For the second time this month, I missing school due to a bomb threat

[Irish Caesar]

In one of these school security threads, I mentioned that the schools now have to look tough. Of course, there will also be more bomb threats. Both of these, the threats and the reactions, will subside as time goes on.

We now have to use the "buddy system" to go to the restroom.

Don't girls do that anyway?

 

[Firstlady]

Don't girls do that anyway?

Well...yes..but...ahh nevermind!!

 

[b etor]

yea i think they will. cuz then the one time they dont, BAM someones else dies or gets hurt. some students are such ridiculously stupid attention cravers.

 

[Red Door]

There were bomb threats at my school three days in a row last week.
We now have to use the "buddy system" to go to the restroom.

Wouldn't that only make it worse? Like, 2 kills instead of one.

 

[b etor]

not if one of them is the potential killer!

 

[mrt144]

It's better to be safe than sorry.

safety can be quantified by evaluation of the risk posed vs the potential damage and the actual cost of limiting potential damage.

1. How many bombs that have killed/injured people were phoned it?
2. What has been the most deadly bomb that was phoned in?
3. How often are bomb threats phoned in?
4. How many times have evacuations led to less harm?

I can go on and on all day.

The actual risk of there being a bomb is so low any potential good from constantly evacuating is very low.

 

[Red Door]

safety can be quantified by evaluation of the risk posed vs the potential damage and the actual cost of limiting potential damage.

1. How many bombs that have killed/injured people were phoned it?
2. What has been the most deadly bomb that was phoned in?
3. How often are bomb threats phoned in?
4. How many times have evacuations led to less harm?

I can go on and on all day.

The actual risk of there being a bomb is so low any potential good from constantly evacuating is very low.

1. I don't know, but I'd rather have kids missing a couple of hours of school than having 30 of them killed by a bomb, wouldn't you?
2. I don't know, and who really cares?
3. A lot.
4. Every one. Because you don't know the risk behind every threat.

When you start assuming nothing is happening, it can lead to the death of kids.

Also, a local story, the local public school I would've gone too got a bomb threat 3-4 years ago. Turns out there was some dynamite in the kid's locker. Maybe that's not a threat to you, but some people just don't value human lives.

 

[Nylan]

Wouldn't that only make it worse? Like, 2 kills instead of one.

It's to inconveniance the "bomber"...or prankster more likely, rather than protect the victims.

No one can exactly go graffiti the walls in the bathroom without a witness now. Not foolproof, but hey, it's not fun either.

 

[mrt144]

1. I don't know, but I'd rather have kids missing a couple of hours of school than having 30 of them killed by a bomb, wouldn't you?
2. I don't know, and who really cares?
3. A lot.
4. Every one. Because you don't know the risk behind every threat.

When you start assuming nothing is happening, it can lead to the death of kids.

Also, a local story, the local public school I would've gone too got a bomb threat 3-4 years ago. Turns out there was some dynamite in the kid's locker. Maybe that's not a threat to you, but some people just don't value human lives.

1. I do know the risk behind every threat based on probabilities and inference of situational factors.
2. I find probability by analyzing statistics.
3. I see loss involved where people were harmed and evaluate whether evacuating would have reduced harm
4. Potential harm is not the same as actual harm

and your local story is perfect evidence as to why humans are poor at risk analysis naturally. the weighting of personal experience and anecdote over pure mathematical analysis.

 

[Red Door]

1. I do know the risk behind every threat based on probabilities and inference of situational factors.
2. I find probability by analyzing statistics.
3. I see loss involved where people were harmed and evaluate whether evacuating would have reduced harm
4. Potential harm is not the same as actual harm

and your local story is perfect evidence as to why humans are poor at risk analysis naturally. the weighting of personal experience and anecdote over pure mathematical analysis.

1. So you seem to put little value behind potential human lives. That's nice to know.
2. Yes, history has shown different in the past. If you look at the French in WW2, they thought the Germans wouldn't go through Belgium again? Analyzing statistics only helps in analyzing what happened in the past.
3. Once again, you seem to not have a lot of value for potential lives.
4. It can be though. Potential means it can happen.

