Jump to content
IGNORED

Sad news from the East Coast


Bud

Recommended Posts

"Concealed" is the key here. No need for children at schools to ever know their teacher is armed.

I think you’re short changing the perception abilities of children. They see, and more importantly communicate like wild fire, everything. All it will take is one kid to get a glance at a weapon any time over the course of years and it will spread via text messages and everything else in seconds.

 

But just importantly, and not yet mentioned (I think) is the long term impact this will have on future generations perceptions of how to solve problems. Children are very impressionable. They will learn by example that an acceptable way to deal with issues is by armament. Not social skills but gun skills. And I can see how in any way that boles well for a more peaceful society.

 

Link to comment
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.

 

Ken, I don't understand your point regarding Fort Hood, then. Could you explain? I thought you were pointing it out as an example of a mass shooting that occurred despite the presence of armed defenders. ???

Link to comment
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.

 

I beg to differ. In the overwhelming majority of situations criminals choose the soft target. If a criminal simply wishes to kill one person, they can choose the location and to a great degree the level of risk involved to them. When a criminal wishes to commit mass murder they must go where the people are. Typically this means they choose a soft target. A place where they can be reasonably certain that there will be little to no immediate resistance. That is why we see the rash of shootings at malls, theaters, military installations and yes schools.

 

The thing is by posting these places as, "Gun free zones," we paint huge targets on them. Why would a criminal who already plans on committing multiple felonies up to and including mass murder change his plans simply because there is a sign? A, "No guns allowed," sign is not a cross that wards off vampires! Only those who actually obey laws, will be affected by it! Merely the possibility of having someone already on site and armed would be beneficial. I hear many arguing that teachers\civilians are not police and Soldiers, and this is true. But an armed staff member\teacher\citizen doesn't necessarily have to terminate the threat to be successful. Ever second the active shooter is occupied, every round fired towards the armed citizen is one less spent on murdering students. If it is possible to stop the threat, that's optimal, but overall we are practicing damage control until overwhelming force in the form of law enforcement arrives.

 

Link to comment

Ken, I don't understand your point regarding Fort Hood, then. Could you explain? I thought you were pointing it out as an example of a mass shooting that occurred despite the presence of armed defenders. ???

 

Unfortunately, for the most part our military installations are soft targets. It's common knowledge that the only people armed on post are the Military Police (which like any police force can't be everywhere at once), and Soldiers on ranges. I hate to admit it, but considering that there is no concealed carry on any military\government installation I'd consider military posts to be softer targets than most US Cities in states where concealed carry is at least an option. (Granted our installations have good security at the gates, but if a criminal penetrated that first layer of defense... It's one big soft target)

Link to comment
Must be the air up there.

 

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

It is my opinion, whether or not I’m fearful I don’t believe you’re in a position to judge, and calling me ignorant is a personal insult, one which I am quite sure is a violation of the rules of this board. (And BTW, implying in a negative connotation that there is something in “the air up there” is insulting to all Canadians.)

 

Didn't you keep your citizenship?

Yes

 

Are you filing US taxes?

I do.

 

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

I personally identify with, and care deeply about, both countries.

 

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

See above reply regarding your incorrect perception of my being fearful.

ISFA “malignant words” I say what I say out of deep concern for the future of the USA and the many friends and family that we still have there.

 

What happened to you?

Nothing ‘happened to me’ at least in the happened suddenly sense. What happened is a long growing over time deep discontent and disappointment in the direction that once great country has chosen to take. And a growing inability to tolerate it. What also happened was a full acknowledgement of how hypocritical it would to be there and roundly criticized it. In other words the old, ‘If you don’t like it leave it’ axiom. So I did.

 

My views now centre both around my continuing concern for the future of the USA, how it will impact many, many people in the rest of the world, including Canadians, and a deep hope that Canada doesn’t make the same mistakes (on many subjects) that the USA has.

 

I mourn for the victims.

I do too.

 

You can not show any reason why having an armed presence is bad

I’ve mad a number of posts already why I think an armed presence in schools would be bad. But I’ll add another – It will foster a sense in children that adults fear them and create deep self-worth emotional scars that will have long term negative consequences as they strive to become functional adults themselves.

