Sad news from the East Coast

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

"In most of these situations an unarmed child can be overcome by an adult's bare hands without threat of death to an adult.

"

 

Mitch, actually, here, you have to be trained and certified to put hand on a student.

 

OK, that explains a student tearing up a room while staff stands clear.

 

But is an untrained/uncertified teacher allowed defend himself from an assault, or allowed to physically intervene in an assault on a third party? Or is he only allowed to flee the scene in the former case (or call 911 in the latter)?

[Ken H.]

[Anyone taking a weapon into public setting with the intention of using it has crossed a line.

They no longer value human life, especially others.

They are ready and willing to kill you.

Do we really think we can say that about a 6-year or even 11-year old? Most any phycology thing you read says a person’s ability to fully logic and understand their actions doesn’t fully develop to at least 17 or 18. That in fact is the core bases from which laws that establish when a person can be tried as an adult originate.

 

To say the kid with the gun no longer values human life is a big stretch IMHO. They haven’t even yet cognitively established the concept. Nor have the ability to fully grasp of the consequences of their actions. After all that’s the core of why all of us did stupid thing as a kid. We didn't, indeed where incapable of, fully understanding the consequences of our actions.

[Ken H.]

The use of lethal force in the field does not constitute punishment,

In my book it’s the ultimate punishment. What could be a more stringent method of punishment than you do something --> you die?

[Ken H.]

And, you're also extrapolating to a degree that you know is ridiculous, suggesting that there are those among us who think that mere misbehavior is a grounds for killing.

Of course I’m being rather over the top in some of my examples, being somewhat prone to hyperbole. But the real point is astonishment in how in less than a week the national conversation there has turned from our children being something to love, cherish, nurture, give the benefit of the doubt to, forgive, guide; to being a newly identified enemy we need to arm ourselves against. Astonishing is truly too mild of a word.

 

Why does more guns always seem to be perceived as the solution there anytime something happens? Why does the USA think they can solve anything with more or a bigger gun? (Be it a Glock or an aircraft carrier.) More violence is the solution to violence? ??? It makes no sense. It never will. You’re making a bed, not only do you have to sleep in, you can never get out of.

 

Specific to this subject, your education system is already in a mess, falling behind the world in most every way. Now you want to further deteriorate the situation by arming teachers against students? How in gawd’s name can that be in any way an ingredient for better education and global competitiveness?

 

[Bud]

And so the crazy talk will begin....arm teachers, TSA style body searches etc.

 

What happened today was a tragedy that we cannot hope to understand. Let's also remember that school is, overall, the safest place a child can be. Every year, several dozen students lose their lives at school from a variety of causes. Every case is tragic, whether it's a kid who dies during PE, run over in a crosswalk, or shot. The odds are one in millions that a student will lose his or her life at school.

 

I pray for these kids, their parents, and our community.

 

 

 

 

It has been less than 7 days, seems like your prediction came true.

 

Make a sad situation even sadder.

 

 

[Ken H.]

And so the crazy talk will begin....arm teachers, TSA style body searches etc.

 

What happened today was a tragedy that we cannot hope to understand. Let's also remember that school is, overall, the safest place a child can be. Every year, several dozen students lose their lives at school from a variety of causes. Every case is tragic, whether it's a kid who dies during PE, run over in a crosswalk, or shot. The odds are one in millions that a student will lose his or her life at school.

 

I pray for these kids, their parents, and our community.

It has been less than 7 days, seems like your prediction came true.

 

Make a sad situation even sadder.

"Let's also remember that school is, overall, the safest place a child can be."

 

And actually that’s a key and very important point. I live in a work world of processes & procedures, and one of the key mantras I follow is plan for the 90%, deal with the 10%. You can never pre-plan solutions to everything. Schools are, even still this week, overall a very safe place. There really are no good reasons to go down this arm the teachers path. Overall it (school safety) ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it. The words 100% (safe) don't exist.

 

Sometimes I think this, just like so many other things that have happened, is yet just another excuse for the crowd that is so totally enamoured with their guns, so addicted to the perceived power they think the guns gives them (yes even in the context of the power to defend) to jump up and down and scream we want more - more - MORE!

 

The big ray of hope is that I think the very nature of teachers as a whole will abhor the concept and fight it tooth and nail. But then I thought that about airline pilots too when this whole madness of arming them started. And we know how that ended up.

 

[David13]

Fighting tooth and nail may be a good strategy for little girls. But at some time we have to grow up and fight fire with fire.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1220/In-Texas-a-town-where-the-teachers-carry-guns-video

 

I think one of the teachers in CT did fight tooth and nail. And learned the hard way, that you have to fight fire with fire.

dc

[Mike]

And, you're also extrapolating to a degree that you know is ridiculous, suggesting that there are those among us who think that mere misbehavior is a grounds for killing.

Of course I’m being rather over the top in some of my examples, being somewhat prone to hyperbole. But the real point is astonishment in how in less than a week the national conversation there has turned from our children being something to love, cherish, nurture, give the benefit of the doubt to, forgive, guide; to being a newly identified enemy we need to arm ourselves against.

 

History is replete with tales such as you allude to:

 

[Alan D]

+1 to what MT said! Mike, thank you!

