Back when I worked for someone else my main job was to design schools for kids, and you know as hard as it might seem to everyone in the USA we never once needed to discuss or work out how we were solving the mass shooter problem.
Heating, cooling, noise levels, education (holy shit !), ecology, off-gassing of materials, these kinds of things came up. But not so much the guns thing and the killing of dozens of people at a time because of...wait a minute, why are all these shootings happening?
OK so I was working in Japan when I was doing all this work, and there are crazy people here too, sometimes brandishing knives, so there are fences now that we didn't need to worry about before, but there are generally no guns in circulation, so that makes it easier.
What worries me is that the solution to this problem is to design a school so that it resembles a training yard for urban combat, with shielding walls, curving plans that obscure lines of sight, and all of that. It's a big step away from the panopticon.
These are reasonable choices given the issue, and I guess if nobody is going to take steps to fix the cultural problem behind all of this insanity it is a good thing that architects are doing what they can.
BUT, what the hell does this mean? The message seems to be that we will now take avoidance of mass murder as the starting point for design. It will be baked into the brief, same as the bits outlining the number of students per classroom. Which means the actual problem ain't going to be solved.
How do architects deal with this so we aren't band-aiding the problem and not complicit in continuing this crazy mass hysteria?
I do schools design. I'm a gun owner ( sibling shot competitively in college, active hunter, good target shooter when in practice).
Most of the measures taken in trying to protect schools from the shootings are totally useless when you consider the history of school shootings. Most of the measures attempt to keep the intruder outside. Aside from compartmentalization and total lockdown ability, not much that's being done really stops the usual shooter: a student familiar with the facility who is already inside. Most of the measures are just ways for the school to show they attempted, in an effort to limit liability (just my opinion). Some of the things are good, and they have almost no impact on the learning environment. But they're not going to stop everything. People adapt; they're going to find their way around most measures.
I've repeatedly said that if you're designing for such catastrophes, you have to be able to think about how you'd do it. Having done that, there's no way in hell to stop a determined person. As designers, we're charged with doing our best to create a safe environment, conducive to learning. Ultimately, learning should be the priority. I already think things are going to far, and the point of diminishing returns has been reached.
edit: This thread is definitely the shitshow I was expecting.
There are areas in the US (I’m thinking California and the Pacific Northwest) that probably have a similar acceptance that a big earthquake is coming, but I’m not sure they drill for it like your children probably do. I don’t have any personal experience with that type of drill to really know though. The most I ever had to deal with in school was the occasional fire drill.
Drills for natural disasters are one thing and I’m sure they can be unsettling to children as they are faced with recognizing an unseen, unpredictable threat. However, and I’m not trying to diminish that effect with this next statement, I do think there is a difference between drills for a natural disaster and those for a cultural disaster (for lack of a better term). It’s one thing to understand that there is nothing you can do to change a natural disaster, and another to understand that there might be things that could be done, but you’re basically helpless to do anything that will change the culture that has led to mass shootings. That kind of acceptance I'm sure has a completely different effect on a child's mental state. I know it has for me and I do live in an area with significant threat of impending natural disaster(s), and I have experienced the threat of potential cultural disaster.
Last year I received a phone call from my wife (a high school teacher) telling me that there had been a report that a student brought a gun into her school and she was in her office with small group of students following the schools lockdown protocols. I could tell she was worried but trying to keep her emotions in check because of the students with her (not an easy feat given her emotions were already quite raw because of some news we had received earlier that week). It turned out the reports of the student having a gun in the building were incorrect (though apparently the threat of bringing one wasn’t) but for an hour or so while the police were arriving, making arrests, and checking for weapons, I was completely stressed out waiting for the next text or phone call while trying to check twitter and other media to get any sort of update.
I was also completely stressed out with the news we had received earlier in the week, the details of which I'm not willing to post publicly on the forums. It wasn't any natural disaster, but one of natural causes that I imagine has a similar state of mental acceptance for potential occurrence as that for a natural disaster. By that I mean that it is generally understood that this threat is out there and has the potential to significantly impact your life at some unknown point. Coming to terms with that means taking certain precautions knowing that they could save your life and help those that might survive you ... and then simply hoping you're not confronted with it.
Suffice it to say, of the two instances where I was forced to face my wife's mortality that week, one of a natural cause and the other of a potential active shooter, the one that keeps me up at night (figuratively, not literally) is the potential active shooter at her school ... not the one that has the greater statistical likelihood of actually killing her.
Both are completely out of my control and nothing I could independently do would prevent either from happening in the past or again in the future. However, with one we are able to thwart it with appropriate actions that are backed by research and science, those actions are controlled and rational, and though not entirely without risks ... the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. With the active shooter situation, the actions that many people encourage to thwart that attack would be irrational and emotional, have the illusion of control and safety, and carry significantly more statistical risks than benefits. The architectural interventions that could be implemented may have a place in perhaps protecting my wife while at school, but as I mentioned before, they are likely ineffective against a determined attacker and don't really offer me any comfort. Not to mention they don't address the underlying issues that may cause such interventions to be necessary.
In a way, the architectural measures we take in the face of natural disasters have the same mentality as those we take in the face of this other natural cause. We have code-mandated design requirements in the face of earthquakes in seismically-prone regions, hurricanes in hurricane-prone regions, tornadoes in tornado-prone regions, wildfires in wildfire-prone regions, flooding in flood-prone regions, etc. These are backed by research and science, they are controlled and rational, and not entirely without costs (risks), the benefits outweigh the costs (risks).
Thanks Everyday Architect. That is again very thoughtful and deeply disturbing. When the earthquake hit in 2011 one of my daughters was at a daycare built into the soft story of a corbusien block built in the 1960s. I was terrified the building had collapsed since it was slated for upgrading, and damn that earthquake was really big. Phones were down for hours and I was camping overnight at the office cuz all trains were stopped. It was terrifying and i couldnt do a damn thing. In the end it was all fine. We were lucky. That kind of experience cant help but shape my view of the world though. And I have learned a lot in the years since then about how to design for disaster. It feels similar, but the difference with designing for mass murder is that there is a person behind that, someone with intention, that we helped to create with our own culture. Not sure where I am going with this, but it feels like this fact gets lost when we just bake in our response and responsibility into a generic design...
In regards to earlier rhetoric that the two (architecture and
socio-systemic violence) haven't been/should not be/cannot be/ are not
tandem....domestic abuse shelters have sought to protect
a key population group from violent attacks for a long time. I would argue that the line of thinking around these issues of systemic violence is
occasionally within our scope to incorporate and lend design expertise to the built environment.
I bring it up specifically because much of the design theory and
research on the topic of domestic abuse shelters has recently caught
wind and been circulated into the discussion of how to better /secure
schools from mass shooters.
Whether the locations are disclosed or anonymous the design
considerations are primarily: provide a secure campus; provide a
sanctuary; provide residences. The first two cross over into school design. A shelter design needs to be secure so survivors have a sense of safety, first and foremost. This is the groundwork because as
humans, a sense of safety gives of us sense of autonomy/sense of
place(Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs... Afterall, the conception of architecture was an invention of
adaptation) The design also should invoke “sanctuary” which means
different things different places but often in the US it means
cathartic connections to nature: windows/openness to
exterior, day-lighting, green spaces, etc. Both the sense of safety and sense of sanctuary are pivotal for key
psychological growth and well being. This kind of growth/
learning/self-actualization both coincides and entrenches the built
environment. I would argue this applies to the learning process we
want in our schools and the desire for schools to available/ open to the surrounding context contrasting with the contemporary need to be secure. There are a lot of site-specific factors effect the
architect's proposal can address in this regard, but it is necessary to have
both. Together.
In regards to schools, I've seen this as “finger” plans, if
that makes sense, where the webs capture open spaces...with shelters it
takes on so many different forms. Remote shelters can be more open the
landscape in general, but are harder to reach for survivors without
private transport nor do they offer the same upward mobility
opportunities that shelters located in urban contexts prone to more
threats/attacks. What shelters have in their toolbox that schools cannot is the ability to opt into anonymity. A flower-esk plan was implemented in Australia where the shelter is centered in a larger community of houses/buildings. Where adjaceny next to a police station isn't positive for domestic abuse shelters, maybe that would more like deter a would-be shooter.So much of how we answer the issues of security are context based, and as architects, we do occasionally assist in site selection.
I'm barely scratching the surface here but as a profession I would
say being able to educate a client on how such factors are pivotal to the development of the
end-user would go a long way in the conversation. How to design a
secure and protective yet a welcoming and nurturing environment for
students is a seemingly contradicting delivery but here we are,
needing just that. We definitely need to speak to these issues in the language
architecture speaks.
I waded in here to feature a few comments I think are good for discussion amongst people who want to seriously discuss the role of architects in designing to address threats. Archinect, if you disagree with my approach feel free to remove it.
We have a large federal client who's got a few high-enough ranking staff on the design committee that have shoe-horned a idiotic active shooter mandate (all at the cost of the tax payer). It's ridiculous to design to this and I'm very happy I'm not PA on that project.
I have
had to designed schools here in Alberta for "Lock Down"
Sep 3, 19 1:16 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
fascinating. but not in a good way. What I'm referring to above is normally functional adults advocating for the removal of basic creature comforts (ie. windows and ease of mobility within open offices) in lieu of false security blankets (ie. safe space).
Sep 3, 19 1:24 pm ·
·
Bench
For the Alberta school, was it in a remote community covered by RCMP jurisdiction? I think there is reasonable context for adjusting safety requirements based on the vast/far-flung nature of many communities across the northern prairies and into the territories.
Sep 3, 19 1:45 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Have either of you sat in a RCMP security meeting? Those guys are intense.
Sep 3, 19 1:54 pm ·
·
Bench
Not that detachment specifically, but other equally intense ones that would parallel the same level of security.
Sep 3, 19 2:14 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I've never really felt more on edge than discussing grenade throwing angles and fall-back lines of defense (all within an office setting) than sitting across the table from an RCMP security consultant. Same goes for their video surveillance guys. But that I can't really expand on.
Sep 3, 19 2:42 pm ·
·
Almosthip7
The two school projects we worked on were for a public school in a small city. We incorporated things like blinds sandwiched between the panes of glazing in the windows between the corridors and the classrooms that could be closed upon activation.
Name me a mass shooting that has occurred in recent memory at a private school.
Sep 3, 19 11:39 am ·
·
SneakyPete
Name me your point.
Sep 3, 19 11:41 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Public schools need to be designed for mass shootings. Private ones don't need to.
Sep 3, 19 1:58 pm ·
·
x-jla
Having an absent father seems to be a big factor. It likely more rare to have a private school kid who comes from a home with an absent father than a public school kid for both economic and social reasons.
Sep 3, 19 2:15 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
Actually BB both need to be. It's just that private schools already provide campus wide security because they have the funding to do so.
Sep 3, 19 2:19 pm ·
·
x-jla
Same concept applies to gang violence being more prevalent in inner cities than middle - upper class suburbs
Sep 3, 19 2:21 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
or... none get designed for shootings. Fix your stupid gun access laws and other related problems and stop putting up safety illusions.
Sep 3, 19 2:21 pm ·
·
x-jla
The Crime Prevention Research Center looked at the death rates that resulted from mass shootings between the years 2009 and 2015. Here are the average death rates, in millions, per country, between 2009 and 2015. The countries are already listed in order of the highest death rates to the lowest median death rates.
Norway 1.888
Serbia 0.381
France 0.347
Macedonia 0.337
Albania 0.206
Slovakia 0.185
Switzerland 0.142
Finland 0.132
Belgium 0.128
The Czech Republic 0.123
The United States of America 0.089
Austria 0.068
The Netherlands 0.051
Canada 0.032
England 0.027
Germany 0.023
Russia 0.012
Italy 0.009
Non, you are taking a religious like position. There is no proof that stricter laws will totally eliminate the problem. It may reduce it, or cause it to manifest another way, but unless it can be solved then why are you so against designing defensive spaces?
Sep 3, 19 2:35 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
jla-x, now look at deaths per gun violence, including suicide.
Sep 3, 19 2:39 pm ·
·
x-jla
Not necessarily for this paranoia culture in schools, but the way the other side frames
Sep 3, 19 2:39 pm ·
·
x-jla
The argument is really annoying
Sep 3, 19 2:40 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
JLA, you've already lost the argument so there is no reason to push further. The religious argument is from the 2A obsessive crowd, not those that want to see the silly toys removed from circulation.
Sep 3, 19 2:40 pm ·
·
Bench
CPRC is not a valid research institution. Check your sources. The National Research Council has rebuffed him many times.
I don’t believe a ban will stop the problems. It’s a mental and psychological sickness. These things happen in trends. In the 80s there was a spike in serial killers. In 90s a spike in drive by shootings, its a sickness that manifests itself in a particular way. The shooter archetype is what these assholes are trying to fit into. That’s why they choose a certain type of weapon. Remove the the gun and it will manifest in a different way. Architects should be dealing with / discussing the immediate and long term ways to mitigate of the problem with regards to the built environment. It’s no surprise that isolated suburban environments are breeding grounds for this particular
type of criminal.
Sep 3, 19 3:15 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
the sickness is with those who adhere to the 2A rhetoric and fail to see the obvious problem.
Didn't know you where a sociologist and a physiologist. Long story short, mass killings by civilians are easier to do with firearms, that's a fact. While I own firearms and have the training and legal ability to conceal and carry one I am for better gun control in the United States and do not think doing so infringes on the 2nd Amendment
.
Sep 3, 19 3:28 pm ·
·
x-jla
2A is not rhetoric. It’s a constitutional amendment. Do you really see no legitimacy in the 2A? How about the 1A?
I see no legitimacy in the 2A as it is portrayed today. I find it intellectually poor and would be ashamed if I had to live under such nonsense.
Sep 3, 19 3:34 pm ·
·
x-jla
That’s a rational position Chad. I don’t disagree about having better background checks.
Sep 3, 19 3:36 pm ·
·
x-jla
I just don’t agree that thinking about security and self defense is somehow irresponsible while throwing a temper tantrum to remove the 2A is responsible. Makes no sense. We can defend ourselves and tighten background checks and limit magazine size or something. That discussion is fine. These all or nothing positions are not helpful.
Sep 3, 19 3:40 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Neither is your obsession with keeping people armed. How about single-shot and smallest caliber muzzle-loading long-guns. That's a reasonable start and gun nuts can still rely on them for the illusion of safety.
Correction JLA, there has not been any schooling from you.
Sep 3, 19 4:18 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Also, guns are used because they are so readily available. Reduce supply, reduce access, reduce use. Follow up with proper education instead of indoctrination and maybe, in a generation or two, we'll have sensible people who will look back in disgust at the current 2A POV.
Sep 3, 19 4:20 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
Many people seem to forget about the first part of the 2A: "Well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". Join any militias lately? Also, let's not forget that the Founders' heads would explode (ha!) if they could experience what today's firearms industry has to offer. If you want to claim your right to bear a musket, go for it. Don't come crying when some idiot psychopath with a CoD-lite gun pew pews innocents.
Sep 3, 19 4:24 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
jla-x, I said I was for better gun control, not background checks. While increased background checks are a form on gun control I feel it is the bare minimum. Personally I would like to see some type of training and yearly proficiency testing if you where to conceal and carry. High capacity carbines above a .22 long caliber, meh, really don't need them. I've hunted large and small game for over 20 years with either a five or ten round mag. AR platforms are fun to shoot but in reality there is no functional use for a civilian to have one.
Sep 3, 19 4:25 pm ·
·
x-jla
threeohdoor, we didn’t anticipate the internet or rap music when writing the 1A either but it was adapted. The musket argument is so lame.
Sep 3, 19 4:30 pm ·
·
x-jla
the courts interpretation is what matters.
Sep 3, 19 4:31 pm ·
·
x-jla
Chad, that will amount to nothing but more fees and hassle for law abiding citizens. Which seems to be the real motive for the left- to punish the other side. Criminals don’t follow laws...
jla-x, Are you saying that cussin' wasn't a thing in the 1700s? What a jackanape. Also, nothing on the internet is specifically covered by the 1A, with the exception, I suppose, of comment sections on .gov sites, editions of the press, and calls to worship. Your standard issue Youtube/Facebook/whatever alt-right yodeling is not covered, never was, never will be.
Sep 3, 19 4:56 pm ·
·
x-jla
Those are private companies. Your lack of understanding is amazing. You must be a millennial. Technology changes. Constitutional amendments are interpreted by courts and adapted to changes. Watch Larry Flint
jla-x so you've never tried to purchase an illegal firearm and have no idea the difficulty involved in such a task yet somehow know that any criminal can purchase one?
Sep 3, 19 5:53 pm ·
·
x-jla
Have you tried?
Sep 3, 19 7:57 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Ricky, that’s just taking baby bites at the bigger issue. The big problem is the un healthy obsession with 2a and the indoctrination that one needs guns to deal with all the guns out there. It is dumb and irresponsible by a developed country to allow itself to degrade down to this level. Your 2a is outdated and stupid as fuck. As soon as you guys get over it and start demanding severe ownership restrictions (like all other developed countries do) the quicker we you can move on and
address the smaller issues.