 

Now you or anyone else are free to think I’m full of BS, but it is summarily untrue to say I haven’t given reason for what and why I think what I do.

 

so you resort to this level of slinging mud and castigating an entire country's population?

Not mud slinging at all, and I’m not castigating the USA’s entire population. But I am so of many of its policies and in particular this latest call to arms.

 

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.

First off for the record I’ve never advocated “let’s get rid of all the guns ad nauseum.” While I find the concept of recreational killing of anything, i.e. hunting personally repulsive, I do recognize that some find it enjoyable and guns apparently have a part in that. Heck it’s deeply rooted in Canadian history too.

 

But that’s not what of advocates of gun restrains are talking about (at least not most). If the NRA wanted to make a constructive contribution to the dialog on guns’ role in the USA Friday they could of acknowledged that it’s time to take a look at do all these weapons who’s sole purpose is to kill people in mass really have a valid role in society? But noooo their only answer is more, more, more. It’s insanity.

 

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

If I had the answer to that I’d have won the Nobel Peace Prize already, eh?

 

But I do think there is a different mindset, and different national dialog that would have more potential over time to be effective. And not just talk, real money spent. I.e. millions of dollars. And that’s in learning to understand why people want to do these things in the first place. Root cause analyses. Research, studying, working to learn the reasons, the causes and the cure. Just like we do for example cancer, heart disease, automobile deaths, and many other subjects we have tackled as a society.

 

Arming schools to try to stop someone from doing something they’ve decided to do is not the answer, learning the why, and correcting the why they decided to do it in the first place is the answer. Why is it? What trips the kid to go shoot up his school? We don’t truly know. Because we’ve never tried to find out. At least not in any real dedicated way. Earlier in this thread there was some discussion on mental health issues. (Although it got rather sidetracked on zeroing in on AS.) That conversation at least had an element of proactiveness. If we spent even 20% on R&D into why people do what they do as we spend on armament we’d be light years ahead in solving it. It’s a horribly complex problem, but so what bacteria based diseases before we set out to solve it and did. Or space travel. Or a myriad of other problems we have solved. To say people will always do these things, we just need to shoot them before they do - is a defeatist attitude that will only escalate, exasperate the situation. “First seek to understand...”

 

Link to comment
Ken, I don't understand your point regarding Fort Hood, then. Could you explain? I thought you were pointing it out as an example of a mass shooting that occurred despite the presence of armed defenders. ???

That is my point Mike, Fort Hood was just the incident I sited.

 

Let me try a different parallel – banks. Banks have a long history of having armed guards in place and a long history of being robbed. Often times with deaths involved. Often that of the robber. The fact that the target is ‘defended’ in some respect or another isn’t a deterrent to the people who choose to rob them. They’ve already accepted the risk to themselves as an acceptable risk.

 

Regarding schools, this isn’t just my random perception. There has not been a single study that shows any coloration between armament of a potential target of a mass-shooter and their decision to go in anyway. The NRA’s position Friday that arming schools will solve this by creating a deterrent in the mind of the pending perp that they are personally at risk in attacking their chosen target, isn’t rooted in evidence. Rather almost always the target is one that the perp associates with, and when we are able to learn, had an issue with. ‘Defended” or not, they’re going to go do it. Just like the bank robber, the potential for their own death isn’t a significant factor. Indeed there is some evidence that low self-worth “my life isn’t worth anything” is already present in these people. And possible a bit of ‘martyr syndrome,” visions of grandeur in, ‘going out in a blaze of glory.’

 

But the real answer to why people, in particular kids do these things, is - we don’t know. Instead of spending $4 Billon dollars a year (by some estimates the cost of arming every school in America) trying to stop them from doing something they’ve decided to do, let’s spend $4 Billion dollars a year trying to stop them from wanting to do it in the first place.

 

I view the NRA’s response, and the people who support it, as yet another symptom of the instant-gratification society. There is no quick answer, guns at the doors (or locked in the principles office, whatever) is symptomatic of a desire, like most everything these days it seems, for a quick-fix. It took decades to get into this mess, it’s going to take decades to get back out.