+2

 

 

[upflying]

If there is a silver lining in this whole mess, it appears "assault" weapons are flying off the the shelves of gun merchants. Most have sold out of their inventory. Ironic and sad how tragedy and politics created a booming gun market.(pun intended)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/20/walmart-sells-out-of-assault-rifles-in-five-states-report/

 

[Selden]

I came across an interesting study done by a law enforcement training firm named Hard Tactics. Their study emphasizes that rampage killers often disengage as soon as they're confronted, and that the instances where a killer was engaged by am armed civilian resulted in dramatically fewer fatalities.

 

The part of their study that caught my eye, however, was this: an intended victim is 43 times more likely to survive an incident if he/she confronts the killer.

There are lots of studies, often contradictory: Carrying a Gun Increases Risk of Getting Shot and Killed.

People tend to give weight to those that reinforce their beliefs.

 

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

[Paul Mihalka]

It is a tragedy. Terrible to everybody involved, and for the impossibility of understanding how somebody can do something like this. A deranged mind has no limits in what it will do.

I would leave guns and gun control out of the thread. If you and I have different opinions on the subject, I will not convince you of my opinion and you will not convince me of yours.

Just what I posted early. I guess it couldn't be prevented. Anyways, we are not THAT bad. The ADVrider Connecticut thread is right now at 279 pages and going.

[Quinn]

I apologize in advance.

 

I wonder what would happen if anyone just came out and said that schools are as safe as we can afford to make them; it would simply cost too much to increase security by any significant amount or track down every mentally ill and angry person; we'll just have to learn to live with a statistically small death rate. Just like we do with auto accident deaths that could be further decreased by lowering speed limits to 45 max, getting rid of those big killer SUVs and trucks, having a LEO for each mile of paved road, and requiring everyone to coat their cars in styrofoam.

 

I got so tired of reading the editorials that I put myself in an alternate reality in which the kid ran over the childred at the school with his mother's car. Now when I read the articles, I change assault rifle with SUV, and have the company drop the Escalade brand from their holdings. Nobody needs a three ton vehicle for grocery shopping! We should be limited to common sense Smart Cars with two gallon gas tanks!

 

-----

 

 

[Mike]

I came across an interesting study done by a law enforcement training firm named Hard Tactics. Their study emphasizes that rampage killers often disengage as soon as they're confronted, and that the instances where a killer was engaged by am armed civilian resulted in dramatically fewer fatalities.

 

The part of their study that caught my eye, however, was this: an intended victim is 43 times more likely to survive an incident if he/she confronts the killer.

There are lots of studies, often contradictory: Carrying a Gun Increases Risk of Getting Shot and Killed.

People tend to give weight to those that reinforce their beliefs.

 

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

 

I think it's important to note that we're talking about studies that looked at answering row rather distinct questions. Also--and I'd confess that I haven't read the full study, only the descriptions in other articles and Branas's own synopsis--one should be aware of the fact that a large percentage of Branas's test group (around 50%) had convictions that would have presented a bar to legal possession of a gun, and a fair number were involved in drug transactions at the time of the shootings cited. A much different group from those who carry legally, both in terms of their attitudes and activities. I'd guess that the lifestyles reflected in the study group might have some impact on the study's findings.

[Ken H.]

...we'll just have to learn to live with a statistically small death rate.

That essentially is what I was saying when talking about the social contract earlier. All things have a price. And the price is not always in dollars. If you want a society with lots and lots and lots of guns; the price is a few of your children and other innocent members. You can’t change that by bringing in more guns, that just drives higher the price you have to pay as the social contract remains in balance. THe United States needs to be honest with itself, 'we want lots and lots and lots of guns and we're willing to pay the price.'

[MT Wallet]

You have to be honest with yourself. If all the guns were to magically disappear people (we are savage) would kill and maim their fellows with a knife, an ax a frying pan, fire, acid or some other instrument. It is not just the U.S., it is not the gun. It is humanity. Conflict is the price we pay for having more than one of us.

[Ken H.]

You have to be honest with yourself. If all the guns were to magically disappear people (we are savage) would kill and maim their fellows with a knife, an ax a frying pan, fire, acid or some other instrument. It is not just the U.S., it is not the gun. It is humanity. Conflict is the price we pay for having more than one of us.

I didn’t say suddenly it would be a perfect utopia.

 

But I don’t agree that it’s ‘just way we are.’ Statistics don’t hold that out. There are other areas of the world where people are far more at peace with themselves than in the USA. (And yes, I recognize there are ones where it is worse too.) I just don’t think it’s a given that humans are conflict based by nature. Indeed most of where we are as a species, how we've advanced, what we've achived has been accomplished through cooperation not conflict.

 

[philbytx]

Well, I guess the people have spoken...right?

[Ken H.]

The NRA’s response to Sandy Hook this morning is we need more guns. “Armed guards in every school in America.”

 

How utterly predicable and totally disappointing.

 

How sad.

 

[10ovr]

The NRA’s response to Sandy Hook this morning is we need more guns. “Armed guards in every school in America.”

 

How utterly predicable and totally disappointing.

 

How sad.