I don't use my local story as my logic. I thought the same things before that. You don't seem to value human life, because of the costs. That's pretty sick.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I remember last year one of the grade 6s or 7s pulled a fire alarm as a joke, and when we all went outside it started raining. Really hard.

Instant karma, I guess

 

[mrt144]

1. So you seem to put little value behind potential human lives. That's nice to know.
2. Yes, history has shown different in the past. If you look at the French in WW2, they thought the Germans wouldn't go through Belgium again? Analyzing statistics only helps in analyzing what happened in the past.
3. Once again, you seem to not have a lot of value for potential lives.
4. It can be though. Potential means it can happen.

I don't use my local story as my logic. I thought the same things before that. You don't seem to value human life, because of the costs. That's pretty sick.

1. When have kids died from a bomb that was called in?
2. and building models for the future. 2 instances doesnt make for enough data to model.
3. When has evacuating actually saved lives? the net effect of evacuating vs not evacuating is the same when someone has called in a bomb. more people have died from not evacuating when the bomb wasnt known of. shocked?
4. Is evacuating the best way to reduce potential harm?

See the problem with always evacuating, all the time is, you create a predictable behavior that can be exploited for more harm. if you phone in a bomb threat and get everyone to a predetermined place, there are more available targets are available at this place. The easier it is to kill people.

Also consider that people that call in bombs would probably NOT do that if they actually wanted to harm people. what advantage does a bomber get in announcing it and giving people time to escape if the goal is harm? I can see if it was extortion or terror, but we arent talking about extortion or terror reduction are we?

 

[LucyDuke]

You don't seem to value human life, because of the costs. That's pretty sick.

That's a horrible misrepresentation of what he's saying. Evacuating every time there's a bump in the night (so to speak) doesn't save lives. Period.

 

[Colonel]

lol threats of violence, my school gets atleast 1 or 2 threats every other week, be they bomb threats or gun threats. All they do is keep the place on lockdown and only let us out in the halls during passing period.

 

[Red Door]

1. When have kids died from a bomb that was called in?
2. and building models for the future. 2 instances doesnt make for enough data to model.
3. When has evacuating actually saved lives? the net effect of evacuating vs not evacuating is the same when someone has called in a bomb. more people have died from not evacuating when the bomb wasnt known of. shocked?
4. Is evacuating the best way to reduce potential harm?

1. I don't know. And who really cares, they could still die, who knows whether the caller is serious or a prankster.
2. The future isn't the same as the past, what's going to happen when something like this actually happens.
3. Once again, it might not have saved lives, but there is always the potential that the caller is serious. You can't take a risk with these things. There are human lives involved.
4. Yes, it is. You know why, because people are out of harm's way.

See the problem with always evacuating, all the time is, you create a predictable behavior that can be exploited for more harm. if you phone in a bomb threat and get everyone to a predetermined place, there are more available targets are available at this place. The easier it is to kill people.

There will be Police and etc. from people responding to these threats. They will be protected.

Also consider that people that call in bombs would probably NOT do that if they actually wanted to harm people. what advantage does a bomber get in announcing it and giving people time to escape if the goal is harm? I can see if it was extortion or terror, but we arent talking about extortion or terror reduction are we?

Yet the Columbine killers posted what they were going to do on the internet. Two kids who got caught posted what they were going to do on the internet. I don't know what goes through these people's minds...and neither do you. You're not one of them.

That's a horrible misrepresentation of what he's saying. Evacuating every time there's a bump in the night (so to speak) doesn't save lives. Period.

It saves potential lives. Period.

 

[LucyDuke]

It saves potential lives. Period.

That statement is meaningless. Even if I agreed with you, that statement would be meaningless. You can't save a potential life.

But I won't be unreasonable. I bet you meant "It potentially saves lives", right? Okay. Well, you're right. Evacuating a building every single time there's a bomb threat on that building could potentially save lives.

So could banning peanut butter. Some people have life-threatening peanut allergies, banning peanut butter could potentially save lives.

So could not letting people play football. Some people have gotten hurt and died playing football, not letting people play football could potentially save lives.

So could avoiding driving. Lots of people die in auto accidents, avoiding driving could potentially save lives.

So could overcooking all the meat. Sometimes undercooked meat makes people sick and kills them, overcooking all the meat could potentially save lives.

