 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ITT - people who didn't read the article.

[–]evidica 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Most people that live in the area of the school district won't mind this or support it. There will be a few that are going to shout loudly because they don't understand guns, how they work or think guns are what kill people.

[–]Ninja_Bueno 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You just described most of this thread, too

[–]Jahuteskye 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're going to have armed police forces that work for the school district, and if you expect them to be able to respond to an active shooter situation, you better give them rifles, full stop.

A decent AR is barely more expensive than a pistol, sometimes cheaper, and they're far, far, FAR more effective.

A pistol is great for an "oh shit" moment and for when carrying a rifle is impractical.

If you're responding to a shooter, going in with a pistol might as well be suicide. If a shooter was at one of those schools and the community officers have no long guns, they're better off standing around with thumbs up their asses waiting for the county sheriff to roll up in ~20 minutes.

[–]Matacks607 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cool I want the elemtary school near me to have semi auto rifles.

[–]InconspicuousObject 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Yeah I shot 500m pure iron sights after having bore sighted my doohickey to the front receiving post. Lol it was [insert weapon easily Googled], heck of a firearm. Unfortunately, my 13.5 round magazine for my handgun caused me to over compensate my aim. I'm assuming due to terminal velocity of my half round I missed all of my shots."

The level of competent filth here vastly outweighs truth. It's okay to not know about things. Stop making stuff up lol.

[–]Commentcarefully 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (8子コメント)

So they bought semi-automatic rifles for the police officers who are assigned to their schools as resource officers.

EDIT: TERMINOLOGY

[–]GsNCHEEZ 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

At first when I read the headline I thought the school was buying the guns to create a marksmanship program for the school, then I was pretty disappointed when I was wrong. 😕

[–]heystupidd 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (30子コメント)

So the parents are upset that the school purchased the same weapons that the police would use to neutralize a active shooter threat. Which would give the school a faster response time then LE could ever have. “I don’t fully believe one person with a bigger, badder gun is really going to make a huge difference in an active shooter situation in a school,” parent Lisa Veglahn said Obviously she has very little knowledge on firearms. I wonder what she would recommend to protect her child. There is always going to be bad people that want to do bad things and all we can do is be prepared.

[–]Einsteins_coffee_mug 53 ポイント54 ポイント  (143子コメント)

At first I figured this was part of a target shooting after school club or something.

Glorified school safety cops don't need rifles. They shouldn't even need handguns.

[–]Old_Deadhead 58 ポイント59 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Glorified school safety cops

You did read the part of the article that clearly states the district resource officers are an independent police force from the local municipality and serve only the schools, right?

[–]DrColdReality 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (12子コメント)

This isn't even the worst militarization of school police I've heard of. After we finally fled from Iraq, the federal government started doling out surplus military gear to police agencies, including elementary school police.

The LA school police have an APV and grenade launchers. You know, just in case Little Timmy cuts school...

[–]THEREALCABEZAGRANDE 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't see the problem? A rifle is a much more effective weapon than a pistol at any kind of range, and as stated in the beginning of the article, engagement distance is often much farther than effective pistol range. The cost to the district is truly negligible, and these are a one time purchase, they won't get used enough to wear out (with any luck). A $7500 purchase over 20 years and multiple schools? Entirely negligible cost. I can guarantee you the people complaining have never fired a gun and have no idea of the limitations of pistols.

[–]PigDogRatClaws 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Those must be the most expensive Smith & Wesson AR15 rifles ever. Those are easily found just about anywhere (except Kansas apparently) for about $500.

[–]PWL73316 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They bought eight of them, probably with some accessories, for $5671, so about $700. You can easily find AR-15s more expensive than that off the shelf, depending on the style.

[–]PM_ME_OR_PM_ME 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I would like to know where you are buying your $500 AR15s. I built one from cheap parts totaling to around $450.

[–]MakersOnTheRocks 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

[–]PM_ME_OR_PM_ME 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Stahp I don't need more firearms... I have more than I can carry.

Not a fan of non-picatinny hanguards, but if it was $399, unghhh, I could just buy some.

[–]TheObstruction 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

“As a nation, we should be asking why is it that our answer (to gun violence) is to go get more guns in the school,” Patt asked.

Should these guns be kept at the schools? I don't know. Should the schools have their own private cops? I don't know. But I do know hugs and kind words aren't going to stop anyone who's armed and already intent of causing harm.

[–]brendenwhiteley 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (22子コメント)

what is wrong with this? they are being used by officers on campus and kept in a safe. i am pretty liberal and live in seattle but even i don't have an issue with this. as long as they don't arm the kids or make the guns accessible to them it's not a problem imo.