I thought he hit the nail on the head,,If there was a armed guard at that school that kid would have never pick it as a target,,,,

[upflying]

Well, I guess the people have spoken...right?

Yep, by the time any gun control legislation occurs, all the "assault" weapons will be safely tucked away protecting American households.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The NRAs response to Sandy Hook this morning is we need more guns. Armed guards in every school in America.

 

How utterly predicable and totally disappointing.

 

How sad.

I thought he hit the nail on the head,,If there was a armed guard at that school that kid would have never pick it as a target,,,,

 

True, an armed guard probably would have deterred or at least cut short) that incident. But an armed guard at every school is a lot of money. There are about 99,000 public schools in the US. Pay an armed security officer $50K (plus benefits, plus management costs, so add roughly $25K to that), and nationally that adds up to about 7.4 billion dollars. Education budgets seem to be moving in the wrong direction to accomodate a solution like that.

[Ken H.]

The NRA’s response to Sandy Hook this morning is we need more guns. “Armed guards in every school in America.”

 

How utterly predicable and totally disappointing.

 

How sad.

I thought he hit the nail on the head,,If there was a armed guard at that school that kid would have never pick it as a target,,,,

If having armed people around (to say nothing of well trained) is the answer, explain Fort Hood.

 

There is absolutely no known correlation between the selected target of mass-killers and its level of armament. These people choose their target based on familiarity and their agenda of the moment. These people know they are in all likelihood going to die (after all many commit suicide in the end) that they may be going into an area that has danger too them is no factor.

 

Especially, especially when we’re taking about armed juveniles who's metal ability to correlate cause & effect is under matured at best.

 

[10ovr]

I would bet there are a lot of retired cops out there that would do it for free,,,

[Quinn]

If having armed people around (to say nothing of well trained) is the answer, explain Fort Hood.

 

 

The people on military bases are generally all unarmed, except for MPs, SPs and those actually on the gun range (where they will be issued their ammo for shooting while they are there). Really Ken, you seem to be just flailling around now, spitting out whatever crosses your mind and hoping some of it sticks. Can you please just calm down and make your points with a nod to the facts instead of just your perceptions run amuck.

 

------

 

 

[Selden]

I rarely find myself in agreement with Charles Krauthammer, but I find this piece compelling: The Roots of Mass Murder.

No answers; just some difficult issues.

[Rocer]

While I was driving about our county today some 500 miles North of Newtown my thoughts were there. I turned the radio on for the news and to hear what the NRA had to say in their scheduled pronouncement on the tragic events in Newtown. As it happened, one of my favourite Christmas songs was playing - Bing Crosby and David Bowie's rendition of the Drummer Boy recorded in 1977.

 

Thirty five years ago Bowie sang the words "I pray my wish will come true, for my child and your child too. He'll see the day of glory, see the day when men of good will, will live in peace , will live in peace again. Peace on earth, peace on earth, let it be, let it be." And my mind went to the shooter and I tried to comprehend how tormented that poor sole must have been to be driven to such an unspeakable deed, what our role was in this, how we were going to grow from this, improve our lives, our children's and our communities? Apparently we've already armed ourselves, our homes, gated our communities and now under the council of the NRA we're told to arm our schools and further instil in our children that the gun is the answer.

 

We might better look for guidance in the words of this song " Every child must be made aware, every child must be made to care, care enough for his fellow man ...to give all the love that he can..." The song closes with "Peace on earth, let it be, let it be. Can it be, can it be." This message has been and continues to be missing from the dialogue surrounding the events in Newtown not the mention all the other similar events since Bing and David sang this song together. We owe it to the families and to the memory of their lost children, the adults killed in this terrible tragedy AND to the shooter and his family, to not wait another 35 years. THIS TIME may we begin to find our way to that peace on earth. Let it be, let it be!

[10ovr]

If having armed people around (to say nothing of well trained) is the answer, explain Fort Hood.

 

 

The people on military bases are generally all unarmed, except for MPs, SPs and those actually on the gun range (where they will be issued their ammo for shooting while they are there). Really Ken, you seem to be just flailling around now, spitting out whatever crosses your mind and hoping some of it sticks. Can you please just calm down and make your points with a nod to the facts instead of just your perceptions run amuck.

 

------

 

+1

[Rougarou]

If having armed people around (to say nothing of well trained) is the answer, explain Fort Hood.

 

 

Spoken like someone that has no idea how a military base functions. I spent 23 years as an active duty Marine, 16 years as an infantryman. Now, to the untrained, one would think that all that time on base, I was armed, but in reality, that untrained thought would be 100% wrong. The only time I was armed with BOTH ammunition AND the weapon was on the ranges (you only receive ammunition while on the range and not prior to going) or as Staff duty.

 

In the rear, such as the episode at Ft Hood, as stated, the only ones that are armed are the MPs, SPs, and some duty personnel. Just like your local law enforcement, these folks cannot be everywhere at all times, and will only react if they actually witness the incident or are called to it. So, the shooting will happen and continue to happen to unarmed personnel until the good guys with guns arrive to subdue the incident.

 

 

[Ken H.]