Sep 4, 19 6:08 am ·
·
Chad Miller
jla-x, when younger yes, couldn't do it. Nothing nefarious, just wanted a .22 rifle at 16. On a related note I have several members of my friends and family who are in law enforcement, according to them buying illegal firearms is incredibly difficult. Please keep in mind when I say illegal I mean just that, illegal, think short barreled rifle and shotguns, automatic weapons, suppressors, ect. As for legal firearms bought illegally it is still very difficult but not as much so as the former.
Still... all of this is more problematic in public schools rather than in private... are you all telling me that there aren't wealthy gun owners with kids? psh...
Sep 3, 19 4:37 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
It's a problem in under funded schools. Schools with money for security and mental health services have less shootings. Parents with money still have firearms but when their kids are troubled they act out in other self destructive ways that require money. It's not about public vs private but instead about wealth and access to services.
If you want to get some action on this issue eliminate two-tier society by closing all private schools and putting the rich kids in with everyone else.
And if they tell you to go fuck yourself what happens?
Sep 3, 19 7:57 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
You try but ask for their assistance?
Sep 4, 19 9:59 am ·
·
mightyaa
Woah now... This isn't a "poor" thing. Here in Littleton, we've had three mass shootings in schools; look at the demographics. That last shooting at a Douglas County STEM School... oh.. Charter School. It's what we call a publically funded private school....
Why don't poor people stop having kids they can't afford? That ought to eliminate a lof of the world's problems- workd hunger, disease, global warming and society's carbon footprint, etc etc
hunger, disease, global warming are all the fault of the poor!
I have no patience or tolerance for this kind of ignorant classist racist stupidity. Go fuck yourself VulgarBlogger. You are the problem, not the solution.
Believe it or not, that's about the nicest thing I could find to say.
Sep 3, 19 9:57 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Miles, I'm currently suffering from some heavy seasonal allergies. May I also toss that into the poor blaming pool?
Sep 3, 19 10:01 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger
No- its the poor procreating when they can't afford to take care of their own. What a novel idea...
so i guess the consensus is that we simply need to deal with this as the new normal because its actually what we agree on as normal today. Who is to blame for it is a separate issue that we will fight about, but the actual problem is taken for granted. Shit. Was not expecting that.
I have to admit I am suspicious about this idea that better mental health care is the culprit. If this kind of thing happens once or twice a year then yeah, mental health is possible. When it happens every other week it is culture. And I guess the idea is that we are expected to take it on face value as the legitimate culture of our time, and build for it, because it isn't going to change in any meaningful way.
I find this so profoundly disturbing on so many levels. We have officially chosen to adapt instead of deal with the problem and stop it. Unless this is a both/and kind of situation, and things are going on elsewhere as part of a big picture solution.
Hah what was I thinking? Never mind. Adaptation it is then...
Sep 4, 19 1:04 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
It’s not acceptance of the problem, more of a refusal to design places of education based on a few fluke events. Sure, every shooting you guys have due to your terrible 2a shitstorm is tragic, but most students will never encounter a shooting so why design for something that statistically is not going to happen to them? It would be better to fix your education system and explain to the young ones that the 2a is outdated (like slavery) and that they do not need to continue on with the mistakes made by previous generations.
Sep 4, 19 6:12 am ·
·
x-jla
The idea that guns or gun culture compels people to kill is a completely shallow and ridiculous assessment. It’s like saying knives and rope compel serial killers. This is a much deeper problem manifesting itself in this particular way. Taking away guns will do nothing. This isn’t a problem that Politicians can solve. This is a problem that only communities and parents can solve on a case by case basis. As for designing defensive spaces, I think we ought to focus on designing beautiful spaces that encourage social interactions. That’s probably the only mildly meaningful thing Designers can do to help. Allow teachers to conceal carry if they choose. Let them defend themselves and their students. It’s a better deterrent.
Jla, again, you're missing the big obvious giant point. Gun culture leads to lax gun laws and and a cultural acceptance of gun ownership. This in turn leads to greater availability and a growing cavalier attitude by 2A blind folks. If you think teachers ought to be able to choose to CC, then you're far more off the intellectual path than you've already demonstrated yourself to be thus far... and due to that, you should not be allowed to own firearms. A new low.
I have to disagree with that last part. Do you know the amount of tactical training CC requires - zero. You just have to take a class about the legal aspects and then shoot at a paper target from a Weaver stance. This dose not prepare you for actual defensive combat shooting. Clearing corners, reloading, stressed shooting stances, multiple target acquisition, ect are not covered in a CC class.
Sep 4, 19 11:23 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
No one should be allowed CC unless they have several years of real training (plus mandatory annual courses) and a reasonable reason to carry. Fuck, if I need to do 70 hours every 2 years to keep my architect license, I expect anyone who wants to CC to do the same, even 3 times as much.
Sep 4, 19 11:33 am ·
·
Chad Miller
I completely agree Non Sequitur. My comment was referring to jla-x's comment about cc's for teachers.
Sep 4, 19 12:05 pm ·
·
x-jla
You should let the gangsters and rapists know that it’s against the law to conceal carry. That should stop crime.
You're so incredibly incompetent with your "logic" JLA. That is the only 100% fact here.
Sep 4, 19 1:05 pm ·
·
x-jla
Please explain how you would be in a better position without a gun to defend your self and your students if you were in that situation?
Sep 4, 19 1:35 pm ·
·
x-jla
That’s why I can’t stand religion...it gets in the way of common sense
Sep 4, 19 1:36 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
1. The teachers wouldn't have the training to defend the students from an active shooter. 2. Carrying a firearm requires a tremendous amount of responsibility. Even those trained in their use like police have accidental discharges and shootings, you want that around children. 3. Any firearm is more likely to be used to inflict self harm rather than defend against a violent outside attack. Mass shootings while reported on often are actually quite rare and make up the smallest amount death due to gun violence. Combine that with the fact that teaching is a stressful job that often causes mental distress in teachers and you're faced with the likelihood that a teacher is more likely to harm themselves or their students if they where to carry a firearm. I suspect that their would be more deaths from teachers carrying firearms (suicide and homicide) than from mass shootings.
Sep 4, 19 1:42 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
Let me ask you this jla-x, have you ever been involved in a shooting? Do you know what it's like to be actively shot at? Have you ever had to shoot at someone?
Sep 4, 19 1:43 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
All of this seems to come to down to certain peoples embodying the "victim" archetype and living a fearful, anxiety-ridden life. Everyone is out to get you. The Government is trying to take your guns. The black pedestrian wearing a hoodie is clearly a gangster. The Chinese. The Russians. The Libs. The Alt-Right. Antifa. Wah wah wah. On and on and on and on. What's the best way to deal with all this (unfounded) anxiety? Let's all play Rambo and arm ourselves to the teeth. Make everything urgent. Give everyone a "fighting chance." Wear a gossamer security blanket to cover your cowardice.
Sep 4, 19 1:45 pm ·
·
x-jla
Chad miller, you are ignoring my questions. If you were in that situation would you rather have a gun (even if chances to defend self and others may be low) or not have a gun? I think it should require training, and should be the teachers choice. I don’t believe anyone who says that they would rather be without a gun in that situation. It’s completely illogical. The idea that guns accidentally discharge is also ridiculous. That’s a rare occurrence. Lets be honest in our discussions and stop the lame virtue signals. As for your questions....yes I have been shot at indirectly...no I’ve never shot at anyone...I have had to defend myself physically twice. I am physically capable of doing that though. Most people are not, especially women and older people.
When I was shot at I was a teenager back in the early 90s. A group of people shot at me and my friends in Jamaica Queens...they weren’t trying to hit us...just fuck with us...we jumped in my friends car and drove off. It was scary.
Sep 5, 19 4:47 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
Jla-x wrote: “Chad miller, you are ignoring my questions. If you were in that situation would you rather have a gun (even if chances to defend self and others may be low) or not have a gun? I think it should require training, and should be the teachers choice.”
I wasn't ignoring the question. I asked because I wanted to see if you knew what using a firearm to defend yourself was like. It appears you are not aware of the difficulty involved in using a firearm during a defensive combat situation. I say defensive combat situation because that’s what it is, a close range fight. It’s nothing like shooting at paper or reactive steel targets. The amount of training it takes to not only be effective and not a detriment in such a situation is rather high. The vast majority of people in this country have no clue how to use a firearm in any sort of defensive combat situation. Period.
Jla-x wrote: “I don’t believe anyone who says that they would rather be without a gun in that situation. It’s completely illogical.”
The thing is I'm not anti gun. I am for them however I am critically aware of their limitations when used by an untrained population.
Jla-x wrote: “The idea that guns accidentally discharge is also ridiculous. That’s a rare occurrence. “
You misunderstand what an accidental discharge is. I’m not talking about a firearm going off by itself. An accidental discharge is any time round is fired when the person holding the firearm didn’t intend it. This happens quite often.
Jla-x wrote: “Lets be honest in our discussions and stop the lame virtue signals. As for your questions....yes I have been shot at indirectly...no I’ve never shot at anyone...I have had to defend myself physically twice. I am physically capable of doing that though. Most people are not, especially women and older people”
Like I said before I asked to see if you have had experience using a firearm in self-defense. I've been involved in two fatal shootings in my life and been shot once, grazed by a bullet one other time. In one instance the attacker was armed with a knife, the other they were armed with a firearm. I won't get into details but I'll say this, it's way more difficult to hit a target that is trying to kill you, even with several years of training.
The consensus is that politicians are unwilling to do the will of the people, one of which is enact serious gun control.
This is about dividing the populace by vilifying a portion of them, on whom all are problems are blamed by morons like VulgarBlogger, “justifying” racism and personal armament. It also supports the continuation and expansion of a domestic arms industry (a branch of the sacred cow military industrial complex) that Republicans rabidly (and Democrats quietly) support.
The Republican platform is corporate white nationalism and the Democratic platform is “we're not Republicans” while marching in near lockstep with them and taking money from all the same sources.
Farther down the food chain there are people hawking bulletproof backpacks and the hardening of every public space, turning the country into a giant prison for the sake of profits as nobody (in power, i.e. money) really cares about anything else. While designers analyze problems to find efficient solutions opportunists sell pop culture bandaids stoked and advertised by corporate media.
No doubt all the rightwing retards will leap in here now defending their constitutional right to own a musket, which in a humane world they would turn on themselves.
“No doubt all the rightwing retards will leap in here now defending their constitutional right to own a musket, which in a humane world they would turn on themselves.” He shows his fangs.... In a humane world people with differing opinions than you would kill themselves? And you wonder why we don’t want to give rabid hate fill leftists power, or allow them to disarm the populace....Pol Pot golf clap...
JLA, you're digging a mighty deep hole. Please surrender your arsenal. You're exactly the type of disillusioned fool that should be banned from access to firearms.
Sep 4, 19 11:30 am ·
·
x-jla
Non, Gun control is simply a way to flex on those who disagree with the leftist mindset of an all powerful state that protects us from ourselves. Guns represent self reliance. They left hates self reliance. They don’t care about illega firearms in inner cities that kill way way more people. They only care about going after the legal firearms that law abiding citizens hold for sport, hunting, and self defense. Yet, the political elites protect themselves with private security...and the upper class liberals isolate themselves from crime in their enclaves of wealth. Talk about classist and racist.
I have at least 2 female family members who conceal carry. One owns a shop in a bad area and has used her gun to defend herself. The other is an attorney and works with scumbags daily. She’s been stalked by angry clients. She once told me that she would quit her job if she couldn’t carry a gun. She relies on it as a female to fend off potential male aggressors. Your solutions ignore the everyday realities that people have to live with. Most gun owners aren’t obsessed with guns. If I could press a button and all guns evaporate I would. Not realistic though. As long as criminals have guns, law abiding people will require them. Focus on removing illegal guns first. When you get to 99.9% then we can talk.
No, your comments is not worthy of one since you're so stuck on keeping things the way they are and only selectively applying minor changes. I get it, you and plenty more, have been indoctrinated into the 2A cult. You'll need to dig yourself out if you want to make progress.
Sep 4, 19 1:04 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Yes Ricky, criminals will do criminal things. That's not the issue. What we can do emphasis the ridiculousness of your current obsession with 2A nonsense and good guy with a gun rhetoric. Fine, it's obvious no-one is going to come and take your murder toys away, but owning them makes it much more likely that one will be used in ways other than the very specific defense scenario listed by jla above. Plenty of hand guns (which all are either illegal or super-mega restricted) in my city and there are occasional shootings within a football throw from my house, but I have no need to arm myself because I have not been indoctrinated in the same violent self-defense POV.
Sep 4, 19 1:17 pm ·
·
x-jla
Self defense is not violent, and if guns didn’t stop bad guys then why do politicians surround themselves with armed security?
For arguments sake, let’s say it’s a grizzly bear...never will be able to out fight or out run....Would you rather have a gun, or not have a gun in that scenario?
You're moving the goal posts again jla. This is not the point... and even if we said we'd rather shoot the cuddly bear than be it's dinner, that would not excuse the current gun ownership problems you so happily support.
Sep 4, 19 1:54 pm ·
·
x-jla
The gun gives you a fighting chance to defend yourself. Wild bear, or wild human with a weapon, it’s a matter of self preservation. Same exact thing
so it's easier to ignore the real issue, like 2A obsession, and instead focus on non-issues (grizzly attacks) in order to make an irrelevant point. I expect nothing less of you, so, I guess that's consistent with your other arguments.
Sep 4, 19 1:58 pm ·
·
x-jla
I would personally rather avoid the bear...and the chance of a bear attack is very low...but for 500$ I can have peace of mind that if shit hits the fan I will at least have a chance. This is not too different than the woman who walks alone to her car at 3am...This is practical thinking, not an obsession as you paint it.
jla-x likes to set up the argument so the only options are to agree with him, or disagree with him in a way that is easily dismissed as ridiculous ... you either want to kill the bear, or be eaten by the bear ... you either want to defend yourself with a gun, or be killed by someone else with a gun ... you either want to violently defend your family with a gun, or helplessly watch your family be harmed. Reject the premise of the question and suddenly his argument falls apart.
Sep 4, 19 2:00 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
We've already made that point very clear to Jla... on more than a few occasion. EI, it just won't change his POV.
I know. I'm not trying to convince him or change his POV.
Sep 4, 19 2:05 pm ·
·
x-jla
Unless you believe that humans are above natural laws like self preservation...which is a position that implies some kind of divine morality that separates us bald apes from our hairy cousins.
So Jla, if you had the choice to either be raped by said grizzly bear, or rape it and leave with your anus intact, which would you choose? Chose carefully because you may support the legalization of rape in the same way. Also important, pointing out the nonsense of gun-loving fucks, such as yourself, is not religion, it's intelligent observations.
I've made no claims of religiosity or divine morality, I just don't think your hypothetical scenarios are addressing the issues here.
Sep 4, 19 2:15 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
Hypothetically, if I said there was a teapot floating in space somewhere, could you deny it? Would I need a handgun to defend myself against said teapot? What if it was super scary and had black tea inside?
Sep 4, 19 2:20 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Your Bertrand Russel reference is excellent but will blow over jla's head.
floating teapots in space are hypothetically a significant concern. We better get the Space Force up and running to build spaceships with lasers so we can blast those teapots into oblivion.
It makes perfect sense ... if there were a teapot/bear, we would have to be able to defend ourselves against said teapot/bear. Therefore, we need lasers/guns. To admit otherwise would be allowing us to be harmed/raped by said teapot/bear. We need a fighting chance. It's simply a matter of self preservation.
Sep 4, 19 2:38 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
In a thread of insanity, your post (EA) really gave me a chuckle. Cheers to you.
Sep 4, 19 2:40 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
We have found the enemy.
Sep 4, 19 2:42 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
:) where's jla-x when you need him? I need some self-preservation.
BTW, that bear is obviously a gang member sporting colors like that.
Sep 4, 19 2:47 pm ·
·
x-jla
Every single one of you would shoot someone if they were trying to kill you. That’s the only truth. Hypocrisy. It’s easy to be against self defense if you live in the Hamptons or Williamsburg...some people’s reality is your hypothetical and vica versa...
That is not correct jla. Some of us are able to see things in other shades that just white and black.
Sep 4, 19 2:53 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
EI, that totally is a gang member... and I think that coffee mug (or pack of skittles) looks suspiciously close to a gun. Better not take any chances and shoot him 27 times at close range. 'mureca.
Sep 4, 19 2:54 pm ·
·
x-jla
So what’s option c?
Sep 4, 19 2:56 pm ·
·
x-jla
Enlighten me...
Sep 4, 19 2:56 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Option C is don't rely on black and white scenarios in order to explain complicated social situations.
option c...show bear your mangina and hope he feels bad for you.
Sep 4, 19 3:07 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
jla-x, do you live in Falujah? Or suburban...let me guess...Indianapolis?
