Gun Control

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

Several adults ran towards the danger. They all ended up dead.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but schools do have regular trainings for this (at least the public schools in Illinois). The priority is already put on protecting the children at any cost and minimizing the potential for confrontation with a shooter - which I think most people would agree is as it should be.

We have first responders and police for a reason, and it is so we don't have to count on elementary school educators to act as shock commando units.

Again, many school districts already have police at schools. Others have metal detectors at the entrances. Many have both. Most all are locked to prevent someone from coming in.

The simple fact is that many schools have inadequate protections and no amount of protection will protect against everything.

It would not be unreasonable to have a security guard in every school though. It would not be unreasonable to reinforce classroom doors so that teachers could lock the door and prevent entry to a classroom if they heard gunshots. It would not be hard or unreasonable to reinforce entry points so that you cannot force your way into a school.

Or we can ban guns and assume they will be only as prevalent as marijuana. I am sure this sort of thing will never happen again then!

[Cool Hand Luke]

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

I don't know if you're aware of this, but schools do have regular trainings for this (at least the public schools in Illinois).

Oh, I know they have some kind of training to deal with certain situations. My guess is it needs to be better and more frequent training and drilling.

I wouldn't suggest the only solution is to train all teachers and janitors to become Rambo. There needs to be an evaluation of all facets of the school system and how students can be better protected. I'd like to know what sort of safety measures are built in to new school designs that could help in a situation like this and what, if any, changes are going to be applied to the way schools are designed from this point forward. That obviously won't help kids in already existing facilities.

Maybe my idea of a solution isn't the right answer. I'm not so arrogant as to think I can't be wrong. I guess my proposal is a reaction to the thought of men and women hiding under desks while kids are screaming. I just cannot fathom it. I don't care what your profession is. How can you just hide? I have to believe better-trained staff could help minimize damage.

Regardless, I still want to smack that nurse.

[Cool Hand Luke]

Ugh. And another shooting with multiple victims:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/id...21218?irpc=932

[illinifan31]

I found the statistics on this website interesting in the whole guns vs gun ban argument. Lots of data, especially in Chicago and DC.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[illinibob]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke

I really don't like the idea of armed guards in schools. Rather than one guard with a firearm, I'd much rather have three who are well-trained and carry billy clubs, mace, etc.

People have problems. Even otherwise stable, good people. Sometimes they snap. There are 125,000(!) schools in this country. Let's say we put just one armed man or woman in each school. You now have 125,000 people with guns, surrounded by children. How confident would you feel that all 125,000 are trustworthy, stable people who would never go off the deep end? Just a matter of time before one of them snaps and does something dumb. And there's the Human Factor. Mistakes happen. Just a matter of time before a student somehow gets their hands on that gun. Then we'll be asking ourselves "Should we really have armed men and women in our schools?" And that is being extremely conservative. In reality you are going to have a lot more than 1 guard per school.

I'll beat that dead horse until only dust remains, but I still believe the correct action to take is training all adults who work in schools in any capacity. Teach them how to correctly engage a threat. And anyone who wishes to work at a school in any capacity must be required to sign a "Protect At All Costs," a "Fight Don't Flee" statement where they essentially are promising that rather than hiding under their damned desk waiting for authorities to show up, they instead seek out danger. And if they fail to protect children before themselves they are fired immediately and potentially subject to penalties. If you want to work with children, you have to be 100% committed to protecting them. Otherwise you have no business being there.

I saw the nurse on 60 Minutes describing how she hid under her desk, listening to the screams. I wanted to reach through my TV and smack her. How can you hide while you are hearing children scream? Rather live a coward than die with dignity and valor? How many kids might have survived if just 3 adults who were hiding instead ran towards the danger and tried to overwhelm that maniac?

All adults in all schools must go through monthly drills to help them better respond in an event. Everyone has a role. The monthly training must emphasize how to protect the students and also engage the threat.

I realize the logistics of something like this are a nightmare. But it's preferable to the nightmare of 20 dead kids. We need to change the way we think about schools and the role a teacher, a counselor, a nurse, a janitor plays in schools. Trying to solve this problem with gun control is nonsense. It cannot work. Guns will always be available. A very large, very complicated fundamental change needs to occur within our school system and it needs to start immediately. We have to adapt to the changing times. We have to accept the fact that we are not safe. Pass all the gun laws you want. Until that sea change happens, kids will keep dying.