Well the bottom line is you’re just going to keep on shooting each other down there in hope that somehow that makes something better. Been going on for a long time, will continue to go on. My only hope is that Canada remains smart enough to not go down that same dead end path.

[DiggerJim]

I just don’t think it’s a given that humans are conflict based by nature.

That's a wonderful sentiment not borne out by the facts of 10,000 years of history - including the last 50.

 

I'm glad there are people that believe this. I'm worried when they become the decision makers. Reality exacts a harsh toll from those who refuse to learn from history.

[philbytx]

I trust that last line was a pun Ken

[tallman]

 

 

Well the bottom line is you’re just going to keep on shooting each other down there in hope that somehow that makes something better. Been going on for a long time, will continue to go on. My only hope is that Canada remains smart enough to not go down that same dead end path.

 

 

 

Must be the air up there.

 

Once again you insert your opinion/fear/ignorance and ascribe it to "us".

 

Sad.

Trolling it would seem.

Sad.

 

Didn't you keep your citizenship?

Are you filing US taxes?

You know, best of both sort of thing, or have you finally and totally separated your national identity?

 

I ask because the fear and malignant words just spew forth at every opportunity.

What happened to you?

 

I mourn for the victims.

I offer my work as an example of how one can get involved in making a difference.

I also support a change in how we protect our children.

You can not show any reason why having an armed presence is bad so you resort to this level of slinging

mud and castigating an entire country's population?

 

I'm listening, what is your real world solution?

Not some pie in the sky let's get rid of all the guns ad nauseum.

Given the real world logistics of schools in America, how does Ken propose to make campuses safer and protect our children from violent people?

 

[Mike]

The NRA’s response to Sandy Hook this morning is we need more guns. “Armed guards in every school in America.”

 

How utterly predicable and totally disappointing.

 

How sad.

I thought he hit the nail on the head,,If there was a armed guard at that school that kid would have never pick it as a target,,,,

If having armed people around (to say nothing of well trained) is the answer, explain Fort Hood.

 

 

Ken, the only people on a military base who are always armed are the police--either civilian cops or Military Police/Security Forces. Soldiers may participate in arms training periodically, but they do not keep their weapons with them. The soldiers Hasan shot were all unarmed, essentially sitting ducks, as is the case in the gun-free zones were most rampage killers strike.

 

The first armed individuals to respond were civilian police. As almost always occurs in rampage killings when the intended victims are unarmed, a large number died before anyone had a reasonable chance to stop the killing. You may recall that the numbers killed always are dramatically higher in these situations, when there is no one armed among the intended victims. Sadly, because Hasan killed in an area where he knew no one would be armed, the victims didn't have a chance. It's a considered choice among mass killers to attack the defenseless, and it's the reason that these rampage killers love gun-free zones.

 

 

 

[tallman]

There are about 8500 commercial banks in this country.

There are about 5-6,000 bank robberies annually in USA.

About 20 people die in those robberies/attempts.

We expect and encounter an armed presence at a bank.

 

 

More died in Newtown than all those robberies.

 

Is money more valuable than children's lives?

 

Our local school superindendent petitioned the governor for funding to expand SRO presence in elementary schools.

In one day 20% of all school superintendents in Florida responded

with support for this. Number will grow as school holidays have just begun.

 

I would like to see us value our children more than money.

 

The estimate I saw was $2.4 billion to expand SRO's, still quite a sum in these economic times.

What did we spend in Iraq, was it a billion per day?

Hmmmm

[Quinn]

What I'm hearing is that we should expand the TSA to schools. But what about other "gun-free victim settings"? Maybe movies, shopping malls, office buildings need to tighten up with metal detectors, patdowns, etc. Guess we could carry this forward to stop home invasions as well; a TSA officer and security portal in every home. All this from a country that can't keep thousands of people from illegally crossing our borders every year or find and arrest them once they're here.

 

Personally, I don't have the money to pay for this complete coverage option of all possible bad things that could happen and I can't see turning over my ability to defend myself for less.

 

I agree that teachers, etc. should have the option of obtaining a concealed carry permit and exercising their right to carry on school grounds. It obviously should not be a requirement for them to do so. Just like commercial pilots.

 

-----

 

 

[upflying]

"Concealed" is the key here. No need for children at schools to ever know their teacher is armed. Experienced gun carriers are very discreet about it.

I carry all the time and no one except me knows about it.

Just the knowledge that a teacher could be armed goes a long way to the deterrent effect. Would lanza have chosen the school had he known there could a be possibility of encountering an armed teacher?

As mentioned, some airline pilots are armed. Potential terrorists don't know which one is armed and go elsewhere to plot their mayhem.

As far as armed guards at schools, the Oakland Unified School District employs their own police department to guard schools.

[tallman]

Quinn,

 

Yes, and cheaper too.

 

As far as public places like malls/banks/convenience stores targets of opportunity, I've always thought

a triple, bullet proof glass, series of entry doors would be a nice funnel point/exit trap.

Of course a smart crook would use other strategies if there were employee in/egress points but most of them not so smart.

 

There isn't enough money in education now so diveting funds is a poor concept and no one seems interested in paying higher school taxes, esp down here w/all the grey panthers.