[–]PM_ME_OR_PM_ME 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Conservative gun owner.

I think it's hard to argue that pragmatically, the purchases are not stupid (unless you have a specific vendetta against firearms). In the hands of trained professionals and secured from others, a <$6,000 purchase is a minor expense to be able to have the firepower, spread among enough individuals, to protect the school from just about any school shooter threat.

However, I do see the point of the parents upset that they weren't informed. I do believe that parents should have a large voice in all aspects of their child's education and it's the primary benefit of keeping education local. To maintain those rights, you must respect both the parents who want specific curriculum changes and those who don't want their kids to be around firearms. Just depends on the majority of the community, though. As usual.

[–]WhatAboutHerEmails 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

However, I do see the point of the parents upset that they weren't informed. I do believe that parents should have a large voice in all aspects of their child's education and it's the primary benefit of keeping education local.

Here's the problem I have this this statement. They weren't informed because they excluded themselves from the legislative process. Where did the money come from? Apparently, it came from a vote in 2015. You can't say you're concerned with your child's education when you don't vote for bills/referendums that directly impact their education.

It says:

About 30 percent of eligible voters returned ballots.

So the problem as is the case with all local elections in the USA, people don't vote. Than when legislation gets passed, they act blind-sided. The funding was approved and no one had any objections to purchasing such firearms because most didn't vote or visit townhall meetings.

Their District resource officers are responsible for the entire district, and are a legit independent police force. You wouldn't question a city police force purchasing such weapons, so why would they question this particular police force. Both are hired to protect schools.

[–]AkumaX_97 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Why is it whenever Kansas is in the news it's always for the dumb shit our government allows?

[–]janosrock 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

school has definitely changed since last time i was there......

[–]timcrall 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (7子コメント)

When I was in school in the early 90s, the SRO had a shotgun securely stored in his vehicle. I don't see how this is any different, except that it's been determined that a rifle is a more useful than a shotgun for the situations that the officers are likely to encounter.

[–]dabber90 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

What's the problem? I'd rather have them hit the terrorist than my child. Way more accurate. Pistols take a high level of marksmanship.

[–]PartialNecessity 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (23子コメント)

I honestly don't see the real issue here, assuming this isn't a commonly reoccurring expense. There is certainly a legitimate reason for individuals with proper training who are willing to risk their lives against active shooters to have the tools necessary to save lives. The argument that "this is more than they need" is completely asinine. They shouldn't "need" firearms at all, but that's not an argument based in reality, especially when the shit hits the fan.

[–]newhampshite 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Holy shit those are some good prices. Are they piston or direct impingment? :(

[–]SoggyJammies 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all assault style... the writer is one of the morons that is trying to trick people into calling these assult rifles, it's basically a hunting rifle that has a tactical looking shell... that said I grew up here, it is common for officers to have these, and having officers in a school with equal equipment makes just as much sense as anywhere else. Lastly you want the officers to just have pistols? I'm guessing you have no idea how difficult they are to fire under pressure... accurately... at distance. Why on earth would you want a school shooter to have the capability to have a gun with a higher ammo capacity, with more stopping power, AND accuracy than the campus police? What is wrong with you!?

[–]AlphaBroMEGATOKE 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

AR15's are not even that expensive, and what the police force is getting for that money is a wide range, robust, and appropriately sized rifle made for maneuverability AND accuracy. It's the perfect gun for law enforcement IMO.

[–]Capitano_Barbarossa 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Funny to listen to people who say guns only belong in the hands of the police/military, then turn around and complain when trained cops are given weapons. Weapons that most police officers in other departments can access.

Also:

While comprehensive studies of mass killings in America don’t clearly indicate semi-automatic or automatic weapons as the most common firearm used by shooters, semi-automatic and automatic weapons have been used in some of the most high-profile shootings in the nation.

What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like the writer is implying that automatic weapons might be the most commonly used weapon in shootings. I can't think of a single high-profile shooting involving an automatic weapon (which are already extraordinarily difficult to obtain and own legally). This is just ignorant.

People like to toss around words like "assault-style" and "semi-automatic" to make guns seem scary. Semi-automatic rifles take many forms, and have been around for decades and decades. Taking the collapsible stock off the rifle and switching out black plastic for wood isn't going to make the gun any more or less dangerous.

[–]Hellioning 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm mostly confused as to why this school district has it's own police force anyway. I've heard of colleges having their own police force, and my own high school had a resident officer from the local police force, but I haven't heard of a school district having their own police force.