I am not a gun advocate. I am neither liberal nor conservative. Guns scare me. But words written on paper won't save anyone.

You have a dark sense of humor my friend.

[Zmat]

Originally Posted by illinifan31

I found the statistics on this website interesting in the whole guns vs gun ban argument. Lots of data, especially in Chicago and DC.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

That is a ton of data good find for sure.

[gibb52]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke

Oh, I know they have some kind of training to deal with certain situations. My guess is it needs to be better and more frequent training and drilling.

I wouldn't suggest the only solution is to train all teachers and janitors to become Rambo. There needs to be an evaluation of all facets of the school system and how students can be better protected. I'd like to know what sort of safety measures are built in to new school designs that could help in a situation like this and what, if any, changes are going to be applied to the way schools are designed from this point forward. That obviously won't help kids in already existing facilities.

Maybe my idea of a solution isn't the right answer. I'm not so arrogant as to think I can't be wrong. I guess my proposal is a reaction to the thought of men and women hiding under desks while kids are screaming. I just cannot fathom it. I don't care what your profession is. How can you just hide? I have to believe better-trained staff could help minimize damage.

Regardless, I still want to smack that nurse.

I get your thought process Luke. Although in defense of the nurse lets keep a couple of things in mind.

In most all of these cases the shooter is armed with an assault style weapon, AR-15 or similar, and multiple other weapons as well. He also has the advantage of space, He's in the hallway, moving between rooms in most cases. As you and your fellow staff members attempt to "overwhelm" this guy he can rip off 12-15 rounds in just seconds. You have no cover. So if the nurse would have jumped out from under the desk and recruited 9 more people to help her there would most likely be 10 more dead bodies to haul out of the school. A valiant and heroic idea? Sure. But a deadly one as well.

Arming teachers/staff is another foolish idea. A semi-automatic 9mm or 45 pistol is a short range weapon, 30 ft accuracy limit at best. Only in the movies do you see a guy shoot a bad guy off the roof 300 ft away. Plus, where's the shooter? Where's your weapon? How much time elapses while you get your gun, get your ammo, get your Kevlar vest, move your class of kids to a safe spot, get another teacher or staff person to supervise them, then go hunt down the intruder, get within shooting distance and eliminate him, all before he has a chance to shoot you and 20 others. We are going to ask a teacher to do this? Absurd.

What do I like? Cameras. Lots of them. So someone in the office can see every entrance and every hallway. A monitor and a phone, and school intercom access in some "safe room". Should an intruder enter the building, one or two people immediately lock themselves into the safe room. SRO calls the Police. The safe room people constantly update everyone over the intercom on where the intruder is in the building, and what he is doing, possibly helping those teachers furthest from the intruder to get their kids out of the building. When the police arrive and enter, they can hear the intercom as well and can quickly know exactly where in the building to go.

Not perfect by any means, but better than giving a teacher a gun.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Zmat

That is a ton of data good find for sure.

+1
Should be required reading for anyone w an opinion on the topic.

[dsboyce]

Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke

I'll beat that dead horse until only dust remains, but I still believe the correct action to take is training all adults who work in schools in any capacity. Teach them how to correctly engage a threat. And anyone who wishes to work at a school in any capacity must be required to sign a "Protect At All Costs," a "Fight Don't Flee" statement where they essentially are promising that rather than hiding under their damned desk waiting for authorities to show up, they instead seek out danger. And if they fail to protect children before themselves they are fired immediately and potentially subject to penalties. If you want to work with children, you have to be 100% committed to protecting them. Otherwise you have no business being there.

You want it to be mandatory for the teachers to "seek out danger"? You want to force them to confront someone who is shooting up the school, but you don't want to allow them to be armed so they can actually defend themselves?

[dsboyce]

For those of you who think the idea of arming the schools is so abhorrent. I stole this from an email I received from the Libertarian Party.

"Responsible gun owners can and do prevent mass shootings from occurring and escalating.

- A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

- A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

- A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

- A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

- A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

- A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

- A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

- At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon."