Sep 4, 19 3:08 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
One other thing to note: you have a fascination with people/bears/teapots trying to murder you. I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of the people involved in the discussion is the amount of mental energy exerted toward this issue. You seem to think that at any moment, someone will commit an offense against you that requires violence. Others are procrastinating on their second monitor. So many posts espousing a strangely zealous version of Libertarianism. When everyone else is wrong, you're right. Is that correct?
Sep 4, 19 3:15 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I'll have you know that Archinect runs on my primary monitor.
Sep 4, 19 3:17 pm ·
·
x-jla
Threeohdoor, no. That’s not correct. Rather than contending with the actual points I made, you are trying to box me into something that you can all together dismiss on grounds of bad intention.
Sep 4, 19 3:26 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
your intentions are bad tho. You want to keep an armed majority of the civilian population "in case" something bad happens while totally ignoring that by doing so, you're increasing the high probability that those murder toys will do more harm accidentally then prevent it.
Threeoh’s main point about violent tendencies is spot on. When you spend so much time thinking about violence, the natural reaction to everything is violence.
Sep 4, 19 3:33 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
When you have a hammer, everything is a nail. This is the black and white thinking that Non Sequitur is trying to call out. When you have a gun, every offense is more easily deemed life-threatening. Other factors, perhaps more nuanced and complex, are thus eclipsed and then no one learns anything. Gun ownership for self-defense, with the exception of some very rare circumstances, only acts as a catalyst for more shootings. We're responding against this notion. It would be better if there were fewer guns as there would be fewer opportunities for shootings.
jla-x still hasn't answered my question of why the person trying to kill me in his hypothetical scenario is trying to kill me. Perhaps it is too nuanced for him to get into.
We live in a violent world. I didn’t invent it. I will however defend against any scumbag who is a threat to my family. Anyone breaks into my home gets dealt with. Period. That’s not out of love of violence...that’s out of love for my family. You all sound very pampered.
As for the idea that guns are more dangerous than not having guns is completely based on irresponsible morons with guns who leave them sitting around...which is a big reason why my kids aren’t allowed at anyone’s home who I don’t know.
Let's get real current and try and combine as many of jla's anxieties as possible: an illegal Guatemalan immigrant, who may or may not be part of MS-13 and is also on heroin, fentanyl, and meth (because why not) is invading your house with an ak-47, wearing tacticool body armor and is demanding you hand over your guns, jewels, cash, and participation trophies for the local Libertarian chapter. This person also stole a car with a Vote for Bernie sticker and dared to park it in your pristine driveway.
Do you A) shoot and miss because you are terrified and skipped out on any sort of voluntary training? B) try to run C) surrender or D) laugh because Libertarians would never give out participation trophies?
Sep 4, 19 4:11 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I would not want to be in your circle. Excessive force, even in self-defense, can quickly become abuse or even manslaughter. I don't live in a violent world. I live in a world with some violence, but statistically speaking, I am very unlikely to ever encounter it... much less encounter the type that would require me to possess a gun. I rather choose the intelligent approach and ignore the unlikely scenarios and I'm better than those who succumb to paranoia because of it. Jla, you on the other hand, are directly increasing the likely hood of public shootings and accidental injuries by refusing to reconsider your obsession with the 2A.
Sep 4, 19 4:14 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
See the rest of my comment Ricky. You're missing the point(s) and instead are elaborating on nonsense.
Sep 4, 19 4:27 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
Two types of people: those who fantasize about being the hero, and those that live reasonable lives. Language of aggression from jla gets him....ego points? I bet his family really respects his constant vigilance. If he wants to run his life like a prison guard,
so be it. Just drop the bullshit when you talk to actual adults.
Threedoorsdown, do you believe that people sometimes defend themselves with firearms? Your making a lot of false assumptions about me to avoid the actual debate.
Sep 4, 19 4:52 pm ·
·
x-jla
I don’t think about violence much...but I also don’t think about polio too often. I did get vaccinated though.
Sep 4, 19 4:53 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
and those polio vaccines have the added benefit of not causing deaths when just laying there in the doctor's office.
Sep 4, 19 4:55 pm ·
·
x-jla
Do you deny the very very conservative FBI stats that show 67,000 instances a year? Are your denying the fact that without that ability there could have been up to 67,000 victims of assault, rape, murder...
Sep 4, 19 4:55 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
I have to admit, 'threedoorsdown' was a low-hanging but delicious fruit. Bravo.
Sep 4, 19 4:59 pm ·
·
x-jla
You are using a utopian religious argument...it’s not applicable to everyday realities...it’s also sexist and racist...you may feel very safe...a single mom from the ghetto may not...why remove her ability to defend herself?
Sep 4, 19 4:59 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
so jla, let's assume for a moment that those stats were to occur (that's assuming that's the end result) because a gun was not present in the victim's defense... how many victims of other gun violence/accidents would be spared because of limited weapons availability? I get it that you can't think your way out of a paper bag here, but try a little. Arming everyone because everyone else is armed and might want to harm you is a strategy that will only end in more accidents from the weapons than proper use as you describe.
edited because spelling.
Sep 4, 19 5:00 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
I take back everything I said. Your appeals to my comedic side have swayed me. I now know you are a brilliant individual, a worthy architect, a tremendous shot with a 9mm, and a true patriot. Bye!
Sep 4, 19 5:03 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
jla, to your other comment regarding a single mom with a handgun, no responsible parent should have firearms within their house-hold or on their person at any time. No exception. The odds of accidental use by the child (even if proper storage is observed) far outweigh the risks of assault. I will always defend this point above all others.
edited to add; Rick your complete incompetence at reading comprehension always amazes me.
Sep 4, 19 5:16 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
classic ricky.
Sep 4, 19 5:17 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
So ricky’s Answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a missile. That checks out. Why is no one asking for mussels as part of their 2a allotment of murder toys?
Sep 4, 19 5:43 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Mussels? Hey I’ll take those. Obviously meant missile, but the typo is just as good.
Rick, you still don't manage to show basic reading skills. BTW, do you have any idea how difficult it would be to get a golf ball sized piece of U235? If you think they leave that stuff sitting around in college labs you're even dumber than I thought.
You understand that U235 is less than 1% of all naturally occurring uranium, right? This is why you need to enrich uranium for reactors, etc. Getting a piece of a rock that contains uranium from the geology lab isn't going to cut it for your purposes Rick.
The odds of dying by cancer, injury, lung disease, stroke, accident, Alzheimer's, diabetes, pneumonia, drugs, kidney disease, poisoning, suicide, car accident, falling down, alcohol, and stabbing are all higher than the odds that you will be shot and killed.
The odds of being killed by police are higher than the odds of being killed in a mass shooting.
Number of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.
The annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002% (or 2 in 10 million for those less adept at math). That number would go down if guns were not so readily available.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
In 2013 more than 5 times women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
From 1981–2010, for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate.
States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates than states with lower gun ownership rates.
People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed. Which is a great argument for putting all the gun retards in once place (like Texas or Arizona) and letting them go at it. Maybe broadcast it live (with sponsorship by the NRA).
Sep 4, 19 1:53 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Can I make a small request? Please stop using the word "retard" to attempt to demean people.
Sep 4, 19 2:06 pm ·
·
x-jla
“Number of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.“. False. Several have been stopped, and about 200,000 individuals use guns per year to stop being personally attacked.
Sep 4, 19 2:13 pm ·
·
x-jla
That said, you are correct that mass shootings are very rare. Why disarm the public who uses guns to defend themselves over 200,000 times a year to possibly maybe slightly reduce such a rare occurrence?
Sep 4, 19 2:15 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
^got a credible source for that jla? How many bear attacks were also stopped?
It was not an attempt to demean, it was an observation about the complete lack of intelligence exhibited by the deranged people who love guns. But it is demeaning to people with diminished developmental abilities, and to them I apologize.
Sep 4, 19 2:21 pm ·
·
threeohdoor
I think you mean to ask, "how many bear rapes were stopped?"
Just here to point out that people using guns to stop being personally attacked is not necessarily stopping a mass shooting. Both your claims could be correct (but that's a larger debate).
Sep 4, 19 2:22 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
That's my follow-up question... but yes, it is a more pertinent subject than a simple attack.
The FBI has recorded no fewer than 19 times in a five-year span (and that estimate may be low) — from 2014 to 2018 — when active shooters were stopped or repelled by citizens. Seven times armed citizens stopped the shooting entirely. Twice an armed citizen engaged the shooter and caused him to flee the scene.
Sep 4, 19 2:39 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
so... a handful of examples justify arming an large portion of the population? The gigantic amount of accidents and other non-life saving uses of the murder toys don't need to be considered.
Lol. Only shitty VOX or VICE count now as news I bet...lol.
Sep 4, 19 2:51 pm ·
·
x-jla
National review is a very good publication
Sep 4, 19 2:51 pm ·
·
x-jla
“so... a handful of examples justify arming an large portion of the population?” No, that’s just mass shootings that were stopped. Personal defense from home invasions, rape, etc are conservatively closer to 200k per year. CdC estimates 500k, FBI estimates about 67k. It’s hard to get accurate numbers and depends greatly on how you define the parameters.
Sep 4, 19 2:53 pm ·
·
x-jla
But it’s funny how no one called out Miles fake number of 0 over 33years...confirmation bias.
I do schools design. I'm a gun owner ( sibling shot competitively in college, active hunter, good target shooter when in practice).
Most of the measures taken in trying to protect schools from the shootings are totally useless when you consider the history of school shootings. Most of the measures attempt to keep the intruder outside. Aside from compartmentalization and total lockdown ability, not much that's being done really stops the usual shooter: a student familiar with the facility who is already inside. Most of the measures are just ways for the school to show they attempted, in an effort to limit liability (just my opinion). Some of the things are good, and they have almost no impact on the learning environment. But they're not going to stop everything. People adapt; they're going to find their way around most measures.
I've repeatedly said that if you're designing for such catastrophes, you have to be able to think about how you'd do it. Having done that, there's no way in hell to stop a determined person. As designers, we're charged with doing our best to create a safe environment, conducive to learning. Ultimately, learning should be the priority. I already think things are going to far, and the point of diminishing returns has been reached.
edit: This thread is definitely the shitshow I was expecting.
Sep 4, 19 5:11 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
A reasonable voice. I've taken the same stance when discussing safe space in office buildings. It's not as fun tho as pointing holes in tired old arguments like those above.
When the target is hardened to the point of impenetrability (forgetting for the moment the effect of such on the occupants), a determined person will just move to a more opportunistic target like a school bus, playground, sporting field, etc. It is a bottomless pit of stupidity that ignores the causes of the problem, focusing instead on profitable bandaids that achieve nothing.
Rick, nobody has taken your bait. That's because nobody thinks addressing mental health is a bad idea. What you fail to admit is that ALSO REMOVING GUNS IS A GOOD FUCKING IDEA, TOO.
I'll add my thoughts to address Will's OP (it's the least I can do after playing with the hornets' nest). I've worked/I work at firms that have designed schools and I have had to put things into the designs in an attempt to protect people from shooters. They are also largely unseen, unnoticed, don't affect the learning environment, and as well-intentioned as they are ... probably useless as I don't really think they would stop someone intent on killing people. As senjohnblutarsky opined, they probably give the school a chance to show they tried and that might reduce their liability if something were to happen (which in all likelihood won't happen).
I think that most of the measures an architect might take to address school shootings would fall into that same type of analysis. The main point being that they wouldn't affect the learning environment. I'm not necessarily for these measures, but ultimately not really bothered by them either. I think there are better ways to spend money in the schools, but that's not really my call to make on a professional, project by project basis. I am worried to see how this changes the standard of care of architects that design schools and educational facilities. Seeing articles like the one that Will linked to bother me more from that perspective. Pretty soon it will be the architects advocating for these measures in an attempt to limit their own liability by being able to claim they've met the standard of care for designing an educational facility.
The thing that bothers me most though are the active shooter drills that nearly all schools are running these days with their students. There are architectural issues inherent with these drills as the response to fire alarms can be delayed as everyone waits for confirmation that there is indeed a fire, or whether they need to ignore the alarm and run, hide, fight. That said, I think the non-architectural issues are greater in how these drills affect the learning environment and how students think about their built environment. The school suddenly starts to become a different place when you are confronted with thinking about what objects you could use as a weapon when "run" and "hide" are no longer options and you're left with "fight." I luckily didn't have to grow up thinking in this way, but I worry about the future generations that have and what this does to them long term.
Sep 4, 19 5:59 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
And then, when they are all better, we can hand them a gun since we want all those good guys to have one, right?
Thanks Everyday Architect. That was a thoughtful response.
My children drill for earthquakes. We know that an earthquake as large as the one that destroyed almost 120,000 houses in northern japan in 2011 is coming to toyko. Cuz our city is close to a fault line and we are overdue for something catastrophic. So we build for that. And prepare for the day it comes.
That already has an impact on the mental state of my children. Part of it is recognition of something like danger. Part of it is helpless acceptance of a thing that cannot be changed. Part of it may be a belief that we know what to do in the case of disaster. Which we don't. I've been to disasters all over the world as part of my practice and I know we suck at preparing and really suck at acting after the fact. That seems to be human nature actually. And it is why we build our reaction to it into our culture, so we can be as ready as possible for something that is unthinkable.
With this though...I can't imagine what it does to kids to practice for murder aimed at them directly, as part of their educational experience even. We don't have that here. I can see how it might mess with a person's head.
Anyway, I was genuinely interested in this as a trend as seen from a place where this discussion is entirely not a point under consideration (because it doesn't need to be). I knew it might be a dangerous topic, but was hopeful for a reasonable discussion. There was some of that. Lots of other comments too that I cannot categorize, but I guess linguists in the future people will have a term for. Thanks for both.
There are areas in the US (I’m thinking California and the Pacific Northwest) that probably have a similar acceptance that a big earthquake is coming, but I’m not sure they drill for it like your children probably do. I don’t have any personal experience with that type of drill to really know though. The most I ever had to deal with in school was the occasional fire drill.
Drills for natural disasters are one thing and I’m sure they can be unsettling to children as they are faced with recognizing an unseen, unpredictable threat. However, and I’m not trying to diminish that effect with this next statement, I do think there is a difference between drills for a natural disaster and those for a cultural disaster (for lack of a better term). It’s one thing to understand that there is nothing you can do to change a natural disaster, and another to understand that there might be things that could be done, but you’re basically helpless to do anything that will change the culture that has led to mass shootings. That kind of acceptance I'm sure has a completely different effect on a child's mental state. I know it has for me and I do live in an area with significant threat of impending natural disaster(s), and I have experienced the threat of potential cultural disaster.
Last year I received a phone call from my wife (a high school teacher) telling me that there had been a report that a student brought a gun into her school and she was in her office with small group of students following the schools lockdown protocols. I could tell she was worried but trying to keep her emotions in check because of the students with her (not an easy feat given her emotions were already quite raw because of some news we had received earlier that week). It turned out the reports of the student having a gun in the building were incorrect (though apparently the threat of bringing one wasn’t) but for an hour or so while the police were arriving, making arrests, and checking for weapons, I was completely stressed out waiting for the next text or phone call while trying to check twitter and other media to get any sort of update.
I was also completely stressed out with the news we had received earlier in the week, the details of which I'm not willing to post publicly on the forums. It wasn't any natural disaster, but one of natural causes that I imagine has a similar state of mental acceptance for potential occurrence as that for a natural disaster. By that I mean that it is generally understood that this threat is out there and has the potential to significantly impact your life at some unknown point. Coming to terms with that means taking certain precautions knowing that they could save your life and help those that might survive you ... and then simply hoping you're not confronted with it.
Suffice it to say, of the two instances where I was forced to face my wife's mortality that week, one of a natural cause and the other of a potential active shooter, the one that keeps me up at night (figuratively, not literally) is the potential active shooter at her school ... not the one that has the greater statistical likelihood of actually killing her.
Both are completely out of my control and nothing I could independently do would prevent either from happening in the past or again in the future. However, with one we are able to thwart it with appropriate actions that are backed by research and science, those actions are controlled and rational, and though not entirely without risks ... the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. With the active shooter situation, the actions that many people encourage to thwart that attack would be irrational and emotional, have the illusion of control and safety, and carry significantly more statistical risks than benefits. The architectural interventions that could be implemented may have a place in perhaps protecting my wife while at school, but as I mentioned before, they are likely ineffective against a determined attacker and don't really offer me any comfort. Not to mention they don't address the underlying issues that may cause such interventions to be necessary.
In a way, the architectural measures we take in the face of natural disasters have the same mentality as those we take in the face of this other natural cause. We have code-mandated design requirements in the face of earthquakes in seismically-prone regions, hurricanes in hurricane-prone regions, tornadoes in tornado-prone regions, wildfires in wildfire-prone regions, flooding in flood-prone regions, etc. These are backed by research and science, they are controlled and rational, and not entirely without costs (risks), the benefits outweigh the costs (risks).