 

Even with a fortress design, you can have a situation like the two very young boys in Arkansas (13 and 11) who pulled a fire alarm to get students/staff outside.

They killed 4 students and 1 teacher and wouded 10 or more.

 

That was 1998.

The oldest was in a facility until 2005 until he was 18 and the younger until 2007.

That was the value of those children and the teacher.

Less than 7 years in a facility for one and 9 years for the other.

What lesson does that teach students?

 

No one wants to face this issue but those two are walking the streets today, free to come and go as they please.

 

So again, redundancy by me, I support staff response because history shows it can and will happen, police response is too slow, confronting the intruder most likely will end or reduce the casualty total, and no one can show that an armed staff (or portion thereof) creates a situation with the negative outcome an armed intruder causes.

 

Ask any of the families of the victims in Newtown, would you have liked a different outcome for your loved one?

The answer would be yes.

No guarantees of a dif outcome of course, but I wish we had the luxury to be discussing whether the shooting of an armed intruder by a staff member was acceptable and no one else had been shot.

 

[philbytx]

Quinn,

 

I am totally against the TSA being expanded, especially in schools!

 

However, schools are one of the "gun free zones" where CCW holders are unable to carry.

 

CCW holders, except where posted, are able to carry in movie theaters, shopping malls, office buildings, supermarkets etc.

 

I am definitely for CCW in schools, should EMPLOYEES wish to do so.

 

[Rocer]

An Open Letter to My Fellow Canadians

 

Guns in Societies

 

The social fabric of a society has many threads. Some are quite formal and defined, such as laws, rules and regulations. Others far less subtle, the day to day norms that we follow in our behavour, often even subconsciously. All together they compose the social contact that defines a society’s functionality, morals, values and structure. Its existence cannot be denied. And like all contracts, there are benefits gained in exchange for prices paid. The tragedy in Newton, Conn. is very much a part of the social contract of the USA that its citizens, indeed the highest law of that land have entered into. In exchange for their precious gun rights they have agreed to sacrifice some of their children and other members of that society. They will likely deny it fervently, but it is true.

 

In a culture that is enamored with guns like we Canadians are about Tim Horton’s or hockey, times 10, where guns are viewed by many both on a personal level and indeed by the government itself on an international scale as the preferred solution to problems; that these incidents do and will continue to happen should not be a surprise to anyone. Indeed the social contract virtually demands it.

 

However as the gun lobby slowly but undeniably creeps stronger here Canada

there’s a lesson to be learned. Not for the USA, as that nation turns on itself it’s too late for them, but for each and every Canadian. Both personally and in whom we choose to lead us. It’s not too late for us but the window is closing. Let’s make sure the outrage to “never let this happen again” that is again everywhere there for a fleeting moment is also present here; vowing to never ever allow Canada to go down that same path. Our strength is in our difference from the USA, not our sameness, let’s keep it that way.

And, you're also extrapolating to a degree that you know is ridiculous, suggesting that there are those among us who think that mere misbehavior is a grounds for killing.

Of course I’m being rather over the top in some of my examples, being somewhat prone to hyperbole. But the real point is astonishment in how in less than a week the national conversation there has turned from our children being something to love, cherish, nurture, give the benefit of the doubt to, forgive, guide; to being a newly identified enemy we need to arm ourselves against. Astonishing is truly too mild of a word.

 

Why does more guns always seem to be perceived as the solution there anytime something happens? Why does the USA think they can solve anything with more or a bigger gun? (Be it a Glock or an aircraft carrier.) More violence is the solution to violence? ??? It makes no sense. It never will. You’re making a bed, not only do you have to sleep in, you can never get out of.

 

Specific to this subject, your education system is already in a mess, falling behind the world in most every way. Now you want to further deteriorate the situation by arming teachers against students? How in gawd’s name can that be in any way an ingredient for better education and global competitiveness?

 

Tim, it might be helpful if you back track and read some of Ken's earlier posts such as those I've quoted above. He has made reference at least twice to U.S. campaigns abroad and the armaments associated with the armed forces. I think we all understand the associated immense costs to mount these campaigns. In your post you don't suggest those costs will be diminished to pay for the NRA's solution but rather that the U.S. can continue to expand its' reliance on guns as a solution both within and beyond it's borders.

 

From my perspective, at this point in our history, is that the NRA would be making constructive suggestions such as limiting specific types of guns that spew bullets at the rate that the Bushmaster is capable of, of limiting magazine sizes, requiring safe storage of guns and eliminating the 40% of non-certification of gun purchases made privately. Rather, the NRA jumps immediately to the ramparts of expanding the proliferation of guns in our day to day lives with no acknowledgement in the instance of the events in Newtown that mistakes were made and had they not been made all of this may not have happened.

 

Your position of arming our schools, while on the surface might appear as a legitimate solution, doesn't take into account the real risk of guns in schools being used irresponsibly. Nor does your solution of arming the schools reflect on the further instilling in our children that might is right and the way that we are to deal with our problems.

 

It's especially frightening to think that one of the solutions put forth by the NRA is that they provide a private army of volunteers trained by the NRA to protect these schools. Seriously, how do you think that will really play out?