[bmb777]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/s...ment-1.4339196

He noted that Obama campaigned in 2008 on an assault weapons ban. "The only gun legislation that the president has signed since then was one that gave the right to carry a gun in national parks, where our kids play, and one that gave the right to carry guns on Amtrak" Bloomberg said. A shooting such as the one in Newtown, Conn., where 27 people were killed, including 20 first-graders, "only happens in America. And it happens again and again," he said. "We've just got to stop this

I've always known he was an idiot. but he actually believes this only happens in America? does he not watch the news. it has happened in the UK, in Canada and in Norway. The attack in Norway killed more than Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings combined.

[Leonardite]

In times of crisis, people are more willing to give the government more power than they normally would. Happened with the Patriot Act as a result of 9/11 and we all know how we feel about the Patriot Act now. The same thing is happening here.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both." - Ben Franklin

[-josh-]

Originally Posted by bmb777

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/s...ment-1.4339196



I've always known he was an idiot. but he actually believes this only happens in America? does he not watch the news. it has happened in the UK, in Canada and in Norway. The attack in Norway killed more than Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings combined.

There are so many other more serious problems with this country right now, if guns become his priority over the next 4 years we'll only be set back further for economic and education reform.

[Joel Goodson]

An interesting opinion piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by Joel Goodson

An interesting opinion piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6774314.story

I dont have any problem with banning high capacity magazines. however I do have a problem with banning AR-15 semi-automatic style rifles.

fully automatic rifles are already illegal. technically THAT is what an assualt weapon is.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by -josh-

There are so many other more serious problems with this country right now, if guns become his priority over the next 4 years we'll only be set back further for economic and education reform.

True. But in actually fixing the economy and education in this nation, our "leaders" will be forced to offend many of the donors that keep them well fed.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by bmb777

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/s...ment-1.4339196



I've always known he was an idiot. but he actually believes this only happens in America? does he not watch the news. it has happened in the UK, in Canada and in Norway. The attack in Norway killed more than Columbine and Sandy Hook shootings combined.

I think that it does seem to happen more often here. But these idiots think all people are the same. They deny the effects of culture at the same time they dictate that we provide for people from certain cultures because they are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Nevertheless, I think our American society is more apt to this type of violence. I think that bans can work reasonably well in some societies, but they would not here. The main reason being that we as Americans view the world and our standing very differently. Proof of this comes from many sociological studies.

That being said, as someone who thinks outlawing guns would be pointless but as someone who also thinks we should do a better job educating gun owners, I ask the following:

I think we'd all agree that gang violence would be unaffected by a ban, but would the CT incident have happened? Would that person have second thought his actions as he illegally obtained the weapon rather than simply taking his mother's? I think in some instances, the event would be prevented whereas in others it would not.

It's hard for me to understand giving up rights. It's impossible for me to understand giving up rights when the benefit is not obvious and without a doubt.

[AHSIllini32]

The Newyorker article about gun control

Hemenway has discovered, as he explained in this interview with Harvard Magazine, that what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

I think that it does seem to happen more often here. But these idiots think all people are the same. They deny the effects of culture at the same time they dictate that we provide for people from certain cultures because they are incapable of taking care of themselves.

Nevertheless, I think our American society is more apt to this type of violence. I think that bans can work reasonably well in some societies, but they would not here. The main reason being that we as Americans view the world and our standing very differently. Proof of this comes from many sociological studies.

That being said, as someone who thinks outlawing guns would be pointless but as someone who also thinks we should do a better job educating gun owners, I ask the following:

I think we'd all agree that gang violence would be unaffected by a ban, but would the CT incident have happened? Would that person have second thought his actions as he illegally obtained the weapon rather than simply taking his mother's? I think in some instances, the event would be prevented whereas in others it would not.

It's hard for me to understand giving up rights. It's impossible for me to understand giving up rights when the benefit is not obvious and without a doubt.