I believe that good art and design can affect culture in a positive way. If you also believe that, it’s suffice to say that bad art and design can affect society in a negative way. I’m not sure the degree, maybe it’s small, but our primary role should be to beautify the world and make it a more interesting and interactive place. My philosophy is simple. If something can be done to make a space safer, in case of a rare occurrence, without being detrimental to the primary goal, then that good. If not, then it’s not worth undermining the primary function of art and design.
I'll agree with your first sentence, "I believe that good art and design can affect culture in a positive way." I keep trying to find a way to unpack the rest, but I can't get past the obvious logical fallacies in your reasoning to be able to agree with you on anything else. Pointing the fallacies out in the past has proved fruitless, so let me just say that never has a client for an educational project expressed to me that art and design were the primary goals of their program. That isn't to say they weren't priorities or important to the client, but never have they been the primary goal. Maybe we just haven't found the perfect client though.
Sep 5, 19 6:21 pm ·
·
liberty bell
Thank you for that post, Everyday. It resonates.
The difference in accepting a natural calamity and one based in, let’s say, human cruelty is significant. I hope your wife is out of danger.
Sep 5, 19 9:16 pm ·
·
x-jla
EA, that’s very telling. My thoughts don’t come in bundle deals. That’s the main problem with today’s discourse. You “can’t get past the logical fallacies
Sep 5, 19 9:30 pm ·
·
x-jla
You say...what fallacies? You didn’t point out any logical fallacies in my arguments.
Sep 5, 19 9:32 pm ·
·
x-jla
RB, that’s not what I wrote. I said art AND design...EA can’t get over the fact that I think the 2A is important, so if I said 1+1 = 2 he wouldn’t be able to accept that answer in good faith. His tribal indoctrination won’t allow him to agree with anyone who questions the orthodoxy...even if he agrees on secret...he won’t admit it because then his tribesmen will suspect him of heresy
Sep 5, 19 9:45 pm ·
·
x-jla
Like I was arguing above...In the hypothetical case that a bear was attacking you, ever single one of you bullshitters would rather be with a gun than without. I’m obviously Using bears to represent a threat that is beyond the ability of anyone to fend off with hands...or to rely on police...I don’t see a difference between taking a gun into the wild to safeguard Against a bear attack vs having one in the home in the rare event of a home invasion. That’s a pretty simple point. Even Liberals like Bill Maher agree.
Sep 5, 19 9:51 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
You're still beating that bear angle? So you advocate for murder toys in the home just in case one would encounter a bear while out in the wilderness? Are you so thick that you just can't understand that arming yourself for the worst-case will only lead to more accidental use of these murder toys than for their intended purpose? I suppose you don't walk around with a helmet on 24/7 in case of meteorite strike, or cross the street for fear of a hit-and-run? Do you have adult size water wings for when you jump in the pool too? For fuck's sake, have you not learned anything from the destruction of your "simple point" from yesterday?
Sep 5, 19 10:38 pm ·
·
x-jla
Lol. Forget it man. At least 100 million Americans disagree with you so...
Sep 5, 19 10:48 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
They can disagree all they want, they are still all very very wrong.
LB: yes, as much as she can be at this point. It’s something we will have to keep an eye on for the rest of her life, but it’s been/being addressed as best we can at this point. Thank you for your concern.
jla-x: What a strange world you’ve created for yourself where the problem is my inability to accept your fallacious arguments rather that your inability to make an argument without relying on them.
RB: Stop. Just stop. Your word vomit adds nothing to the conversation.
Sep 6, 19 1:52 am ·
·
x-jla
EA, I’m not asking you to accept my arguments. In the free world we can have differing opinions. It’s your pathetic tip toeing around that annoys me. Rather then engage in debate, you completely reject any counterpoint as if you are on a moral high ground, and anyone who disagrees is a (cough cough) “deplorable”....You snooty liberal elites forget that people way way smarter than you have supported the concept of a second amendment for hundreds of years...I’m not being stubborn in my position. I’ve said time and time again that I’d be willing to hear ideas about control measures. It’s you and others who are arguing for...wait...wtf are you arguing for
anyway?
Sep 6, 19 2:39 am ·
·
x-jla
Repeal 2A? Let’s vote. Go democracy! You lose only 1/5 of the country agree
with that according to polls.
Thanks Everyday Architect. That is again very thoughtful and deeply disturbing. When the earthquake hit in 2011 one of my daughters was at a daycare built into the soft story of a corbusien block built in the 1960s. I was terrified the building had collapsed since it was slated for upgrading, and damn that earthquake was really big. Phones were down for hours and I was camping overnight at the office cuz all trains were stopped. It was terrifying and i couldnt do a damn thing. In the end it was all fine. We were lucky. That kind of experience cant help but shape my view of the world though. And I have learned a lot in the years since then about how to design for disaster. It feels similar, but the difference with designing for mass murder is that there is a person behind that, someone with intention, that we helped to create with our own culture. Not sure where I am going with this, but it feels like this fact gets lost when we just bake in our response and responsibility into a generic design...
Sep 6, 19 6:00 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Ricky, you’re falling behind just as quickly as « guns for brains » jla. Let’s stop with promoting violent self defense toys as normal and start by criticizing those that arm themselves from paranoia. The more we respond intelligently to gun-loving fools, other intelligent people will start to think twice about introducing a murder toy into their , and their family/community’ lives.
Sep 6, 19 6:30 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Jla, correct. Repeal and burn the 2a. It’s outdated and stems from a different time with simpler things. We are, or ought to in yours and ricky’s case, better than this and have far more information available than those who wrote that dumb 2a line. You will refuse to understand this but that’s ok. Everybody needs a hobby. Yours is apparently maintaining the status quo despite logic and reason.
Sep 6, 19 6:34 am ·
·
x-jla
Non, are you ok with the police carrying guns? If so, what’s the difference with a private citizen carrying a gun? I’ll answer for you...training...so then if that private citizen were to have equal training would you be ok with them carrying a gun?
Sep 6, 19 8:53 am ·
·
x-jla
“Let’s stop with promoting violent self defense toys as normal and start by criticizing those that arm themselves from paranoia.“. So many logical holes in your arguments. You seem to acknowledge that guns are a problem because there are lots of violent offenders out there victimizing people with guns. Then, you float the idea that being vigilant to said offenders is paranoid. Which is it?
Sep 6, 19 9:01 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Police are trained... or at least should be. Given the last news cycle, perhaps they ought to be trained further. They also have regulations and laws that dictate the use of their murder toys. This is not the same as regular civilians going to wallmart and buying a few pew pews in case they get pissed off when some douche bag cuts them off in traffic. So yeah, we agree on that point... and I would easily some common ground between our two POV regarding similar training for civilians...however, there is just as much political will to implement real restrictions as there is to admit there is a problem to start with. Hence why the only solution is ridicule because the situation is hopeless, for now, until the last 2 generations die out.
Sep 6, 19 10:27 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
Jla, I've said it a few times here so far. Guns are the problem because guns are so plentiful, not because there are dangers hiding everywhere. Adding more guns just feeds the issue. What if there was a 12month pause to all gun sales (private and business) and then a heavy tax like cigarettes? Blackmarket aside (again, criminals will be criminals), this would put a financial hurdle to anyone looking for weapons suddenly due to some physchosis? don't if that makes sense, I'll admit, I'm running against huge deadlines this week.
Sep 6, 19 10:32 am ·
·
x-jla
There are waiting periods in some states. I think it’s 2 weeks in Ny, but could be wrong. The point is to prevent heat of the moment purchases. I agree that waiting periods are a good idea. I also agree that many gun owners are irresponsible, but an equal or greater number are just as responsible as any cop. I don’t carry a gun unless I go hiking way out in the boonies. I do have one in my home for defense. I don’t own or plan to own a semi auto rifle. They are shitty home defense guns, and they are too bulky to carry in hikes. A hand gun or shotgun is all you really need for self defense. Bolt action rifles are all you need for hunting. I wish we lived in a world where we could own whatever we wanted, but that’s obviously not practical. I’d be ok with a conversation about banning assault rifles so long as the other side didn’t use all or nothing rhetoric. Most gun owners would agree that reasonable safety measures and limits are fine, we just see it as a slippery slope and generally distrust the intent of the anti-gun crowd.
Sep 6, 19 11:05 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
^ I would gladly entertain that line of thought over beer... It's somewhat similar to something I wrote a few months ago. Reading Ricky's conspiracy stuff, I don't think it's a far stretch to think that there is a minority, perhaps with more power than it can handle, that sees any gun regulations from the government as an affront to the 2a... since the language implies the 2a gives you the ability to protect against top-down abuse. Regardless, when you say "some" states, I guess that means it is up to each individual state to make laws and/or impose training and whatnot. That seems impossible to have a positive effect until there is only one governing body that affects all civilians regardless of the location listed on their license plates. Have I misunderstood something? Also, I'm thirsty and finished my scotch bottle late last night (while doing structural drawings too... in your face ricky!).
Sep 6, 19 11:25 am ·
·
x-jla
I’ll buy you a beer. I like drinking and arguing even more than arguing sober:). I believe the last assault rifle ban was federal. I’m also more concerned with illegal purchases, because they often effect way more people. Look at Chicago...kids shooting kids over complete nonsense. I breaks my heart to see this happening, but more than the guns, the underlying reasons for their hopelessness is more disturbing. Removing guns will mitigate, but won’t solve anything. All I’m saying is we need to look deeper for real solutions to these social and mental problems or we will simply replace one manifestation with another like in the U.K. where knife violence has replaced guns...or even the US where meth has replaced crack. The mode of destruction is the surface level....the underlying cause is the deeper level. The idea that guns are the underlying cause annoys me because It’s obviously not true. They allow for a particularly deadly manifestation of violence, but they are not the driver of violence. So as designers and architects can we affect the underlying cause? Should we focus on that rather than the mitigation of damages? Does mitigation worsen the underlying cause by creating hostile environments.
I think shitty environments create shitty people. Certain environments breed certain pathologies. Suburban environments seem to breed this type of mass shooter pathology.
Sep 6, 19 11:47 am ·
·
x-jla
Back to bears...lol...it’s less hostile imo to carry a gun when hiking in the wild than to build paths with barbed wire fences on either side. I brought up arming trained teachers because it may be similar in effect. It’s a simpler way to stop and deter attacks than to fortify schools...just an analogy...
Sep 6, 19 11:52 am ·
·
Chad Miller
And a bad analogy at that. . .
Sep 6, 19 12:26 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
Yup, no one is taking your guns.
Sep 6, 19 1:52 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
jla... loads of garbage above since I last checked and protection against bear fightclub aside, I have almost as much faith in our ability to design for social change as I do in the USA changing it's views on gun ownership (mostly everyday casual wear handgun CC and self-defence against the "man" 2a stuff... see balkins rant above for more details). I've seen too many social improvement design attempts become nothing more than modular street furniture to give this further thought. Perhaps that's because of the red tape and politics one needs to navigate to get large scale design projects approved? I don't know.
Sep 6, 19 2:39 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Ricky, I don't think you understand most of the words you've written here.
Sep 6, 19 2:55 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
There is nothing wrong with heavy limitations on gun ownership. Your, as well as most politicians', abstinence from taking this stance promotes gun ownership as the norm and increases the availability of murder toys. This growing availability is a very big problem and it is one that can be addressed in 2 parts: One is a combination of significant increase in restrictions + mandatory yearly training + high annual fees PLUS an aggressive re-education of the public and culture change around the casual attitude folks have with them. Your revolution angle is bullshit and demonstrates you do not have a good understanding of both the issue and available solutions.
This whole discussion is a work of art. The last time I’ve seen this type of ocd is with conspiracy wackos. It does not matter how many times you can show them that they are dead wrong, they double down at each turn. The only end result is an exponential curve of nonsense. Maybe we should petition for dumpster fire tending as an Olympic sport ( or at least an E sport)
Yesterday, a product rep - repping a totally different product - mentioned how he was either repping a product, or developing a product that fused Kevlar with a building wrap, to be used in Miami-Dade, east coast regions, and in tornado prone areas. I immediately noted, yeah, that would be the perfect product for schools, thanks AIA!
Sep 5, 19 11:53 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
I had a product rep come in to see me a few months ago. His gig was decorative fencing but also had a huge portfolio of high-security fencing complete with brochure showing anti-immigration type fences (and some jails). He was very quick to point out that they use the same promo material from both their american and canadian sales.
In regards to earlier rhetoric that the two (architecture and
socio-systemic violence) haven't been/should not be/cannot be/ are not
tandem....domestic abuse shelters have sought to protect
a key population group from violent attacks for a long time. I would argue that the line of thinking around these issues of systemic violence is
occasionally within our scope to incorporate and lend design expertise to the built environment.
I bring it up specifically because much of the design theory and
research on the topic of domestic abuse shelters has recently caught
wind and been circulated into the discussion of how to better /secure
schools from mass shooters.
Whether the locations are disclosed or anonymous the design
considerations are primarily: provide a secure campus; provide a
sanctuary; provide residences. The first two cross over into school design. A shelter design needs to be secure so survivors have a sense of safety, first and foremost. This is the groundwork because as
humans, a sense of safety gives of us sense of autonomy/sense of
place(Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs... Afterall, the conception of architecture was an invention of
adaptation) The design also should invoke “sanctuary” which means
different things different places but often in the US it means
cathartic connections to nature: windows/openness to
exterior, day-lighting, green spaces, etc. Both the sense of safety and sense of sanctuary are pivotal for key
psychological growth and well being. This kind of growth/
learning/self-actualization both coincides and entrenches the built
environment. I would argue this applies to the learning process we
want in our schools and the desire for schools to available/ open to the surrounding context contrasting with the contemporary need to be secure. There are a lot of site-specific factors effect the
architect's proposal can address in this regard, but it is necessary to have
both. Together.
In regards to schools, I've seen this as “finger” plans, if
that makes sense, where the webs capture open spaces...with shelters it
takes on so many different forms. Remote shelters can be more open the
landscape in general, but are harder to reach for survivors without
private transport nor do they offer the same upward mobility
opportunities that shelters located in urban contexts prone to more
threats/attacks. What shelters have in their toolbox that schools cannot is the ability to opt into anonymity. A flower-esk plan was implemented in Australia where the shelter is centered in a larger community of houses/buildings. Where adjaceny next to a police station isn't positive for domestic abuse shelters, maybe that would more like deter a would-be shooter.So much of how we answer the issues of security are context based, and as architects, we do occasionally assist in site selection.
I'm barely scratching the surface here but as a profession I would
say being able to educate a client on how such factors are pivotal to the development of the
end-user would go a long way in the conversation. How to design a
secure and protective yet a welcoming and nurturing environment for
students is a seemingly contradicting delivery but here we are,
needing just that. We definitely need to speak to these issues in the language
architecture speaks.
Well said susz. I agree with much of this. Architects aren’t in the business of repealing constitutional amendments, they are in the business of designing buildings. Can defense spaces be incorporated without being detrimental to the quality of the environment? That’s the question. Like anything else, it’s a balancing act. Buildings are designed for fire safety. That can be done in a way that doesn’t create a paranoia effect. This should be treated similarly. The problem is that politics has infected every aspect of society. We can no longer make rational, logical, bipartisan decisions. Everything is tethered to some black and white political ideology.
I waded in here to feature a few comments I think are good for discussion amongst people who want to seriously discuss the role of architects in designing to address threats. Archinect, if you disagree with my approach feel free to remove it.
My 2 cents: Design won't solve societal failures. Architects shouldn't have to think about shootings. The solutions to this problem are way upstream from us. If you're honestly trying to figure out how to design a school to lessen the impact of inevitable attempted massacres, the fight has already been lost.
The American fetishization of the 2nd Amendment is, and always has been, a proxy for white-supremacist ideology and counterrevolutionary action. It was, and continues to be, an ideology built around expanding the frontier and maintaining a settler-colonialist caste system that largely revolves around maintaining by force existing racial hierarchies.
Gun fetishists will speak until they are blue in the face about the need for an armed population to resist state tyranny, yet it is these same thumb-faced freaks who put Thin Blue Line decals on their Ford 350 pick-ups while waving the flag and telling minorities to "obey" law enforcement. They will claim that they need guns to protect from the government while simultaneously hating Colin Kaepernick for protesting violence from armed members of the state (the police). This is not a contradiction in their minds, as they see the primary function of the state (via the police) as being a vehicle for directing state violence against communities of color rather than being a force that judiciously upholds the law. This is why you saw Blue Lives Matter Flags at the failed Jan 6 capitol autogolpe without a hint of irony from those who flew them. It is why you see AR-15 silhouettes on top of Confederate Flags. They understand that the existing societal order of white-male dominance can only be maintained via the projection of force.
They will use the rhetoric of self defense and protecting their family, and protecting against overreach of the government to justify their position on gun ownership, but if you scratch just beneath the surface, you will find that the animating force behind their zealotry is a fear of racial minorities broadly, and a fear of a racial and lower class uprising more specifically. This counterrevolutionary attitude is what drives most gun fetishists to contort themselves into intellectual pretzels, in spite of mountains of factual evidence that suggests that they are actually less safe with their arsenal of firearms easily at their disposal, and at higher risk of murdering someone in their own home or the increased risk of suicide that accompanies gun ownership.