 

[tallman]

Rocer,

 

the only lesson the dead children learned was that might was triumphant and they died.

 

I'm looking at a specific, violent intruders who kill people on campus.

Not foreign policy etc.

Obviously since the USA is the world's number one seller of weapons, anyone without rose glasses

realizes guns are, and will be, a part of our Society and culture.

So any discussion about removing them all is quite unlikely to result in that outcome.

Keeping that in mind...

 

I have read all the posts, including Ken's posts.

 

I read people using the tragedy to condemn the USA and its people which may be a proper POV, but, doesn't solve the problem.

 

Talking won't solve it, legislation won't solve it.

Perhaps curing all the mental helath issues etc would help.

But let's get real.

Somewhere in 2013-14, most likely, a violent intruder will enter a campus and murder people.

Should we present the intruder with a copy of the Bible/Koran/Talmud or perhaps state statutes?

 

Social contracts are fine.

But all contracts have exceptions and exclusions or people who breach them.

 

Expecting everyone to act as "I" do, to have the same values/mores/customs/values etc simply becasue of geographical/political boundaries is a falacy, IMO.

Just look at eastern europe after the fall of the USSR.

 

In our country some states have legalized marijuana, some have medical exceptions for use, and some lock you up.

We are one country but not one people.

 

Making predictions about what could happen ( a gun on campu could be lost/ used improperly/send the wrong message etc)

is merely a smoke scren, IMO.

None of that has happened and resulted in death on campus.

Let's deal with what has happened, not a hypothetical, please.

 

I feel your concern about Canada/gun lobby etc.

You are a law abiding concerned member of your society who probably follows rules

and cares about other people.

The problem is, there are people who don't, and if you are on the other side, like you are, it is impossible to think/see/feel like the criminal armed intruder who will kill children.

No amount of psychobabble will change that.

Like a pedophile or rapist, different wiring than you or I and no amount of reading/study etc will ever allow me to feel/think the way that armed intruder does.

To expect such a person to abide by a Social Contract is wishful thinking, IMO.

 

Thursday we had to return a child to his father.

Dad just got out of prison.

Dad was in prison for child molestation.

Won't go into if the child was a victim.

Don't get me started...

Our state has a sex offender website.

It is unnerving to put in an address and see all of the registered sex offenders around.

Expecting them to abide by a Social Contract isn't even wishful thinking, it is as flawed as their thinking is, IMO.

 

I've known serial killers.

They had a day job, a family, and appeared to abide by a Social Contract.

Except for this one thing...

My wife was an RA, on duty, and Ted Bundy passed thru her floor on the night he killed in Tallahassee.

 

You can't tell when/where you might find yourself a potential victim.

It isn't a fear driven response I'm advocating, rather a way to perhaps prevent or end a campus massacre.

No more, no less.

 

BTW, I read almost every post on this site.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

I think a lot of the divisive social issues of our time are not very divisive on a local level, but are very divisive between regions. Examples would be marijuana, gay marriage, national health care, and gun laws. There are states where the majority of the people would be happy knowing that school teachers were armed, and states where they definitely wouldn't. Unlike marijuana, which is already covered by federal laws, isn't arming teachers a local issue anyway? What do people in California or Massachusetts (and Canada, for that matter) care about what people in Texas or Florida do about arming teachers? Why should people in Texas or Florida care about what people in Washington or Colorado do about marijuana?

 

I think a lot of these divisive issues could be less divisive if they were tailored to meet the different expectations of different regions. Even something as divisive as national health care could be easier to digest if some thought were given about how to insulate regions that didn't want to participate from the costs and benefits, rather than insisting on a one size fits all solution.

[Rocer]

Tim, thanks for your response. I'd like to respond to some of your comments:

 

 

Rocer,

 

the only lesson the dead children learned was that might was triumphant and they died.

 

....I think now it's incumbent that each of us learn what role all of us had in what unfolded in Newtown. Earlier in this thread I questioned how a teacher's retirement fund could be used to finance, to take profit from the gun industry. It's details like this that we now must begin to look at and ask questions. One of our teacher's unions had invested heavily in the tobacco industry while at the same time were teaching the hazards of smoking - same thing. I remember reading some time ago about the Vatican's stock holdings in companies that manufactured arms for the world's armed forces. We have to start looking deeper within our societies to find the links. It's our lessons to learn now. It's too late for the dead. We owe this to their families.

 

I'm looking at a specific, violent intruders who kill people on campus.

Not foreign policy etc.

Obviously since the USA is the world's number one seller of weapons, anyone without rose glasses

realizes guns are, and will be, a part of our Society and culture.

So any discussion about removing them all is quite unlikely to result in that outcome.

Keeping that in mind...

 

I have read all the posts, including Ken's posts.

 

....I have no question that you read the posts I quoted but only included them as refreshers and for context. There's no doubt in my mind that you are thorough. I'm just in a different place than you are and respectfully take issue with some of your solutions. I have no expectations that guns will cease to be part of your nor my culture. I do expect that when deficiencies in our laws that allow guns into the hands of those who should never be allowed to handle them, be addressed. That is to say, before we arm all of our schools why aren't we invoking laws about who can own guns, about safe and secure storage etc. before adding more guns to the mix.

