We already told you about the very difficult time Washington Post editor and columnist Karen Tumulty is having wrapping her brain around the idea of one-way exit doors in schools.
Wouldn't building schools with only one door create other problems? Like making it harder for kids to get out if, say, there is a fire? https://t.co/L7T7SB2fbO
— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) May 26, 2022
But if you think it’s sad that a Washington Post columnist would struggle with something like this, imagine how disappointed you’d be to learn that an even more widely respected genius person had also been done in while trying to understand.
The left trying to understand how a place can have one entry but lots of exits. pic.twitter.com/5f5wFC7OwP
— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) May 26, 2022
And when you’re talking about widely respected genius people, you’re talking, of course, about the folks at The Bulwark. Like Tim Miller, for example.
See, Tim Miller — unlike anyone who thinks one-way exit doors might be one of several possible safety measures that can be taken to prevent school shootings or at least minimize the loss of life — went to a big high school. Look, here’s a picture of the campus:
Have the people pushing the “single entry point to school” solution ever…seen a school?
Here’s my high school pls explain to me how that’s going to work. pic.twitter.com/J0iskrkidh
— Tim Miller (@Timodc) May 25, 2022
Pls explain to Tim how a single point of entry in a school is going to work.
Recommended
No, seriously. Please explain it to him. Because he genuinely seems to be struggling to understand.
Tim: Each building gets limited to only one point of entry. Same number of exits it currently has, but those doors cannot be opened from the outside. The one door that opens from the outside has a vestibule, security cameras, and people need to be cleared into the building.
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) May 26, 2022
Well there you go, Tim! You could’ve saved yourself a little bit of effort and a whole lot of public humiliation had you just used your brain a little.
Alas, you didn’t. And so we’re left with no choice but to mock and deride you.
Oh, Tim. https://t.co/sGMxVNUJaE https://t.co/ty5mCR3uIV
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) May 26, 2022
Oh, Tim.
I can't get over that he labeled the sports fields. pic.twitter.com/rzAREmN4eE
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 26, 2022
And how the hell is a tennis court a point of entry? Or a baseball field? 🤦♂️
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) May 26, 2022
"For you one entry point people, what if the shooter is a baseball player. Checkmate cons"
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 26, 2022
ah, yes, your football field and baseball diamond are an entry points into your old high school.
the brain trust at the bulwark. pic.twitter.com/aAnp7shKLH
— kaitlin, by definition, a woman (@thefactualprep) May 26, 2022
How embarrassing.
But the sports-fields-as-points-of-entry aspect isn’t nearly the most asinine and frustrating part of Tim’s argument.
No, that honor belongs to Tim’s outright dismissal of the notion that single points of entry are a solution worth considering at all. It just doesn’t make sense, and that sort of attitude is what will actually prevent more Uvaldes and Parklands and Sandy Hooks.
"What if a school shooter brings a rocket launcher and blows a hole in the wall?" are great arguments for having no mitigation safety measures.
— Holden (@Holden114) May 26, 2022
"We can't have security measures of X complexity because an X+1 shooter could circumvent it."
Yeah, but you've still protected yourself from an <X potential shooter.
— Holden (@Holden114) May 26, 2022
This is like the old days of the missile defense debate.
"We can never shoot down 100% of the missiles, so why bother?""Because you still just lost a dozen cities." https://t.co/iPg6kiizLc
— NeverTweet (@LOLNeverTweet) May 26, 2022
Protecting yourself from a shooter who doesn't have someone on the inside to open the fire exit is a worthwhile security measure.
— Holden (@Holden114) May 26, 2022
The people who think hardening school security is too difficult think eliminating the threat from firearms is easy.
Perhaps if Miller tried talking to, rather than at people he disagrees with… https://t.co/T1Sz2R4zX1
— Jason Hamby (@IPAzRGR8) May 26, 2022
Pretty clear that the majority of people criticizing the 'single point of entry' idea (which, by the way, was first suggested by a committee of experts after Columbine, and was reiterated after Newtown in their study) have never visited a school with this in practice.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) May 26, 2022
granted, high schools are harder than elementary schools b/c the students have more freedom (and the shooter is often a student)
but this attitude is just self-defeating
"oh no, the problem is hard"
yeah, it's a hard problem, which is why you tackle them one step at a time https://t.co/2iVwCbAp0N
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) May 26, 2022
This entire attitude is why we keep failing.
PERFECTION IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.
There are PLENTY of good solutions. Lots of them. Will they solve 100% of the problems? No. None of them will.
But when there is a good solution, rejecting like this only hurts the cause. https://t.co/X41SXpOrkd
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) May 26, 2022
There are multiple things that can tried simultaneously to prevent school shootings. There doesn't have to be One Policy To Rule Them All, even if that's easier for the media to narrate and politicians to pitch in fundraising emails. https://t.co/rbtxF3NJ2v
— Carl Paulus (@CarlPaulus) May 26, 2022
That right there is the key: media need violence like mass shootings in order to justify their existence, and Democratic politicians need violence like mass shootings in order to fund their existence. It’s sickening and twisted.
Tim is spreading misinformation concerning school security protocols which deter school shooters. He is making it more difficult for schools to enact actual solutions.
Don't be like Tim. https://t.co/KRb8MKZ3EJ
— Anthony Abides (@AnthonyAbides) May 26, 2022
There are a number of reasons not to be like Tim, but this is definitely one of them.
RT this, because…I mean, again, I am willing to consider #1, but..
…IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW LOCKED DOORS HELP KEEP PEOPLE OUT???
I am not sure I can trust you with anything else. https://t.co/ZCIuCf48n2
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) May 26, 2022
To watch the Left reject the idea of…locks (that is literally what they are doing)…is mind boggling.
Again, these solutions won't magically solve anything. But delaying the shooter by even a few critical minutes can save lives.
But people are like "Nah, that won't work."
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) May 26, 2022
We are such a totally ridiculous society. Simple things that are obvious are controversial.
"Broken families are bad" – "WHAT? We can't fix that!"
"Locks might be good." – "LOCKS ON SCHOOLS!?!? THAT IS CRAZY TALK!"
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) May 26, 2022
Single points of entry and one-way exit doors will not guarantee that there’s never another school shooting, but it’s a realistic partial solution to a very serious problem. Gun control proponents should absolutely support it. It’s just common sense.
We're going to end up with schools that refuse to lock their doors from the outside just to own the cons, aren't we?
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) May 26, 2022
They'll remove them from the hinges entirely to super own the cons. Then they'll make TikToks dancing and singing showtunes in the empty doorways. https://t.co/n8dzgxCELG
— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) May 26, 2022
Is that what you want, Tim?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member