We will never see meaningful gun reform in this country if we don't also see a de arming of our militarized police forces. A highly armed contingent of rabid right-wing reactionaries, and an unaccountable police force are the two militant pillars of White Supremacy in America. These two issues must be tackled concurrently.
Because if we don't, the alternative is then asking architects to design spaces where babies with guns can't kill other babies with guns.
nope... and fuck your guns and your "right" to have them. You should be deeply ashamed that you feel the need to arm yourself and celebrate as if the 2A is something good. M'rica! we'll never listen and we'll never learn. Pew pew pew. Pathetic weasling.
designing for mass shooting
Recently read about a high school designed to frustrate mass shooters in Michigan.
Back when I worked for someone else my main job was to design schools for kids, and you know as hard as it might seem to everyone in the USA we never once needed to discuss or work out how we were solving the mass shooter problem.
Heating, cooling, noise levels, education (holy shit !), ecology, off-gassing of materials, these kinds of things came up. But not so much the guns thing and the killing of dozens of people at a time because of...wait a minute, why are all these shootings happening?
OK so I was working in Japan when I was doing all this work, and there are crazy people here too, sometimes brandishing knives, so there are fences now that we didn't need to worry about before, but there are generally no guns in circulation, so that makes it easier.
What worries me is that the solution to this problem is to design a school so that it resembles a training yard for urban combat, with shielding walls, curving plans that obscure lines of sight, and all of that. It's a big step away from the panopticon.
These are reasonable choices given the issue, and I guess if nobody is going to take steps to fix the cultural problem behind all of this insanity it is a good thing that architects are doing what they can.
BUT, what the hell does this mean? The message seems to be that we will now take avoidance of mass murder as the starting point for design. It will be baked into the brief, same as the bits outlining the number of students per classroom. Which means the actual problem ain't going to be solved.
How do architects deal with this so we aren't band-aiding the problem and not complicit in continuing this crazy mass hysteria?
5 Featured Comments
I do schools design. I'm a gun owner ( sibling shot competitively in college, active hunter, good target shooter when in practice).
Most of the measures taken in trying to protect schools from the shootings are totally useless when you consider the history of school shootings. Most of the measures attempt to keep the intruder outside. Aside from compartmentalization and total lockdown ability, not much that's being done really stops the usual shooter: a student familiar with the facility who is already inside. Most of the measures are just ways for the school to show they attempted, in an effort to limit liability (just my opinion). Some of the things are good, and they have almost no impact on the learning environment. But they're not going to stop everything. People adapt; they're going to find their way around most measures.
I've repeatedly said that if you're designing for such catastrophes, you have to be able to think about how you'd do it. Having done that, there's no way in hell to stop a determined person. As designers, we're charged with doing our best to create a safe environment, conducive to learning. Ultimately, learning should be the priority. I already think things are going to far, and the point of diminishing returns has been reached.
edit: This thread is definitely the shitshow I was expecting.
There are areas in the US (I’m thinking California and the Pacific Northwest) that probably have a similar acceptance that a big earthquake is coming, but I’m not sure they drill for it like your children probably do. I don’t have any personal experience with that type of drill to really know though. The most I ever had to deal with in school was the occasional fire drill.
Drills for natural disasters are one thing and I’m sure they can be unsettling to children as they are faced with recognizing an unseen, unpredictable threat. However, and I’m not trying to diminish that effect with this next statement, I do think there is a difference between drills for a natural disaster and those for a cultural disaster (for lack of a better term). It’s one thing to understand that there is nothing you can do to change a natural disaster, and another to understand that there might be things that could be done, but you’re basically helpless to do anything that will change the culture that has led to mass shootings. That kind of acceptance I'm sure has a completely different effect on a child's mental state. I know it has for me and I do live in an area with significant threat of impending natural disaster(s), and I have experienced the threat of potential cultural disaster.
Last year I received a phone call from my wife (a high school teacher) telling me that there had been a report that a student brought a gun into her school and she was in her office with small group of students following the schools lockdown protocols. I could tell she was worried but trying to keep her emotions in check because of the students with her (not an easy feat given her emotions were already quite raw because of some news we had received earlier that week). It turned out the reports of the student having a gun in the building were incorrect (though apparently the threat of bringing one wasn’t) but for an hour or so while the police were arriving, making arrests, and checking for weapons, I was completely stressed out waiting for the next text or phone call while trying to check twitter and other media to get any sort of update.
I was also completely stressed out with the news we had received earlier in the week, the details of which I'm not willing to post publicly on the forums. It wasn't any natural disaster, but one of natural causes that I imagine has a similar state of mental acceptance for potential occurrence as that for a natural disaster. By that I mean that it is generally understood that this threat is out there and has the potential to significantly impact your life at some unknown point. Coming to terms with that means taking certain precautions knowing that they could save your life and help those that might survive you ... and then simply hoping you're not confronted with it.
Suffice it to say, of the two instances where I was forced to face my wife's mortality that week, one of a natural cause and the other of a potential active shooter, the one that keeps me up at night (figuratively, not literally) is the potential active shooter at her school ... not the one that has the greater statistical likelihood of actually killing her.
Both are completely out of my control and nothing I could independently do would prevent either from happening in the past or again in the future. However, with one we are able to thwart it with appropriate actions that are backed by research and science, those actions are controlled and rational, and though not entirely without risks ... the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. With the active shooter situation, the actions that many people encourage to thwart that attack would be irrational and emotional, have the illusion of control and safety, and carry significantly more statistical risks than benefits. The architectural interventions that could be implemented may have a place in perhaps protecting my wife while at school, but as I mentioned before, they are likely ineffective against a determined attacker and don't really offer me any comfort. Not to mention they don't address the underlying issues that may cause such interventions to be necessary.
In a way, the architectural measures we take in the face of natural disasters have the same mentality as those we take in the face of this other natural cause. We have code-mandated design requirements in the face of earthquakes in seismically-prone regions, hurricanes in hurricane-prone regions, tornadoes in tornado-prone regions, wildfires in wildfire-prone regions, flooding in flood-prone regions, etc. These are backed by research and science, they are controlled and rational, and not entirely without costs (risks), the benefits outweigh the costs (risks).
Thanks Everyday Architect. That is again very thoughtful and deeply disturbing. When the earthquake hit in 2011 one of my daughters was at a daycare built into the soft story of a corbusien block built in the 1960s. I was terrified the building had collapsed since it was slated for upgrading, and damn that earthquake was really big. Phones were down for hours and I was camping overnight at the office cuz all trains were stopped. It was terrifying and i couldnt do a damn thing. In the end it was all fine. We were lucky. That kind of experience cant help but shape my view of the world though. And I have learned a lot in the years since then about how to design for disaster. It feels similar, but the difference with designing for mass murder is that there is a person behind that, someone with intention, that we helped to create with our own culture. Not sure where I am going with this, but it feels like this fact gets lost when we just bake in our response and responsibility into a generic design...
In regards to earlier rhetoric that the two (architecture and socio-systemic violence) haven't been/should not be/cannot be/ are not tandem....domestic abuse shelters have sought to protect a key population group from violent attacks for a long time. I would argue that the line of thinking around these issues of systemic violence is occasionally within our scope to incorporate and lend design expertise to the built environment.
I bring it up specifically because much of the design theory and research on the topic of domestic abuse shelters has recently caught wind and been circulated into the discussion of how to better /secure schools from mass shooters.
Whether the locations are disclosed or anonymous the design considerations are primarily: provide a secure campus; provide a sanctuary; provide residences. The first two cross over into school design. A shelter design needs to be secure so survivors have a sense of safety, first and foremost. This is the groundwork because as humans, a sense of safety gives of us sense of autonomy/sense of place(Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs... Afterall, the conception of architecture was an invention of adaptation) The design also should invoke “sanctuary” which means different things different places but often in the US it means cathartic connections to nature: windows/openness to exterior, day-lighting, green spaces, etc. Both the sense of safety and sense of sanctuary are pivotal for key psychological growth and well being. This kind of growth/ learning/self-actualization both coincides and entrenches the built environment. I would argue this applies to the learning process we want in our schools and the desire for schools to available/ open to the surrounding context contrasting with the contemporary need to be secure. There are a lot of site-specific factors effect the architect's proposal can address in this regard, but it is necessary to have both. Together.
In regards to schools, I've seen this as “finger” plans, if that makes sense, where the webs capture open spaces...with shelters it takes on so many different forms. Remote shelters can be more open the landscape in general, but are harder to reach for survivors without private transport nor do they offer the same upward mobility opportunities that shelters located in urban contexts prone to more threats/attacks. What shelters have in their toolbox that schools cannot is the ability to opt into anonymity. A flower-esk plan was implemented in Australia where the shelter is centered in a larger community of houses/buildings. Where adjaceny next to a police station isn't positive for domestic abuse shelters, maybe that would more like deter a would-be shooter.So much of how we answer the issues of security are context based, and as architects, we do occasionally assist in site selection.
I'm barely scratching the surface here but as a profession I would say being able to educate a client on how such factors are pivotal to the development of the end-user would go a long way in the conversation. How to design a secure and protective yet a welcoming and nurturing environment for students is a seemingly contradicting delivery but here we are, needing just that. We definitely need to speak to these issues in the language architecture speaks.
I waded in here to feature a few comments I think are good for discussion amongst people who want to seriously discuss the role of architects in designing to address threats. Archinect, if you disagree with my approach feel free to remove it.
All 22 Comments
Refuse to design idiotic non-solutions to sociopolitical problems.
But oh wait it's a job and I need the fee ...
We have a large federal client who's got a few high-enough ranking staff on the design committee that have shoe-horned a idiotic active shooter mandate (all at the cost of the tax payer). It's ridiculous to design to this and I'm very happy I'm not PA on that project.
I have had to designed schools here in Alberta for "Lock Down"
fascinating. but not in a good way. What I'm referring to above is normally functional adults advocating for the removal of basic creature comforts (ie. windows and ease of mobility within open offices) in lieu of false security blankets (ie. safe space).
For the Alberta school, was it in a remote community covered by RCMP jurisdiction? I think there is reasonable context for adjusting safety requirements based on the vast/far-flung nature of many communities across the northern prairies and into the territories.
Have either of you sat in a RCMP security meeting? Those guys are intense.
Not that detachment specifically, but other equally intense ones that would parallel the same level of security.
I've never really felt more on edge than discussing grenade throwing angles and fall-back lines of defense (all within an office setting) than sitting across the table from an RCMP security consultant. Same goes for their video surveillance guys. But that I can't really expand on.
The two school projects we worked on were for a public school in a small city. We incorporated things like blinds sandwiched between the panes of glazing in the windows between the corridors and the classrooms that could be closed upon activation.
its good to build schools as defensible spaces to prepare prepare for future russian / chinese / indian invasions
Indian? What are they gonna do invade us with tech support
Ban white people from school.
Prisons are the models now, prisons.
Name me a mass shooting that has occurred in recent memory at a private school.
Name me your point.
Public schools need to be designed for mass shootings. Private ones don't need to.
Having an absent father seems to be a big factor. It likely more rare to have a private school kid who comes from a home with an absent father than a public school kid for both economic and social reasons.
Actually BB both need to be. It's just that private schools already provide campus wide security because they have the funding to do so.
Same concept applies to gang violence being more prevalent in inner cities than middle - upper class suburbs
or... none get designed for shootings. Fix your stupid gun access laws and other related problems and stop putting up safety illusions.
The Crime Prevention Research Center looked at the death rates that resulted from mass shootings between the years 2009 and 2015. Here are the average death rates, in millions, per country, between 2009 and 2015. The countries are already listed in order of the highest death rates to the lowest median death rates.
Norway 1.888
Serbia 0.381
France 0.347
Macedonia 0.337
Albania 0.206
Slovakia 0.185
Switzerland 0.142
Finland 0.132
Belgium 0.128
The Czech Republic 0.123
The United States of America 0.089
Austria 0.068
The Netherlands 0.051
Canada 0.032
England 0.027
Germany 0.023
Russia 0.012
Italy 0.009
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/
Non, you are taking a religious like position. There is no proof that stricter laws will totally eliminate the problem. It may reduce it, or cause it to manifest another way, but unless it can be solved then why are you so against designing defensive spaces?
jla-x, now look at deaths per gun violence, including suicide.
Not necessarily for this paranoia culture in schools, but the way the other side frames
The argument is really annoying
JLA, you've already lost the argument so there is no reason to push further. The religious argument is from the 2A obsessive crowd, not those that want to see the silly toys removed from circulation.
CPRC is not a valid research institution. Check your sources. The National Research Council has rebuffed him many times.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
I don’t believe a ban will stop the problems. It’s a mental and psychological sickness. These things happen in trends. In the 80s there was a spike in serial killers. In 90s a spike in drive by shootings, its a sickness that manifests itself in a particular way. The shooter archetype is what these assholes are trying to fit into. That’s why they choose a certain type of weapon. Remove the the gun and it will manifest in a different way. Architects should be dealing with / discussing the immediate and long term ways to mitigate of the problem with regards to the built environment. It’s no surprise that isolated suburban environments are breeding grounds for this particular
type of criminal.
the sickness is with those who adhere to the 2A rhetoric and fail to see the obvious problem.
Didn't know you where a sociologist and a physiologist. Long story short, mass killings by civilians are easier to do with firearms, that's a fact. While I own firearms and have the training and legal ability to conceal and carry one I am for better gun control in the United States and do not think doing so infringes on the 2nd Amendment .
2A is not rhetoric. It’s a constitutional amendment. Do you really see no legitimacy in the 2A? How about the 1A?
I see no legitimacy in the 2A as it is portrayed today. I find it intellectually poor and would be ashamed if I had to live under such nonsense.
That’s a rational position Chad. I don’t disagree about having better background checks.
I just don’t agree that thinking about security and self defense is somehow irresponsible while throwing a temper tantrum to remove the 2A is responsible. Makes no sense. We can defend ourselves and tighten background checks and limit magazine size or something. That discussion is fine. These all or nothing positions are not helpful.
Neither is your obsession with keeping people armed. How about single-shot and smallest caliber muzzle-loading long-guns. That's a reasonable start and gun nuts can still rely on them for the illusion of safety.
But it’s not an illusion. Like I already schooled you on before....guns are used for self defense more often then you think.
Do you agree that crime victims would go up?
Correction JLA, there has not been any schooling from you.
Also, guns are used because they are so readily available. Reduce supply, reduce access, reduce use. Follow up with proper education instead of indoctrination and maybe, in a generation or two, we'll have sensible people who will look back in disgust at the current 2A POV.
Many people seem to forget about the first part of the 2A: "Well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". Join any militias lately? Also, let's not forget that the Founders' heads would explode (ha!) if they could experience what today's firearms industry has to offer. If you want to claim your right to bear a musket, go for it. Don't come crying when some idiot psychopath with a CoD-lite gun pew pews innocents.
jla-x, I said I was for better gun control, not background checks. While increased background checks are a form on gun control I feel it is the bare minimum. Personally I would like to see some type of training and yearly proficiency testing if you where to conceal and carry. High capacity carbines above a .22 long caliber, meh, really don't need them. I've hunted large and small game for over 20 years with either a five or ten round mag. AR platforms are fun to shoot but in reality there is no functional use for a civilian to have one.
threeohdoor, we didn’t anticipate the internet or rap music when writing the 1A either but it was adapted. The musket argument is so lame.
the courts interpretation is what matters.
Chad, that will amount to nothing but more fees and hassle for law abiding citizens. Which seems to be the real motive for the left- to punish the other side. Criminals don’t follow laws...
Ever try to buy an illegal firearm jla-x?
No, but I’m not a criminal.
jla-x, Are you saying that cussin' wasn't a thing in the 1700s? What a jackanape. Also, nothing on the internet is specifically covered by the 1A, with the exception, I suppose, of comment sections on .gov sites, editions of the press, and calls to worship. Your standard issue Youtube/Facebook/whatever alt-right yodeling is not covered, never was, never will be.
Those are private companies. Your lack of understanding is amazing. You must be a millennial. Technology changes. Constitutional amendments are interpreted by courts and adapted to changes. Watch Larry Flint
The courts preserve the intent of the constitution based on current realities, not realities of the 1700s.
*Technologies (not realities)
jla falls flat on his face again.
jla-x so you've never tried to purchase an illegal firearm and have no idea the difficulty involved in such a task yet somehow know that any criminal can purchase one?
Have you tried?
Ricky, that’s just taking baby bites at the bigger issue. The big problem is the un healthy obsession with 2a and the indoctrination that one needs guns to deal with all the guns out there. It is dumb and irresponsible by a developed country to allow itself to degrade down to this level. Your 2a is outdated and stupid as fuck. As soon as you guys get over it and start demanding severe ownership restrictions (like all other developed countries do) the quicker we you can move on and
address the smaller issues.
jla-x, when younger yes, couldn't do it. Nothing nefarious, just wanted a .22 rifle at 16. On a related note I have several members of my friends and family who are in law enforcement, according to them buying illegal firearms is incredibly difficult. Please keep in mind when I say illegal I mean just that, illegal, think short barreled rifle and shotguns, automatic weapons, suppressors, ect. As for legal firearms bought illegally it is still very difficult but not as much so as the former.