 

I read people using the tragedy to condemn the USA and its people which may be a proper POV, but, doesn't solve the problem.

 

Talking won't solve it, legislation won't solve it.

Perhaps curing all the mental helath issues etc would help.

But let's get real.

Somewhere in 2013-14, most likely, a violent intruder will enter a campus and murder people.

Should we present the intruder with a copy of the Bible/Koran/Talmud or perhaps state statutes?

 

....it should all be on the table Tim. Talking, tweaking or adding laws, we're not going to cure all mental health issues but we need to understand how we are going to deal with mental illness in various contexts not just gun related. Housing comes to mind.

 

Social contracts are fine.

But all contracts have exceptions and exclusions or people who breach them.

 

Expecting everyone to act as "I" do, to have the same values/mores/customs/values etc simply becasue of geographical/political boundaries is a falacy, IMO.

Just look at eastern europe after the fall of the USSR.

 

In our country some states have legalized marijuana, some have medical exceptions for use, and some lock you up.

We are one country but not one people.

 

Making predictions about what could happen ( a gun on campu could be lost/ used improperly/send the wrong message etc)

is merely a smoke scren, IMO.

None of that has happened and resulted in death on campus.

Let's deal with what has happened, not a hypothetical, please.

 

....We just had a shooting in Geesytown PA in which a man who had killed 3 people was himself killed by 3 State Troopers who in turn were all wounded or injured when they confronted him. One gunman, 3 dead victims and 3 professional policemen wounded or injured. It's not a stretch to consider hypothetical outcomes in the event of confrontations involving guns especially in a school environment. If the spokesman for the NRA can make a simplistic statement "only a bad guy with a gun can be stopped by a good guy with a gun" then please allow me the courtesy to address the possibility as to what 'might' happen in a shoot out in a school. I think your armed forces invented the term "collateral damage" the potential of which is a frighting reality when a school is involved.

 

I feel your concern about Canada/gun lobby etc.

You are a law abiding concerned member of your society who probably follows rules

and cares about other people.

The problem is, there are people who don't, and if you are on the other side, like you are, it is impossible to think/see/feel like the criminal armed intruder who will kill children.

No amount of psychobabble will change that.

Like a pedophile or rapist, different wiring than you or I and no amount of reading/study etc will ever allow me to feel/think the way that armed intruder does.

To expect such a person to abide by a Social Contract is wishful thinking, IMO.

 

....Of course there will be "such a person" in our communities. It's just that we are at odds on how we are going to deal with them. I'm suggesting that there are proactive ways that we can do so, not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but we need to exhaust that route before expanding the proliferation of guns and the attitude that the solution is at the end of a barrel.

 

Thursday we had to return a child to his father.

Dad just got out of prison.

Dad was in prison for child molestation.

Won't go into if the child was a victim.

Don't get me started...

Our state has a sex offender website.

It is unnerving to put in an address and see all of the registered sex offenders around.

Expecting them to abide by a Social Contract isn't even wishful thinking, it is as flawed as their thinking is, IMO.

 

....no issue Tim. I don't expect they can/will abide to a "Social Contract". More to the point, is our community demanding enough of our elected officials to deal effectively with such people?

 

I've known serial killers.

They had a day job, a family, and appeared to abide by a Social Contract.

Except for this one thing...

My wife was an RA, on duty, and Ted Bundy passed thru her floor on the night he killed in Tallahassee.

 

You can't tell when/where you might find yourself a potential victim.

It isn't a fear driven response I'm advocating, rather a way to perhaps prevent or end a campus massacre.

No more, no less.

 

BTW, I read almost every post on this site.

[tallman]

I saw your earlier post about the retirement investment.

 

Not sure many people know the entire investment strategy and holdings in a large fund, but, it would make sense to invest in companies making a profit.

 

Don't necessarily agree with the choice but I have read that divestment happening.

 

I saw the shooting incident you refer to.

Car chase, previous shooting/fleeing etc.

 

Not comparable to a closed setting, IMO.

In a static situation, typical that "might makes right" (remember the horrible shootouts such as the North Hollywood situation where thousands of rounds exchanged and police were outmatched with automatic weapons).

That confrontation led to changes in police weaponry and some tactics.

 

So yes, a situation like that could happen on a campus.

But I would imagine that teachers who had a class would be assigned to stay with that group and only act in self defense with perhaps a designated admin(s) or guard/SRO would seek the intruder(s).

 

Regardless, the mental health aspect is another completely separate

situation as it does not matter about mental capacity if a gun is involved wrt self defense.

 

I'm taking some time off from this thread.

I don't want to ever read about children being massacred or college students murdered or staff killed becasue they chose to go on campus tolearn or into a profession that legislatively takes away their 2nd amendment rights.

 

Unfortunately, that won't be the case.

[David13]

The NRA’s response to Sandy Hook this morning is we need more guns. “Armed guards in every school in America.”

 

How utterly predicable and totally disappointing.

 

How sad.

 

Yes, how utterly predictable and totally disappointing that you wouldn't be able to figure out where the idea came from. How sad.

dc

 

 

 

Mod Edit: It would be nice if the tone here was ratcheted down to a friendly level. Christmas is tomorrow, after all.