Link to comment

But while we try to understand Ken, it will keep on happening. So, thankfully, I have the option to protect myself, family and friends 24/7/365. Unfortunately, there are exceptions such as "gun free zones" and establishments that post 30.06, 50 percent or similar signage.

 

I believe a school teacher or school employee should also have that option.

 

In EVERY society there are "nut jobs" and, IMHO, it will be virtually impossible to discover any genetic or isolated or particular "root cause(s)" of someone's evil intent. There are just too many variables.....

 

 

Link to comment
Must be the air up there.

 

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

calling me ignorant is a personal insult, one which I am quite sure is a violation of the rules of this board.

 

Calling someone "ignorant" is NOT a personal insult as by definition, "ignorant" simply means "lacking knowledge or awareness"....so, telling someone that they "lack knowledge or awareness" is not a violation of board rules, unless the board rules have changed.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

Link to comment
But while we try to understand Ken, it will keep on happening. So, thankfully, I have the option to protect myself, family and friends 24/7/365. Unfortunately, there are exceptions such as "gun free zones" and establishments that post 30.06, 50 percent or similar signage.

 

I believe a school teacher or school employee should also have that option.

 

In EVERY society there are "nut jobs" and, IMHO, it will be virtually impossible to discover any genetic or isolated or particular "root cause(s)" of someone's evil intent. There are just too many variables.....

See that’s the thing, I don’t think we have tried to understand. Not really. Not seriously with dedication, commitment of resources and the tenacity it will take.

 

We’ve just caved and said “there always will be.”

 

And that the answer is more of the same. I refuse to accept that.

Link to comment

Ken,

 

I am not disagreeing with you, which is why I said "while we try to understand". And by we, I mean the human race, not just Canadians and Americans. Evildoers both historical and present day, have been well documented and in quite a few cases, have been studied ad nauseum. Plenty of theories abound but no definitive 'root cause(s)'.

 

In the mean time, it is what it is and there is no single, or easy, solution.

 

 

Link to comment
Ken, I don't understand your point regarding Fort Hood, then. Could you explain? I thought you were pointing it out as an example of a mass shooting that occurred despite the presence of armed defenders. ???

 

That is my point Mike, Fort Hood was just the incident I sited.

 

Okay, gotcha. In that case, I'd point out that this Fort Hood example is actually a good example of a mass killing that occurred in what was a setting of individuals who were unarmed . . . and not permitted to be armed. It was, effectively, a gun-free zone.

 

I can speak with a bit of authority on this one. Apart from being a former USAF Security type and, after that, a JAG, I have a son who's currently a commissioned Military Police officer in the Army. The victims in that instance were unarmed, as are virtually all those on a military installation who are not law enforcement officers or engaged in weapons training. That's the standard on military installations, one that I don't think is necessarily wise . . . but nonetheless the norm. The Fort Hood shooter went after a group who was undergoing deployment processing. They were unarmed and unable to defend themselves. It was only minutes later--after most of the soldiers had died or were mortally wounded--that civilian DOD police officers arrived and exchanged gunfire, putting the killing spree to an end. In terms of the speed and effectiveness of armed response, a military installation is much like a big city. In fact, an armed response may be comparatively slow, given the fact that Army installations are enormous and law enforcement resources spread rather thin.

 

One other thing I'd note is this: assuming arguendo that you're right about mass killers not being deterred by the possibility of armed resistance--and I think that occasionally be the case--the fact remains that when they are met with armed resistance early in their rampage, far few people die. It sure seems worth considering the possibility that lives may be saved, whether by outright deterrence or by armed resistance. I applaud your idealism, but it seems to me that we should be looking also at the practical impact of our choices.

Link to comment

Locking this for at least the remainder of the Christmas season, not because of what any one person said, but because we're spinning our wheels. We have visited this tragedy enough, and I've not seen one person convinced that the other is right. Yet even on these special days, people want to insist on arguing.

 

Let's stop. It was a tragedy. We all mourn, sincerely mourn. There no ONE solution because there is no ONE problem.

 

Go. Be with your loved ones. Hold them close. Pray if it suits you. Give thanks. Share. Love.

 

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...