So could not using prescription drugs. Drug interactions could be fatal, not using prescription drugs could potentially save lives.

So could getting rid of bathtubs. Old people slip in bathtubs and die from their falls, getting rid of bathtubs could potentially save lives.

You can't take a risk with these things. There are human lives involved.

Spoiler :

Yeah, there are a lot of things we could do to protect peoples' lives at all costs. They're not reasonable sacrifices to make. If you evacuate a building every time there's a bomb threat, high school kids are going to call in bomb threats constantly. It's not worth the trade-off. There are risks involved with walking out your front door in the morning, you have to accept that and go on with your day. You can't babyproof the planet.

My 1000th post!

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

My 1000th post!

Gratz!


...I was thinking, with all these 'bomb threats' chances are when wackjob joe decides to bomb a school he wont phone it in!

 

[mrt144]

1. I don't know. And who really cares, they could still die, who knows whether the caller is serious or a prankster.
2. The future isn't the same as the past, what's going to happen when something like this actually happens.
3. Once again, it might not have saved lives, but there is always the potential that the caller is serious. You can't take a risk with these things. There are human lives involved.
4. Yes, it is. You know why, because people are out of harm's way.



There will be Police and etc. from people responding to these threats. They will be protected.



Yet the Columbine killers posted what they were going to do on the internet. Two kids who got caught posted what they were going to do on the internet. I don't know what goes through these people's minds...and neither do you. You're not one of them.



It saves potential lives. Period.

so posting on the internet is the same as calling in a bomb threat? are you simple or just pretending to be? I mean really, the posting of desire to harm people on the internet is fundamentally different than someone phoning in a bomb threat. if you cant separate the two, you will never get it. Using your logic, they should have evacuated columbine EVERY day because of the potential risk.

furthermore assuming the police come out, is that really the best use of police resources? Calling in a bomb threat, then dedicating units to protect students means there will be less police protection elsewhere. There is an opportunity cost involved because there is a finite amount of police protection. If i were a bank robber I would call in a bomb threat at a school to detract from police resources.

1. They could also get food poisoning and are actually more likely to do so. ban cafeteria food!
2. You dont get it, and I dont know whether it's deliberate or biological. The whole reason actuarial sciences, economics, and probability and statistics exist is to build models based on observed events, to predict the likelihood of future events. The whole basis for science is observation of phenomena to create a model explaining why it does.
3. I can take the risk because the risk is non-existent. Show where phoned in threats have actually resulted in loss of life or actual explosions. you cant. and until that happens, the model stands. When the incident happens you adjust the model with that factor.
4. You are either being deliberately ignorant as to how BOMBS work or will never understand it. They are static devices that kill people through proximity. Therefore they are not effective in large scale carnage unless they are appropriately large or complex (in which case they would be more likely discovered). I think it's actually dangerous to condition people to act a certain way in a situation which can then be exploited. Imagine phoning in a bomb threat, then having all the children in a certain place (like play yard) and then driving your car through the mass of children while shooting guns and tossing out pipe bombs and exploding the car ( or better yet, a gas tanker you hijacked). In evacuating you actually cost more lives. Now has that happened? Well according to you that doesnt matter, because it always COULD happen. see how illogical you are?

Again, you have not answered why someone who wants to kill people will make a bomb threat. It's illogical to do so because you are moving people from the proximity of the bomb (unless youre being very sneaky and moving them all closer).

 

[mrt144]

Gratz!


...I was thinking, with all these 'bomb threats' chances are when wackjob joe decides to bomb a school he wont phone it in!

thats exactly the point. if the bomb threat isnt phoned in, the threat is not realized and people will not evacuate to avoid harm.

 

[mrt144]

furthermore jonesboro arkansas is one of the best examples where a predetermined execution of action led to MORE harm. It was predicted by the shooters that in the event of the fire drill they would be able to pick the students off with impunity. And they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonesboro_massacre

When the boys got to the school, Golden set off the fire alarm while Johnson took the weapons to the woods near the school. Golden then ran back to the woods where Johnson had taken the weapons. When children and teachers came out of the school, the two boys opened fire. 13 students and 2 teachers were hit, 5 of whom died. Afterwards they attempted to run back to the van and escape, but were apprehended by police.