[Selden]

Quinn,

 

I am totally against the TSA being expanded, especially in schools!

 

However, schools are one of the "gun free zones" where CCW holders are unable to carry.

 

CCW holders, except where posted, are able to carry in movie theaters, shopping malls, office buildings, supermarkets etc.

 

I am definitely for CCW in schools, should EMPLOYEES wish to do so.

I heard an interview this morning with the principal of Heath High School, where 3 were killed in 1997. He said that the whole shooting was over in 12 seconds. Although he was for an armed guard with police training, he was totally against teachers (or himself) being armed. There was an armed guard at Columbine High School in 1999.

 

Armed guards can reduce, but not eliminate tragedies like this. If individual school districts want to hire armed guards, fine, but this isn't a mandate that should be forced on schools by the federal government, nor should it be federally funded. Overall, a school is the safest place a child can be these days — far more children die at home every year.

[MT Wallet]

Quinn,

 

I am totally against the TSA being expanded, especially in schools!

 

However, schools are one of the "gun free zones" where CCW holders are unable to carry.

 

CCW holders, except where posted, are able to carry in movie theaters, shopping malls, office buildings, supermarkets etc.

 

I am definitely for CCW in schools, should EMPLOYEES wish to do so.

I heard an interview this morning with the principal of Heath High School, where 3 were killed in 1997. He said that the whole shooting was over in 12 seconds. Although he was for an armed guard with police training, he was totally against teachers (or himself) being armed. There was an armed guard at Columbine High School in 1999.

 

Armed guards can reduce, but not eliminate tragedies like this. If individual school districts want to hire armed guards, fine, but this isn't a mandate that should be forced on schools by the federal government, nor should it be federally funded. Overall, a school is the safest place a child can be these days — far more children die at home every year.

 

I don't think armed police in the schools is so far off the mark. When I lived in Michigan we had LEO liason officers doing community policing. In our local school district we have the same here. Theory was/is it would control drugs and disorderly conduct. If it stops an armed gunman all the better. It should be a local school district decision. If the feds want to pony up money for it so much the better. I think the NRA position in this instance isn't so "predictable" or is to be dispariged.

[John Ranalletta]

IMO, it's a mistake to charge teachers and administrators with childrens' safety from all types of harm. That's a police responsibility. An earlier poster noted that almost every bank has an armed guard, why not schools? I agree with what I believe to be the intent of that comment; however, the comparison fails on at least one count. We deposit money in banks for the specific purpose of safeguarding. Parents don't send kids to school for the specific purpose of guarding from any and all jeopardy. It's an unreasonable expectation.

 

If I were a principal, I'd certainly do everything within my power (and budget) to protect the students, but I would not take on the responsibility to protect them from a Columbine or Newton-like event.

 

The police, if used, should not be school employees nor should they be the 300-pound "Paul Blart"/TSA types who can barely lift themselves from their chairs. They should be police, sheriff's deputies and or state troopers who are trained and in such a physical condition that would allow them to react quickly and appropriately to protect students.

[pbharvey]

There was a full time resource officer assigned to Columbine.

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

 

 

A Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy, Neil Gardner, was assigned to the high school as a uniformed and armed school resource officer. At the time of the shooting, Gardner was on his lunch break in his patrol car. He was just northwest of the school, watching students in the "Smokers’ Pit" in Clement Park. Around 11:23, the custodian radioed him, requesting assistance in the "back lot". While on his way, Gardner heard on his radio that a female was down. While leaving the car, he heard in another call, "Neil, there’s a shooter in the school"

 

 

Columbine involved multiple shooters as well as bombs.

 

At 11:10 a.m. Harris and Klebold arrived separately at Columbine High School. Harris parked his vehicle in the Junior student parking lot and Klebold in the Senior student parking lot. From these locations, each had an excellent view of the school cafeteria's side entrance, and each had initially intended to open fire upon students fleeing the school through the main entrances after bombs placed inside the cafeteria detonated.

 

The first child shot at Columbine was outside the school building.

 

 

A person intent on slaughtering people will simply slaughter the armed guard first in the same way that the shooter at Sandy Hook was faced with a locked door and simply shot the glass out and walked in.

 

Children on school buses are more vulnerable than children in a school building.

 

I'm a father of five. I've taught Sunday school and coach youth sports. I love children but frankly I don't think they can be physically protected from a mad man.

 

May God comfort all those affected by these tragedies, especially during this holiday season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

Ken, the only people on a military base who are always armed are the police--either civilian cops or Military Police/Security Forces. Soldiers may participate in arms training periodically, but they do not keep their weapons with them. The soldiers Hasan shot were all unarmed, essentially sitting ducks, as is the case in the gun-free zones were most rampage killers strike.

But you (and several others) miss my point by zeroing in on the fact that I called out Fort Hood. There was an armed guard at Columbine, he fired at the perps several times and missed them.

 

But the point is that an armed area isn’t deterrent to the people who set out to do these things. They chose their target regardless of the level of armament there. That’s why I don’t see how arming teachers/principles will be a deterrent to what targets these people choose. Which is the bases for the NRA’s argument.