.
Still... all of this is more problematic in public schools rather than in private... are you all telling me that there aren't wealthy gun owners with kids? psh...
It's a problem in under funded schools. Schools with money for security and mental health services have less shootings. Parents with money still have firearms but when their kids are troubled they act out in other self destructive ways that require money. It's not about public vs private but instead about wealth and access to services.
Probably correct
If you want to get some action on this issue eliminate two-tier society by closing all private schools and putting the rich kids in with everyone else.
And if they tell you to go fuck yourself what happens?
You try but ask for their assistance?
Woah now... This isn't a "poor" thing. Here in Littleton, we've had three mass shootings in schools; look at the demographics. That last shooting at a Douglas County STEM School... oh.. Charter School. It's what we call a publically funded private school....
I almost commented earlier that you'd have to get rid of charter schools too, but decided not to get into that can of worms.
Why don't poor people stop having kids they can't afford? That ought to eliminate a lof of the world's problems- workd hunger, disease, global warming and society's carbon footprint, etc etc
can we just cut the foreplay and just ban the poors instead?
no- because there's nothing wrong with being poor. Being poor and irresponsible- that's just a recipe for disaster.
Ah, all good then.
Nothing wrong with being poor except that you can't afford health care, food, college, a reasonable home, children ...
Nothing wrong with being poor except that you can't afford health care, food, college, a reasonable home, children ...
hunger, disease, global warming are all the fault of the poor!
I have no patience or tolerance for this kind of ignorant classist racist stupidity. Go fuck yourself VulgarBlogger. You are the problem, not the solution.
Believe it or not, that's about the nicest thing I could find to say.
Miles, I'm currently suffering from some heavy seasonal allergies. May I also toss that into the poor blaming pool?
No- its the poor procreating when they can't afford to take care of their own. What a novel idea...
that is the thanos solution. Also the population bomb groups from malthus onward
BB, might I suggest that you not have any kids.
Repugnant, not that I'm surprised.
It sure is repugnant. You sound like Bernie Sanders! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theblaze.com/news/2019/09/05/bernie-sanders-says-us-should-pay-for-abortions-and-birth-control-in-poor-countries-to-combat-climate-change/amp
so i guess the consensus is that we simply need to deal with this as the new normal because its actually what we agree on as normal today. Who is to blame for it is a separate issue that we will fight about, but the actual problem is taken for granted. Shit. Was not expecting that.
I have to admit I am suspicious about this idea that better mental health care is the culprit. If this kind of thing happens once or twice a year then yeah, mental health is possible. When it happens every other week it is culture. And I guess the idea is that we are expected to take it on face value as the legitimate culture of our time, and build for it, because it isn't going to change in any meaningful way.
I find this so profoundly disturbing on so many levels. We have officially chosen to adapt instead of deal with the problem and stop it. Unless this is a both/and kind of situation, and things are going on elsewhere as part of a big picture solution.
Hah what was I thinking? Never mind. Adaptation it is then...
It’s not acceptance of the problem, more of a refusal to design places of education based on a few fluke events. Sure, every shooting you guys have due to your terrible 2a shitstorm is tragic, but most students will never encounter a shooting so why design for something that statistically is not going to happen to them? It would be better to fix your education system and explain to the young ones that the 2a is outdated (like slavery) and that they do not need to continue on with the mistakes made by previous generations.
The idea that guns or gun culture compels people to kill is a completely shallow and ridiculous assessment. It’s like saying knives and rope compel serial killers. This is a much deeper problem manifesting itself in this particular way. Taking away guns will do nothing. This isn’t a problem that Politicians can solve. This is a problem that only communities and parents can solve on a case by case basis. As for designing defensive spaces, I think we ought to focus on designing beautiful spaces that encourage social interactions. That’s probably the only mildly meaningful thing Designers can do to help. Allow teachers to conceal carry if they choose. Let them defend themselves and their students. It’s a better deterrent.
Jla, again, you're missing the big obvious giant point. Gun culture leads to lax gun laws and and a cultural acceptance of gun ownership. This in turn leads to greater availability and a growing cavalier attitude by 2A blind folks. If you think teachers ought to be able to choose to CC, then you're far more off the intellectual path than you've already demonstrated yourself to be thus far... and due to that, you should not be allowed to own firearms. A new low.
I have to disagree with that last part. Do you know the amount of tactical training CC requires - zero. You just have to take a class about the legal aspects and then shoot at a paper target from a Weaver stance. This dose not prepare you for actual defensive combat shooting. Clearing corners, reloading, stressed shooting stances, multiple target acquisition, ect are not covered in a CC class.
No one should be allowed CC unless they have several years of real training (plus mandatory annual courses) and a reasonable reason to carry. Fuck, if I need to do 70 hours every 2 years to keep my architect license, I expect anyone who wants to CC to do the same, even 3 times as much.
I completely agree Non Sequitur. My comment was referring to jla-x's comment about cc's for teachers.
You should let the gangsters and rapists know that it’s against the law to conceal carry. That should stop crime.
^I know that Chad. JLA is very far from reasonable. jeebus and guns, jeebus and guns.
Teachers with a gun have a better chance of defending their students than teachers without a gun. That’s a 100% fact.
Why not allow them a fighting chance.
You're so incredibly incompetent with your "logic" JLA. That is the only 100% fact here.
Please explain how you would be in a better position without a gun to defend your self and your students if you were in that situation?
That’s why I can’t stand religion...it gets in the way of common sense
1. The teachers wouldn't have the training to defend the students from an active shooter. 2. Carrying a firearm requires a tremendous amount of responsibility. Even those trained in their use like police have accidental discharges and shootings, you want that around children. 3. Any firearm is more likely to be used to inflict self harm rather than defend against a violent outside attack. Mass shootings while reported on often are actually quite rare and make up the smallest amount death due to gun violence. Combine that with the fact that teaching is a stressful job that often causes mental distress in teachers and you're faced with the likelihood that a teacher is more likely to harm themselves or their students if they where to carry a firearm. I suspect that their would be more deaths from teachers carrying firearms (suicide and homicide) than from mass shootings.
Let me ask you this jla-x, have you ever been involved in a shooting? Do you know what it's like to be actively shot at? Have you ever had to shoot at someone?
All of this seems to come to down to certain peoples embodying the "victim" archetype and living a fearful, anxiety-ridden life. Everyone is out to get you. The Government is trying to take your guns. The black pedestrian wearing a hoodie is clearly a gangster. The Chinese. The Russians. The Libs. The Alt-Right. Antifa. Wah wah wah. On and on and on and on. What's the best way to deal with all this (unfounded) anxiety? Let's all play Rambo and arm ourselves to the teeth. Make everything urgent. Give everyone a "fighting chance." Wear a gossamer security blanket to cover your cowardice.
Chad miller, you are ignoring my questions. If you were in that situation would you rather have a gun (even if chances to defend self and others may be low) or not have a gun? I think it should require training, and should be the teachers choice. I don’t believe anyone who says that they would rather be without a gun in that situation. It’s completely illogical. The idea that guns accidentally discharge is also ridiculous. That’s a rare occurrence. Lets be honest in our discussions and stop the lame virtue signals. As for your questions....yes I have been shot at indirectly...no I’ve never shot at anyone...I have had to defend myself physically twice. I am physically capable of doing that though. Most people are not, especially women and older people.
When I was shot at I was a teenager back in the early 90s. A group of people shot at me and my friends in Jamaica Queens...they weren’t trying to hit us...just fuck with us...we jumped in my friends car and drove off. It was scary.
Jla-x wrote: “Chad miller, you are ignoring my questions. If you were in that situation would you rather have a gun (even if chances to defend self and others may be low) or not have a gun? I think it should require training, and should be the teachers choice.”
I wasn't ignoring the question. I asked because I wanted to see if you knew what using a firearm to defend yourself was like. It appears you are not aware of the difficulty involved in using a firearm during a defensive combat situation. I say defensive combat situation because that’s what it is, a close range fight. It’s nothing like shooting at paper or reactive steel targets. The amount of training it takes to not only be effective and not a detriment in such a situation is rather high. The vast majority of people in this country have no clue how to use a firearm in any sort of defensive combat situation. Period.
Jla-x wrote: “I don’t believe anyone who says that they would rather be without a gun in that situation. It’s completely illogical.”
The thing is I'm not anti gun. I am for them however I am critically aware of their limitations when used by an untrained population.
Jla-x wrote: “The idea that guns accidentally discharge is also ridiculous. That’s a rare occurrence. “
You misunderstand what an accidental discharge is. I’m not talking about a firearm going off by itself. An accidental discharge is any time round is fired when the person holding the firearm didn’t intend it. This happens quite often.
Jla-x wrote: “Lets be honest in our discussions and stop the lame virtue signals. As for your questions....yes I have been shot at indirectly...no I’ve never shot at anyone...I have had to defend myself physically twice. I am physically capable of doing that though. Most people are not, especially women and older people”
Like I said before I asked to see if you have had experience using a firearm in self-defense. I've been involved in two fatal shootings in my life and been shot once, grazed by a bullet one other time. In one instance the attacker was armed with a knife, the other they were armed with a firearm. I won't get into details but I'll say this, it's way more difficult to hit a target that is trying to kill you, even with several years of training.
The consensus is that politicians are unwilling to do the will of the people, one of which is enact serious gun control.
This is about dividing the populace by vilifying a portion of them, on whom all are problems are blamed by morons like VulgarBlogger, “justifying” racism and personal armament. It also supports the continuation and expansion of a domestic arms industry (a branch of the sacred cow military industrial complex) that Republicans rabidly (and Democrats quietly) support.
The Republican platform is corporate white nationalism and the Democratic platform is “we're not Republicans” while marching in near lockstep with them and taking money from all the same sources.
Farther down the food chain there are people hawking bulletproof backpacks and the hardening of every public space, turning the country into a giant prison for the sake of profits as nobody (in power, i.e. money) really cares about anything else. While designers analyze problems to find efficient solutions opportunists sell pop culture bandaids stoked and advertised by corporate media.
No doubt all the rightwing retards will leap in here now defending their constitutional right to own a musket, which in a humane world they would turn on themselves.
rAmen
“No doubt all the rightwing retards will leap in here now defending their constitutional right to own a musket, which in a humane world they would turn on themselves.” He shows his fangs.... In a humane world people with differing opinions than you would kill themselves? And you wonder why we don’t want to give rabid hate fill leftists power, or allow them to disarm the populace....Pol Pot golf clap...
JLA, you're digging a mighty deep hole. Please surrender your arsenal. You're exactly the type of disillusioned fool that should be banned from access to firearms.
Non, Gun control is simply a way to flex on those who disagree with the leftist mindset of an all powerful state that protects us from ourselves. Guns represent self reliance. They left hates self reliance. They don’t care about illega firearms in inner cities that kill way way more people. They only care about going after the legal firearms that law abiding citizens hold for sport, hunting, and self defense. Yet, the political elites protect themselves with private security...and the upper class liberals isolate themselves from crime in their enclaves of wealth. Talk about classist and racist.
I have at least 2 female family members who conceal carry. One owns a shop in a bad area and has used her gun to defend herself. The other is an attorney and works with scumbags daily. She’s been stalked by angry clients. She once told me that she would quit her job if she couldn’t carry a gun. She relies on it as a female to fend off potential male aggressors. Your solutions ignore the everyday realities that people have to live with. Most gun owners aren’t obsessed with guns. If I could press a button and all guns evaporate I would. Not realistic though. As long as criminals have guns, law abiding people will require them. Focus on removing illegal guns first. When you get to 99.9% then we can talk.
Surrender your weapons. You are not stable, or intelligent enough, to own them.
Is that your counterpoint?
No, your comments is not worthy of one since you're so stuck on keeping things the way they are and only selectively applying minor changes. I get it, you and plenty more, have been indoctrinated into the 2A cult. You'll need to dig yourself out if you want to make progress.
Yes Ricky, criminals will do criminal things. That's not the issue. What we can do emphasis the ridiculousness of your current obsession with 2A nonsense and good guy with a gun rhetoric. Fine, it's obvious no-one is going to come and take your murder toys away, but owning them makes it much more likely that one will be used in ways other than the very specific defense scenario listed by jla above. Plenty of hand guns (which all are either illegal or super-mega restricted) in my city and there are occasional shootings within a football throw from my house, but I have no need to arm myself because I have not been indoctrinated in the same violent self-defense POV.
Self defense is not violent, and if guns didn’t stop bad guys then why do politicians surround themselves with armed security?
because you're obsessed with the illusion of security. Figured that would be obvious by now.
THE TWENTY TON STRAW MAN HAS A GUN
"Self defense is not violent"
You must have a different definition of violent than the majority of people, not to mention dictionaries.
You wouldn’t defend yourself or family if someone was trying to harm?
What if a wild animal was attacking you in the wilderness? A) shoot wild animal B) get eaten?
For arguments sake, let’s say it’s a grizzly bear...never will be able to out fight or out run....Would you rather have a gun, or not have a gun in that scenario?
That's not really the point here and you know it.
Absolutely is. Answer the question.
You're moving the goal posts again jla. This is not the point... and even if we said we'd rather shoot the cuddly bear than be it's dinner, that would not excuse the current gun ownership problems you so happily support.
The gun gives you a fighting chance to defend yourself. Wild bear, or wild human with a weapon, it’s a matter of self preservation. Same exact thing
so it's easier to ignore the real issue, like 2A obsession, and instead focus on non-issues (grizzly attacks) in order to make an irrelevant point. I expect nothing less of you, so, I guess that's consistent with your other arguments.
I would personally rather avoid the bear...and the chance of a bear attack is very low...but for 500$ I can have peace of mind that if shit hits the fan I will at least have a chance. This is not too different than the woman who walks alone to her car at 3am...This is practical thinking, not an obsession as you paint it.
jla-x likes to set up the argument so the only options are to agree with him, or disagree with him in a way that is easily dismissed as ridiculous ... you either want to kill the bear, or be eaten by the bear ... you either want to defend yourself with a gun, or be killed by someone else with a gun ... you either want to violently defend your family with a gun, or helplessly watch your family be harmed. Reject the premise of the question and suddenly his argument falls apart.
We've already made that point very clear to Jla... on more than a few occasion. EI, it just won't change his POV.
I know. I'm not trying to convince him or change his POV.
Unless you believe that humans are above natural laws like self preservation...which is a position that implies some kind of divine morality that separates us bald apes from our hairy cousins.
Because when your religious views are challenged by hypothetical scenarios they fail. This exposes your bullshit.
So Jla, if you had the choice to either be raped by said grizzly bear, or rape it and leave with your anus intact, which would you choose? Chose carefully because you may support the legalization of rape in the same way. Also important, pointing out the nonsense of gun-loving fucks, such as yourself, is not religion, it's intelligent observations.
I've made no claims of religiosity or divine morality, I just don't think your hypothetical scenarios are addressing the issues here.
Hypothetically, if I said there was a teapot floating in space somewhere, could you deny it? Would I need a handgun to defend myself against said teapot? What if it was super scary and had black tea inside?
Your Bertrand Russel reference is excellent but will blow over jla's head.
floating teapots in space are hypothetically a significant concern. We better get the Space Force up and running to build spaceships with lasers so we can blast those teapots into oblivion.
That's one way to revive your space program.
It makes perfect sense ... if there were a teapot/bear, we would have to be able to defend ourselves against said teapot/bear. Therefore, we need lasers/guns. To admit otherwise would be allowing us to be harmed/raped by said teapot/bear. We need a fighting chance. It's simply a matter of self preservation.
In a thread of insanity, your post (EA) really gave me a chuckle. Cheers to you.
We have found the enemy.
:) where's jla-x when you need him? I need some self-preservation.
cheers
pew pew. don't worry, I got ya covered. pew pew.
BTW, that bear is obviously a gang member sporting colors like that.
Every single one of you would shoot someone if they were trying to kill you. That’s the only truth. Hypocrisy. It’s easy to be against self defense if you live in the Hamptons or Williamsburg...some people’s reality is your hypothetical and vica versa...
That is not correct jla. Some of us are able to see things in other shades that just white and black.
EI, that totally is a gang member... and I think that coffee mug (or pack of skittles) looks suspiciously close to a gun. Better not take any chances and shoot him 27 times at close range. 'mureca.
So what’s option c?
Enlighten me...
Option C is don't rely on black and white scenarios in order to explain complicated social situations.
Why are they trying to kill me?
option c...show bear your mangina and hope he feels bad for you.
jla-x, do you live in Falujah? Or suburban...let me guess...Indianapolis?
One other thing to note: you have a fascination with people/bears/teapots trying to murder you. I think one of the distinguishing characteristics of the people involved in the discussion is the amount of mental energy exerted toward this issue. You seem to think that at any moment, someone will commit an offense against you that requires violence. Others are procrastinating on their second monitor. So many posts espousing a strangely zealous version of Libertarianism. When everyone else is wrong, you're right. Is that correct?