I think there is no question that it might have been prevented. OTOH, 1 person has died every 48 minutes since Sandy Hook in an alcohol related auto accident. I am sure some of those could have been prevented if we simply banned alcohol or cars or permanently incarcerated those caught with a DUI. Most of us could live our lives more safely and have no change in our lifestyles if we banned alcohol. But we know that laws like this, while they can prevent one tragedy here and there are not going to solve society's overall problems. It will just grow them.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I think there is no question that it might have been prevented. OTOH, 1 person has died every 48 minutes since Sandy Hook in an alcohol related auto accident. I am sure some of those could have been prevented if we simply banned alcohol or cars or permanently incarcerated those caught with a DUI. Most of us could live our lives more safely and have no change in our lifestyles if we banned alcohol. But we know that laws like this, while they can prevent one tragedy here and there are not going to solve society's overall problems. It will just grow them.

Just to clarify, you don't think it would make violence worse. We'd simply have more debt from trying to enforce laws and more over-crowded prisons due to non-violent "criminals". I presume this is what you mean, but I can see others reading your post to mean that you think gun violence would actually increase.

The comparison to alcohol is interesting. It doesn't evoke the emotional response of gun incidents because you have only a couple people dying at a time as opposed to the rapid killing here. On the other hand, I'm likely to be in close proximity to a drunk driver tonight whereas I'm very unlikely to be near someone using a gun for threats/violence.

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I think there is no question that it might have been prevented. OTOH, 1 person has died every 48 minutes since Sandy Hook in an alcohol related auto accident. I am sure some of those could have been prevented if we simply banned alcohol or cars or permanently incarcerated those caught with a DUI. Most of us could live our lives more safely and have no change in our lifestyles if we banned alcohol. But we know that laws like this, while they can prevent one tragedy here and there are not going to solve society's overall problems. It will just grow them.

To make these comparisons analogous, the answer to solving drunk driving fatalities would be to have people drink more alcohol since you apparently think the solution to solving gun related crimes is to give more guns to people.

Don't match up.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

To make these comparisons analogous, the answer to solving drunk driving fatalities would be to have people drink more alcohol since you apparently think the solution to solving gun related crimes is to give more guns to people.

Don't match up.

I don't think that more guns are the answer, but google Kennesaw, GA. They instituted a law requiring the head of house to own a gun in 1982 and they haven't had a gun related death since. They've also seen crime drop significantly.

TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T SEE THIS AS CAUSE AND EFFECT, I'm simply saying that gun availability does not directly lead to violence.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

To make these comparisons analogous, the answer to solving drunk driving fatalities would be to have people drink more alcohol since you apparently think the solution to solving gun related crimes is to give more guns to people.

Don't match up.

Drunk drivers don't drive with the intent to kill.

Mass murderers shoot with the intention to kill.

It's the intent part that distinguishes the two.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

To make these comparisons analogous, the answer to solving drunk driving fatalities would be to have people drink more alcohol since you apparently think the solution to solving gun related crimes is to give more guns to people.

Don't match up.

Thats one of the dumbest things i have seen in a while.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

Just to clarify, you don't think it would make violence worse. We'd simply have more debt from trying to enforce laws and more over-crowded prisons due to non-violent "criminals". I presume this is what you mean, but I can see others reading your post to mean that you think gun violence would actually increase.

The comparison to alcohol is interesting. It doesn't evoke the emotional response of gun incidents because you have only a couple people dying at a time as opposed to the rapid killing here. On the other hand, I'm likely to be in close proximity to a drunk driver tonight whereas I'm very unlikely to be near someone using a gun for threats/violence.

Banning guns will increase crime on the whole because it makes criminals of people that would otherwise be law abiding citizens. My guess is that a whole lot of people would 'lose' their guns rather than turn them in. It isn't going to stop criminal behavior and it will make criminals of some people that would otherwise not break a rule.

Drunk driving is an order of magnitude bigger problem than gun violence. It is probably 3 orders of magnitude bigger problem than mass killings. Heck lightning strikes are a comparable problem to mass killings in most years. Ultra-rare cancers that kill 10 times the number of people we lose in mass killings per year get no research budget because it isn't deemed a problem worthy of spending money upon.

There is a show on TV now called Moonshiners. It details the criminal activity of people that make moonshine and sell it in Dry counties. There is no moonshine activity in Wet counties. Banning things make people into criminals. We should know this by now but most people are not bright enough to wash their hands after they wipe their rears. I don't know why I expect them to show glimmerings of intellectual thought when they cannot handle basic bodily functions.