I'll have you know that Archinect runs on my primary monitor.
Threeohdoor, no. That’s not correct. Rather than contending with the actual points I made, you are trying to box me into something that you can all together dismiss on grounds of bad intention.
your intentions are bad tho. You want to keep an armed majority of the civilian population "in case" something bad happens while totally ignoring that by doing so, you're increasing the high probability that those murder toys will do more harm accidentally then prevent it.
I don’t think of my monitors as primary and secondary. They are just placed I put windows and perform my tasks.
Threeoh’s main point about violent tendencies is spot on. When you spend so much time thinking about violence, the natural reaction to everything is violence.
When you have a hammer, everything is a nail. This is the black and white thinking that Non Sequitur is trying to call out. When you have a gun, every offense is more easily deemed life-threatening. Other factors, perhaps more nuanced and complex, are thus eclipsed and then no one learns anything. Gun ownership for self-defense, with the exception of some very rare circumstances, only acts as a catalyst for more shootings. We're responding against this notion. It would be better if there were fewer guns as there would be fewer opportunities for shootings.
jla-x still hasn't answered my question of why the person trying to kill me in his hypothetical scenario is trying to kill me. Perhaps it is too nuanced for him to get into.
A home invader on meth.
Does the meth head have a gun?
We live in a violent world. I didn’t invent it. I will however defend against any scumbag who is a threat to my family. Anyone breaks into my home gets dealt with. Period. That’s not out of love of violence...that’s out of love for my family. You all sound very pampered.
As for the idea that guns are more dangerous than not having guns is completely based on irresponsible morons with guns who leave them sitting around...which is a big reason why my kids aren’t allowed at anyone’s home who I don’t know.
Let's get real current and try and combine as many of jla's anxieties as possible: an illegal Guatemalan immigrant, who may or may not be part of MS-13 and is also on heroin, fentanyl, and meth (because why not) is invading your house with an ak-47, wearing tacticool body armor and is demanding you hand over your guns, jewels, cash, and participation trophies for the local Libertarian chapter. This person also stole a car with a Vote for Bernie sticker and dared to park it in your pristine driveway. Do you A) shoot and miss because you are terrified and skipped out on any sort of voluntary training? B) try to run C) surrender or D) laugh because Libertarians would never give out participation trophies?
I would not want to be in your circle. Excessive force, even in self-defense, can quickly become abuse or even manslaughter. I don't live in a violent world. I live in a world with some violence, but statistically speaking, I am very unlikely to ever encounter it... much less encounter the type that would require me to possess a gun. I rather choose the intelligent approach and ignore the unlikely scenarios and I'm better than those who succumb to paranoia because of it. Jla, you on the other hand, are directly increasing the likely hood of public shootings and accidental injuries by refusing to reconsider your obsession with the 2A.
See the rest of my comment Ricky. You're missing the point(s) and instead are elaborating on nonsense.
Two types of people: those who fantasize about being the hero, and those that live reasonable lives. Language of aggression from jla gets him....ego points? I bet his family really respects his constant vigilance. If he wants to run his life like a prison guard, so be it. Just drop the bullshit when you talk to actual adults.
Rick, also see the hammer and nail comments
I'm still wondering if the meth head has a gun
Threedoorsdown, do you believe that people sometimes defend themselves with firearms? Your making a lot of false assumptions about me to avoid the actual debate.
I don’t think about violence much...but I also don’t think about polio too often. I did get vaccinated though.
and those polio vaccines have the added benefit of not causing deaths when just laying there in the doctor's office.
Do you deny the very very conservative FBI stats that show 67,000 instances a year? Are your denying the fact that without that ability there could have been up to 67,000 victims of assault, rape, murder...
I have to admit, 'threedoorsdown' was a low-hanging but delicious fruit. Bravo.
You are using a utopian religious argument...it’s not applicable to everyday realities...it’s also sexist and racist...you may feel very safe...a single mom from the ghetto may not...why remove her ability to defend herself?
so jla, let's assume for a moment that those stats were to occur (that's assuming that's the end result) because a gun was not present in the victim's defense... how many victims of other gun violence/accidents would be spared because of limited weapons availability? I get it that you can't think your way out of a paper bag here, but try a little. Arming everyone because everyone else is armed and might want to harm you is a strategy that will only end in more accidents from the weapons than proper use as you describe.
edited because spelling.
I take back everything I said. Your appeals to my comedic side have swayed me. I now know you are a brilliant individual, a worthy architect, a tremendous shot with a 9mm, and a true patriot. Bye!
jla, to your other comment regarding a single mom with a handgun, no responsible parent should have firearms within their house-hold or on their person at any time. No exception. The odds of accidental use by the child (even if proper storage is observed) far outweigh the risks of assault. I will always defend this point above all others.
get out your tinfoil
edited to add; Rick your complete incompetence at reading comprehension always amazes me.
classic ricky.
So ricky’s Answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a missile. That checks out. Why is no one asking for mussels as part of their 2a allotment of murder toys?
Mussels? Hey I’ll take those. Obviously meant missile, but the typo is just as good.
Rick, you still don't manage to show basic reading skills. BTW, do you have any idea how difficult it would be to get a golf ball sized piece of U235? If you think they leave that stuff sitting around in college labs you're even dumber than I thought.
You understand that U235 is less than 1% of all naturally occurring uranium, right? This is why you need to enrich uranium for reactors, etc. Getting a piece of a rock that contains uranium from the geology lab isn't going to cut it for your purposes Rick.
This is idiotic, I'm not even sure why I try.
Fun Facts:
The odds of dying by cancer, injury, lung disease, stroke, accident, Alzheimer's, diabetes, pneumonia, drugs, kidney disease, poisoning, suicide, car accident, falling down, alcohol, and stabbing are all higher than the odds that you will be shot and killed.
The odds of being killed by police are higher than the odds of being killed in a mass shooting.
Number of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.
The annual per capita risk of death during a home invasion is 0.0000002% (or 2 in 10 million for those less adept at math). That number would go down if guns were not so readily available.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
In 2013 more than 5 times women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
From 1981–2010, for every 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 1.1 percent increase in the firearm homicide rate.
States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates than states with lower gun ownership rates.
People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed. Which is a great argument for putting all the gun retards in once place (like Texas or Arizona) and letting them go at it. Maybe broadcast it live (with sponsorship by the NRA).
Can I make a small request? Please stop using the word "retard" to attempt to demean people.
“Number of mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 33 years: 0.“. False. Several have been stopped, and about 200,000 individuals use guns per year to stop being personally attacked.
That said, you are correct that mass shootings are very rare. Why disarm the public who uses guns to defend themselves over 200,000 times a year to possibly maybe slightly reduce such a rare occurrence?
^got a credible source for that jla? How many bear attacks were also stopped?
It was not an attempt to demean, it was an observation about the complete lack of intelligence exhibited by the deranged people who love guns. But it is demeaning to people with diminished developmental abilities, and to them I apologize.
I think you mean to ask, "how many bear rapes were stopped?"
Just here to point out that people using guns to stop being personally attacked is not necessarily stopping a mass shooting. Both your claims could be correct (but that's a larger debate).
That's my follow-up question... but yes, it is a more pertinent subject than a simple attack.
EI...https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/in-missouri-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-stepped-up-so-can-you/amp/
The FBI has recorded no fewer than 19 times in a five-year span (and that estimate may be low) — from 2014 to 2018 — when active shooters were stopped or repelled by citizens. Seven times armed citizens stopped the shooting entirely. Twice an armed citizen engaged the shooter and caused him to flee the scene.
so... a handful of examples justify arming an large portion of the population? The gigantic amount of accidents and other non-life saving uses of the murder toys don't need to be considered.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/
Lol. Only shitty VOX or VICE count now as news I bet...lol.
National review is a very good publication
“so... a handful of examples justify arming an large portion of the population?” No, that’s just mass shootings that were stopped. Personal defense from home invasions, rape, etc are conservatively closer to 200k per year. CdC estimates 500k, FBI estimates about 67k. It’s hard to get accurate numbers and depends greatly on how you define the parameters.
But it’s funny how no one called out Miles fake number of 0 over 33years...confirmation bias.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up Vox and Vice, but does this make you happier jla-x?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vice-news/
When you send me a mediabiasfactcheck km
*when you show me a media bias fact check on media bias fact check I’ll be happy. :)
The article he posted is behind a paywall so I don't really know if it is the source for all his numbers or not. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-scientist/
There's a reddit for that ... https://www.reddit.com/r/politicalfactchecking/comments/8sohrs/is_mediabiasfactcheckcom_an_accurate_and_unbiased/
Check Reddit now...:)
No thanks, I’m trying to quit
I do schools design. I'm a gun owner ( sibling shot competitively in college, active hunter, good target shooter when in practice).
Most of the measures taken in trying to protect schools from the shootings are totally useless when you consider the history of school shootings. Most of the measures attempt to keep the intruder outside. Aside from compartmentalization and total lockdown ability, not much that's being done really stops the usual shooter: a student familiar with the facility who is already inside. Most of the measures are just ways for the school to show they attempted, in an effort to limit liability (just my opinion). Some of the things are good, and they have almost no impact on the learning environment. But they're not going to stop everything. People adapt; they're going to find their way around most measures.
I've repeatedly said that if you're designing for such catastrophes, you have to be able to think about how you'd do it. Having done that, there's no way in hell to stop a determined person. As designers, we're charged with doing our best to create a safe environment, conducive to learning. Ultimately, learning should be the priority. I already think things are going to far, and the point of diminishing returns has been reached.
edit: This thread is definitely the shitshow I was expecting.
A reasonable voice. I've taken the same stance when discussing safe space in office buildings. It's not as fun tho as pointing holes in tired old arguments like those above.
When the target is hardened to the point of impenetrability (forgetting for the moment the effect of such on the occupants), a determined person will just move to a more opportunistic target like a school bus, playground, sporting field, etc. It is a bottomless pit of stupidity that ignores the causes of the problem, focusing instead on profitable bandaids that achieve nothing.
Rick, nobody has taken your bait. That's because nobody thinks addressing mental health is a bad idea. What you fail to admit is that ALSO REMOVING GUNS IS A GOOD FUCKING IDEA, TOO.
Good post, senjohnblutarsky.
I'll add my thoughts to address Will's OP (it's the least I can do after playing with the hornets' nest). I've worked/I work at firms that have designed schools and I have had to put things into the designs in an attempt to protect people from shooters. They are also largely unseen, unnoticed, don't affect the learning environment, and as well-intentioned as they are ... probably useless as I don't really think they would stop someone intent on killing people. As senjohnblutarsky opined, they probably give the school a chance to show they tried and that might reduce their liability if something were to happen (which in all likelihood won't happen).
I think that most of the measures an architect might take to address school shootings would fall into that same type of analysis. The main point being that they wouldn't affect the learning environment. I'm not necessarily for these measures, but ultimately not really bothered by them either. I think there are better ways to spend money in the schools, but that's not really my call to make on a professional, project by project basis. I am worried to see how this changes the standard of care of architects that design schools and educational facilities. Seeing articles like the one that Will linked to bother me more from that perspective. Pretty soon it will be the architects advocating for these measures in an attempt to limit their own liability by being able to claim they've met the standard of care for designing an educational facility.
The thing that bothers me most though are the active shooter drills that nearly all schools are running these days with their students. There are architectural issues inherent with these drills as the response to fire alarms can be delayed as everyone waits for confirmation that there is indeed a fire, or whether they need to ignore the alarm and run, hide, fight. That said, I think the non-architectural issues are greater in how these drills affect the learning environment and how students think about their built environment. The school suddenly starts to become a different place when you are confronted with thinking about what objects you could use as a weapon when "run" and "hide" are no longer options and you're left with "fight." I luckily didn't have to grow up thinking in this way, but I worry about the future generations that have and what this does to them long term.
And then, when they are all better, we can hand them a gun since we want all those good guys to have one, right?
Thanks Everyday Architect. That was a thoughtful response.
My children drill for earthquakes. We know that an earthquake as large as the one that destroyed almost 120,000 houses in northern japan in 2011 is coming to toyko. Cuz our city is close to a fault line and we are overdue for something catastrophic. So we build for that. And prepare for the day it comes.
That already has an impact on the mental state of my children. Part of it is recognition of something like danger. Part of it is helpless acceptance of a thing that cannot be changed. Part of it may be a belief that we know what to do in the case of disaster. Which we don't. I've been to disasters all over the world as part of my practice and I know we suck at preparing and really suck at acting after the fact. That seems to be human nature actually. And it is why we build our reaction to it into our culture, so we can be as ready as possible for something that is unthinkable.
With this though...I can't imagine what it does to kids to practice for murder aimed at them directly, as part of their educational experience even. We don't have that here. I can see how it might mess with a person's head.
Anyway, I was genuinely interested in this as a trend as seen from a place where this discussion is entirely not a point under consideration (because it doesn't need to be). I knew it might be a dangerous topic, but was hopeful for a reasonable discussion. There was some of that. Lots of other comments too that I cannot categorize, but I guess linguists in the future people will have a term for. Thanks for both.
There are areas in the US (I’m thinking California and the Pacific Northwest) that probably have a similar acceptance that a big earthquake is coming, but I’m not sure they drill for it like your children probably do. I don’t have any personal experience with that type of drill to really know though. The most I ever had to deal with in school was the occasional fire drill.
Drills for natural disasters are one thing and I’m sure they can be unsettling to children as they are faced with recognizing an unseen, unpredictable threat. However, and I’m not trying to diminish that effect with this next statement, I do think there is a difference between drills for a natural disaster and those for a cultural disaster (for lack of a better term). It’s one thing to understand that there is nothing you can do to change a natural disaster, and another to understand that there might be things that could be done, but you’re basically helpless to do anything that will change the culture that has led to mass shootings. That kind of acceptance I'm sure has a completely different effect on a child's mental state. I know it has for me and I do live in an area with significant threat of impending natural disaster(s), and I have experienced the threat of potential cultural disaster.
Last year I received a phone call from my wife (a high school teacher) telling me that there had been a report that a student brought a gun into her school and she was in her office with small group of students following the schools lockdown protocols. I could tell she was worried but trying to keep her emotions in check because of the students with her (not an easy feat given her emotions were already quite raw because of some news we had received earlier that week). It turned out the reports of the student having a gun in the building were incorrect (though apparently the threat of bringing one wasn’t) but for an hour or so while the police were arriving, making arrests, and checking for weapons, I was completely stressed out waiting for the next text or phone call while trying to check twitter and other media to get any sort of update.
I was also completely stressed out with the news we had received earlier in the week, the details of which I'm not willing to post publicly on the forums. It wasn't any natural disaster, but one of natural causes that I imagine has a similar state of mental acceptance for potential occurrence as that for a natural disaster. By that I mean that it is generally understood that this threat is out there and has the potential to significantly impact your life at some unknown point. Coming to terms with that means taking certain precautions knowing that they could save your life and help those that might survive you ... and then simply hoping you're not confronted with it.
Suffice it to say, of the two instances where I was forced to face my wife's mortality that week, one of a natural cause and the other of a potential active shooter, the one that keeps me up at night (figuratively, not literally) is the potential active shooter at her school ... not the one that has the greater statistical likelihood of actually killing her.
Both are completely out of my control and nothing I could independently do would prevent either from happening in the past or again in the future. However, with one we are able to thwart it with appropriate actions that are backed by research and science, those actions are controlled and rational, and though not entirely without risks ... the benefits greatly outweigh the risks. With the active shooter situation, the actions that many people encourage to thwart that attack would be irrational and emotional, have the illusion of control and safety, and carry significantly more statistical risks than benefits. The architectural interventions that could be implemented may have a place in perhaps protecting my wife while at school, but as I mentioned before, they are likely ineffective against a determined attacker and don't really offer me any comfort. Not to mention they don't address the underlying issues that may cause such interventions to be necessary.
In a way, the architectural measures we take in the face of natural disasters have the same mentality as those we take in the face of this other natural cause. We have code-mandated design requirements in the face of earthquakes in seismically-prone regions, hurricanes in hurricane-prone regions, tornadoes in tornado-prone regions, wildfires in wildfire-prone regions, flooding in flood-prone regions, etc. These are backed by research and science, they are controlled and rational, and not entirely without costs (risks), the benefits outweigh the costs (risks).
I believe that good art and design can affect culture in a positive way. If you also believe that, it’s suffice to say that bad art and design can affect society in a negative way. I’m not sure the degree, maybe it’s small, but our primary role should be to beautify the world and make it a more interesting and interactive place. My philosophy is simple. If something can be done to make a space safer, in case of a rare occurrence, without being detrimental to the primary goal, then that good. If not, then it’s not worth undermining the primary function of art and design.
I'll agree with your first sentence, "I believe that good art and design can affect culture in a positive way." I keep trying to find a way to unpack the rest, but I can't get past the obvious logical fallacies in your reasoning to be able to agree with you on anything else. Pointing the fallacies out in the past has proved fruitless, so let me just say that never has a client for an educational project expressed to me that art and design were the primary goals of their program. That isn't to say they weren't priorities or important to the client, but never have they been the primary goal. Maybe we just haven't found the perfect client though.
Thank you for that post, Everyday. It resonates.
The difference in accepting a natural calamity and one based in, let’s say, human cruelty is significant. I hope your wife is out of danger.
EA, that’s very telling. My thoughts don’t come in bundle deals. That’s the main problem with today’s discourse. You “can’t get past the logical fallacies
You say...what fallacies? You didn’t point out any logical fallacies in my arguments.
RB, that’s not what I wrote. I said art AND design...EA can’t get over the fact that I think the 2A is important, so if I said 1+1 = 2 he wouldn’t be able to accept that answer in good faith. His tribal indoctrination won’t allow him to agree with anyone who questions the orthodoxy...even if he agrees on secret...he won’t admit it because then his tribesmen will suspect him of heresy
Like I was arguing above...In the hypothetical case that a bear was attacking you, ever single one of you bullshitters would rather be with a gun than without. I’m obviously Using bears to represent a threat that is beyond the ability of anyone to fend off with hands...or to rely on police...I don’t see a difference between taking a gun into the wild to safeguard Against a bear attack vs having one in the home in the rare event of a home invasion. That’s a pretty simple point. Even Liberals like Bill Maher agree.
You're still beating that bear angle? So you advocate for murder toys in the home just in case one would encounter a bear while out in the wilderness? Are you so thick that you just can't understand that arming yourself for the worst-case will only lead to more accidental use of these murder toys than for their intended purpose? I suppose you don't walk around with a helmet on 24/7 in case of meteorite strike, or cross the street for fear of a hit-and-run? Do you have adult size water wings for when you jump in the pool too? For fuck's sake, have you not learned anything from the destruction of your "simple point" from yesterday?
Lol. Forget it man. At least 100 million Americans disagree with you so...
They can disagree all they want, they are still all very very wrong.
LB: yes, as much as she can be at this point. It’s something we will have to keep an eye on for the rest of her life, but it’s been/being addressed as best we can at this point. Thank you for your concern.
jla-x: What a strange world you’ve created for yourself where the problem is my inability to accept your fallacious arguments rather that your inability to make an argument without relying on them.
RB: Stop. Just stop. Your word vomit adds nothing to the conversation.
EA, I’m not asking you to accept my arguments. In the free world we can have differing opinions. It’s your pathetic tip toeing around that annoys me. Rather then engage in debate, you completely reject any counterpoint as if you are on a moral high ground, and anyone who disagrees is a (cough cough) “deplorable”....You snooty liberal elites forget that people way way smarter than you have supported the concept of a second amendment for hundreds of years...I’m not being stubborn in my position. I’ve said time and time again that I’d be willing to hear ideas about control measures. It’s you and others who are arguing for...wait...wtf are you arguing for
anyway?
Repeal 2A? Let’s vote. Go democracy! You lose only 1/5 of the country agree
with that according to polls.
Thanks Everyday Architect. That is again very thoughtful and deeply disturbing. When the earthquake hit in 2011 one of my daughters was at a daycare built into the soft story of a corbusien block built in the 1960s. I was terrified the building had collapsed since it was slated for upgrading, and damn that earthquake was really big. Phones were down for hours and I was camping overnight at the office cuz all trains were stopped. It was terrifying and i couldnt do a damn thing. In the end it was all fine. We were lucky. That kind of experience cant help but shape my view of the world though. And I have learned a lot in the years since then about how to design for disaster. It feels similar, but the difference with designing for mass murder is that there is a person behind that, someone with intention, that we helped to create with our own culture. Not sure where I am going with this, but it feels like this fact gets lost when we just bake in our response and responsibility into a generic design...
Ricky, you’re falling behind just as quickly as « guns for brains » jla. Let’s stop with promoting violent self defense toys as normal and start by criticizing those that arm themselves from paranoia. The more we respond intelligently to gun-loving fools, other intelligent people will start to think twice about introducing a murder toy into their , and their family/community’ lives.
Jla, correct. Repeal and burn the 2a. It’s outdated and stems from a different time with simpler things. We are, or ought to in yours and ricky’s case, better than this and have far more information available than those who wrote that dumb 2a line. You will refuse to understand this but that’s ok. Everybody needs a hobby. Yours is apparently maintaining the status quo despite logic and reason.
Non, are you ok with the police carrying guns? If so, what’s the difference with a private citizen carrying a gun? I’ll answer for you...training...so then if that private citizen were to have equal training would you be ok with them carrying a gun?
“Let’s stop with promoting violent self defense toys as normal and start by criticizing those that arm themselves from paranoia.“. So many logical holes in your arguments. You seem to acknowledge that guns are a problem because there are lots of violent offenders out there victimizing people with guns. Then, you float the idea that being vigilant to said offenders is paranoid. Which is it?
Police are trained... or at least should be. Given the last news cycle, perhaps they ought to be trained further. They also have regulations and laws that dictate the use of their murder toys. This is not the same as regular civilians going to wallmart and buying a few pew pews in case they get pissed off when some douche bag cuts them off in traffic. So yeah, we agree on that point... and I would easily some common ground between our two POV regarding similar training for civilians...however, there is just as much political will to implement real restrictions as there is to admit there is a problem to start with. Hence why the only solution is ridicule because the situation is hopeless, for now, until the last 2 generations die out.
Jla, I've said it a few times here so far. Guns are the problem because guns are so plentiful, not because there are dangers hiding everywhere. Adding more guns just feeds the issue. What if there was a 12month pause to all gun sales (private and business) and then a heavy tax like cigarettes? Blackmarket aside (again, criminals will be criminals), this would put a financial hurdle to anyone looking for weapons suddenly due to some physchosis? don't if that makes sense, I'll admit, I'm running against huge deadlines this week.
There are waiting periods in some states. I think it’s 2 weeks in Ny, but could be wrong. The point is to prevent heat of the moment purchases. I agree that waiting periods are a good idea. I also agree that many gun owners are irresponsible, but an equal or greater number are just as responsible as any cop. I don’t carry a gun unless I go hiking way out in the boonies. I do have one in my home for defense. I don’t own or plan to own a semi auto rifle. They are shitty home defense guns, and they are too bulky to carry in hikes. A hand gun or shotgun is all you really need for self defense. Bolt action rifles are all you need for hunting. I wish we lived in a world where we could own whatever we wanted, but that’s obviously not practical. I’d be ok with a conversation about banning assault rifles so long as the other side didn’t use all or nothing rhetoric. Most gun owners would agree that reasonable safety measures and limits are fine, we just see it as a slippery slope and generally distrust the intent of the anti-gun crowd.
^ I would gladly entertain that line of thought over beer... It's somewhat similar to something I wrote a few months ago. Reading Ricky's conspiracy stuff, I don't think it's a far stretch to think that there is a minority, perhaps with more power than it can handle, that sees any gun regulations from the government as an affront to the 2a... since the language implies the 2a gives you the ability to protect against top-down abuse. Regardless, when you say "some" states, I guess that means it is up to each individual state to make laws and/or impose training and whatnot. That seems impossible to have a positive effect until there is only one governing body that affects all civilians regardless of the location listed on their license plates. Have I misunderstood something? Also, I'm thirsty and finished my scotch bottle late last night (while doing structural drawings too... in your face ricky!).
I’ll buy you a beer. I like drinking and arguing even more than arguing sober:). I believe the last assault rifle ban was federal. I’m also more concerned with illegal purchases, because they often effect way more people. Look at Chicago...kids shooting kids over complete nonsense. I breaks my heart to see this happening, but more than the guns, the underlying reasons for their hopelessness is more disturbing. Removing guns will mitigate, but won’t solve anything. All I’m saying is we need to look deeper for real solutions to these social and mental problems or we will simply replace one manifestation with another like in the U.K. where knife violence has replaced guns...or even the US where meth has replaced crack. The mode of destruction is the surface level....the underlying cause is the deeper level. The idea that guns are the underlying cause annoys me because It’s obviously not true. They allow for a particularly deadly manifestation of violence, but they are not the driver of violence. So as designers and architects can we affect the underlying cause? Should we focus on that rather than the mitigation of damages? Does mitigation worsen the underlying cause by creating hostile environments.
I think shitty environments create shitty people. Certain environments breed certain pathologies. Suburban environments seem to breed this type of mass shooter pathology.
Back to bears...lol...it’s less hostile imo to carry a gun when hiking in the wild than to build paths with barbed wire fences on either side. I brought up arming trained teachers because it may be similar in effect. It’s a simpler way to stop and deter attacks than to fortify schools...just an analogy...
And a bad analogy at that. . .
Yup, no one is taking your guns.
jla... loads of garbage above since I last checked and protection against bear fightclub aside, I have almost as much faith in our ability to design for social change as I do in the USA changing it's views on gun ownership (mostly everyday casual wear handgun CC and self-defence against the "man" 2a stuff... see balkins rant above for more details). I've seen too many social improvement design attempts become nothing more than modular street furniture to give this further thought. Perhaps that's because of the red tape and politics one needs to navigate to get large scale design projects approved? I don't know.
Ricky, I don't think you understand most of the words you've written here.
There is nothing wrong with heavy limitations on gun ownership. Your, as well as most politicians', abstinence from taking this stance promotes gun ownership as the norm and increases the availability of murder toys. This growing availability is a very big problem and it is one that can be addressed in 2 parts: One is a combination of significant increase in restrictions + mandatory yearly training + high annual fees PLUS an aggressive re-education of the public and culture change around the casual attitude folks have with them. Your revolution angle is bullshit and demonstrates you do not have a good understanding of both the issue and available solutions.
I'm all out of tin-foil Ricky and I don't need any of yours.
Of some 250 posts on this topic jlax has over 70.
I think the medical term for this is OCD.
This whole discussion is a work of art. The last time I’ve seen this type of ocd is with conspiracy wackos. It does not matter how many times you can show them that they are dead wrong, they double down at each turn. The only end result is an exponential curve of nonsense. Maybe we should petition for dumpster fire tending as an Olympic sport ( or at least an E sport)
Yesterday, a product rep - repping a totally different product - mentioned how he was either repping a product, or developing a product that fused Kevlar with a building wrap, to be used in Miami-Dade, east coast regions, and in tornado prone areas. I immediately noted, yeah, that would be the perfect product for schools, thanks AIA!
I had a product rep come in to see me a few months ago. His gig was decorative fencing but also had a huge portfolio of high-security fencing complete with brochure showing anti-immigration type fences (and some jails). He was very quick to point out that they use the same promo material from both their american and canadian sales.
In regards to earlier rhetoric that the two (architecture and socio-systemic violence) haven't been/should not be/cannot be/ are not tandem....domestic abuse shelters have sought to protect a key population group from violent attacks for a long time. I would argue that the line of thinking around these issues of systemic violence is occasionally within our scope to incorporate and lend design expertise to the built environment.
I bring it up specifically because much of the design theory and research on the topic of domestic abuse shelters has recently caught wind and been circulated into the discussion of how to better /secure schools from mass shooters.
Whether the locations are disclosed or anonymous the design considerations are primarily: provide a secure campus; provide a sanctuary; provide residences. The first two cross over into school design. A shelter design needs to be secure so survivors have a sense of safety, first and foremost. This is the groundwork because as humans, a sense of safety gives of us sense of autonomy/sense of place(Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs... Afterall, the conception of architecture was an invention of adaptation) The design also should invoke “sanctuary” which means different things different places but often in the US it means cathartic connections to nature: windows/openness to exterior, day-lighting, green spaces, etc. Both the sense of safety and sense of sanctuary are pivotal for key psychological growth and well being. This kind of growth/ learning/self-actualization both coincides and entrenches the built environment. I would argue this applies to the learning process we want in our schools and the desire for schools to available/ open to the surrounding context contrasting with the contemporary need to be secure. There are a lot of site-specific factors effect the architect's proposal can address in this regard, but it is necessary to have both. Together.
In regards to schools, I've seen this as “finger” plans, if that makes sense, where the webs capture open spaces...with shelters it takes on so many different forms. Remote shelters can be more open the landscape in general, but are harder to reach for survivors without private transport nor do they offer the same upward mobility opportunities that shelters located in urban contexts prone to more threats/attacks. What shelters have in their toolbox that schools cannot is the ability to opt into anonymity. A flower-esk plan was implemented in Australia where the shelter is centered in a larger community of houses/buildings. Where adjaceny next to a police station isn't positive for domestic abuse shelters, maybe that would more like deter a would-be shooter.So much of how we answer the issues of security are context based, and as architects, we do occasionally assist in site selection.
I'm barely scratching the surface here but as a profession I would say being able to educate a client on how such factors are pivotal to the development of the end-user would go a long way in the conversation. How to design a secure and protective yet a welcoming and nurturing environment for students is a seemingly contradicting delivery but here we are, needing just that. We definitely need to speak to these issues in the language architecture speaks.
Well said susz. I agree with much of this. Architects aren’t in the business of repealing constitutional amendments, they are in the business of designing buildings. Can defense spaces be incorporated without being detrimental to the quality of the environment? That’s the question. Like anything else, it’s a balancing act. Buildings are designed for fire safety. That can be done in a way that doesn’t create a paranoia effect. This should be treated similarly. The problem is that politics has infected every aspect of society. We can no longer make rational, logical, bipartisan decisions. Everything is tethered to some black and white political ideology.
I waded in here to feature a few comments I think are good for discussion amongst people who want to seriously discuss the role of architects in designing to address threats. Archinect, if you disagree with my approach feel free to remove it.
My 2 cents: Design won't solve societal failures. Architects shouldn't have to think about shootings. The solutions to this problem are way upstream from us. If you're honestly trying to figure out how to design a school to lessen the impact of inevitable attempted massacres, the fight has already been lost.
The American fetishization of the 2nd Amendment is, and always has been, a proxy for white-supremacist ideology and counterrevolutionary action. It was, and continues to be, an ideology built around expanding the frontier and maintaining a settler-colonialist caste system that largely revolves around maintaining by force existing racial hierarchies.
Gun fetishists will speak until they are blue in the face about the need for an armed population to resist state tyranny, yet it is these same thumb-faced freaks who put Thin Blue Line decals on their Ford 350 pick-ups while waving the flag and telling minorities to "obey" law enforcement. They will claim that they need guns to protect from the government while simultaneously hating Colin Kaepernick for protesting violence from armed members of the state (the police). This is not a contradiction in their minds, as they see the primary function of the state (via the police) as being a vehicle for directing state violence against communities of color rather than being a force that judiciously upholds the law. This is why you saw Blue Lives Matter Flags at the failed Jan 6 capitol autogolpe without a hint of irony from those who flew them. It is why you see AR-15 silhouettes on top of Confederate Flags. They understand that the existing societal order of white-male dominance can only be maintained via the projection of force.
They will use the rhetoric of self defense and protecting their family, and protecting against overreach of the government to justify their position on gun ownership, but if you scratch just beneath the surface, you will find that the animating force behind their zealotry is a fear of racial minorities broadly, and a fear of a racial and lower class uprising more specifically. This counterrevolutionary attitude is what drives most gun fetishists to contort themselves into intellectual pretzels, in spite of mountains of factual evidence that suggests that they are actually less safe with their arsenal of firearms easily at their disposal, and at higher risk of murdering someone in their own home or the increased risk of suicide that accompanies gun ownership.
We will never see meaningful gun reform in this country if we don't also see a de arming of our militarized police forces. A highly armed contingent of rabid right-wing reactionaries, and an unaccountable police force are the two militant pillars of White Supremacy in America. These two issues must be tackled concurrently.
Because if we don't, the alternative is then asking architects to design spaces where babies with guns can't kill other babies with guns.
Freedumb!
But only for the oppressor, never for the oppressed.
Holy shit that’s dumb
Not only dumb but incredibly wrong.
You should listen to Colin Noir speak on this issue. He’s a black lawyer and gun advocate.
nope... and fuck your guns and your "right" to have them. You should be deeply ashamed that you feel the need to arm yourself and celebrate as if the 2A is something good. M'rica! we'll never listen and we'll never learn. Pew pew pew. Pathetic weasling.
“But only for the oppressor, never for the oppressed.” Sounds woke, but reality is that anyone can own a gun regardless of race, religion, or sex.
So please explain who the oppressed are and where it says that they cannot partake in the 2A?
pew pew pew, yay I'm a big boy, look at my scary murder toys, pew pew pew.
"reality is that anyone can own a gun regardless of race, religion, or sex."
Ehhhh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
SSTduds, fashionably late to the party.
Apparently I'm the only one around here who gives a shit about the history they don't teach you in AP American Propaganda.
Oh I wasn’t aware this was 1967. I’m well aware of that, and I’ve brought it up before.
The answer to a restriction of liberty isn’t to take the liberty from everyone, it’s to expand it and ensure that it’s available to everyone
Shit ain't changed as much as you might think. Ask Philando Castille.
I agree we should ensure the liberty of not getting shot is available to all citizens.
You’re mistaking defects in the software for defects in the hardware.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.