At what point will it be reasonable to arm our teachers to protect students?

[The Expanding Man]

I don't think the government can stop every bad thing from happening. As mentioned earlier, cars kill a lot more people than guns, and no one wants to ban cars. The response from the government should be more to try and identify and help the people with mental illness, rather than punish the people who aren't committing crimes.

Governments can't stop every bad thing happening. Hopefully the graphs posted above show that governments can reduce bad things happening.

Governments could prevent all road deaths by reducing the speed limit to 5 mph. The cost is enormous: the economy would revert back to the pre industrial era.

Governments could reduce the homicide rate by introducing gun control. The cost is not so great.

Just reduce the availability of guns. Require a criminal record check as a condition of ownership. Enact the ability to revoke gun ownership due to mental health issues or criminal convictions. Restrict the type of weapons available. It won't solve the problem, but it will reduce the problem.

[grawk]

Prisons have 0 guns, so they must be pretty safe, right?

[swt61]

So if self defense is really the main concern with gun control, what about incapacitating weapons? One could defend themselves with stun guns and the like. And yes these too could be used inappropriately, but I doubt we'd see mass killings if all the perps had on hand were non lethal weapons.

Dusty, you're solution if I'm understanding you, is to ignore these horrific mass killings because they don't directly affect us, and go on with life as though nothing happened?

It's completely possible that because I'm gay I'm over sensitive. I do tear up at sad TV shows and movies, hell, even commercials. These kinds of tragedy's tend to affect me deeply. So maybe I'm just not able to put myself into the mindset of a less sensitive psyche, but I think we can do better. I think it's our obligation as concerned, caring human beings to keep trying to do better. I don't know any of the people involved in this terrible situation, but I can't turn my head and forget it's happening.

I DON'T EVER WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT!

[recstar24]

I am a teacher. You do not want to arm teachers, trust me on this.

Mental health and how it is diagnosed and treated is a huge issue in America. My school does a good job providing support services as well as identifying said students for professional consultation, and with a full time school psychologist plus an extensive student services team, I feel they are doing the best they can to identify and support students that may have some moderate to severe mental health issues.

I don't know much about guns. I've lived in one of the most urban populated areas in the us my whole life in a state that already has some gun control, which i feel is warranted being in such a densely populated area. You don't want people in the city to be able to carry a concealed weapon, and Chicago has done a decent job trying to prevent access to assault rifles. Most of my friends do have some kind of pistol or hunting rifle that they keep out of sight and locked, but I think this situation is completely different and is more about the state of mental health and how we treat and diagnose it than gun control.

[blessingx]

Serious question I've always wanted to ask - if the second amendment (in its more popular interpretation) is a right (and all future inventions were considered by the framers) and uses and practicalities of said firearms are of far lesser importance than that right, why are only handguns and rifles the specific firearms protected?

 

Why isn't there a sizable population fighting for escalating this coverage to shoulder mounted missiles, neighborhood cannon lines, etc.? They're firearms, right? Likely used by a future militia? There are certainly situations where greatly outnumbered, even an automatic rifle isn't isn't enough to hold the farm. And if it's about protection against governments (foreign and domestic), it seems a missile is more useful than a pistol. 

Edited December 15, 2012 by blessingx

[grawk]

Because not everyone who supports the 2nd amendment supports it for the same reason, just like not everyone who believes in gun control doesn't believe in the same things.

[Dusty Chalk]

Hopefully the graphs posted above show that governments can reduce bad things happening.

Governments could reduce the homicide rate by introducing gun control. The cost is not so great.

No, one can twist graphs around to any purpose.  As Dan pointed out rather humorously, the trends can be made to show to follow some other trend just as easily -- it's a bit too easy to manipulate data to show what it is you want to show.

 

Your definitions of "bad things" and "costs" are a bit too sweeping for me.

[guzziguy]

@Ryan - Of course we don't want to arm teachers and other private citizens in the hope that it will reduce or end these kinds of shootings.  I shudder to think how untrained (or poorly trained) armed people would react in such a situation.  Take for example the "Batman" movie theater shooting.  If everybody in the theater would have been armed, I suspect that many more people would have died due to the panicked movie goers wildly shooting in an attempt to defend themselves.

 

IMO, one of the biggest, if not the biggest reasons we have more gun violence than other first and second world countries is that we have a "gun culture".  It's culturally drummed into our heads from an early age that using guns are a good way to solve problems.  Our movies reflect it.  Our computer games reflect it.  Our literature reflect it.  Our foreign policy often reflects it.  Unfortunately the reality of using guns to solve problems rarely matches our cultural beliefs.  Until we can change this gun culture, we will continue have gun violence incidents.

[Dusty Chalk]

The evidence he provided tells us nothing except that there was one terrible incident 16 years ago and none since. There were also hundreds of years prior to that one terrible incident in his country with no such occurrences (or so I presume). I'm not a statistician, but how can we attribute causality to that particular change in the law? At least not based only on the facts he presented.

Well the pro gun control advocates seem to be able to predict the future (that gun control will work), so why not?

 

Of course any sweeping statements I make should be preceded "I think", of course.

[swt61]

Ken you make an excellent point.

[Pars]

Yes, great post Ken!

[MoonShine]

Prisons have 0 guns, so they must be pretty safe, right?

And just imagine how much safer prisons would be if they had guns.

[grawk]

therefore, it must not be the guns that are what matter, but the people.

[Dusty Chalk]

So if self defense is really the main concern with gun control, what about incapacitating weapons? One could defend themselves with stun guns and the like. And yes these too could be used inappropriately, but I doubt we'd see mass killings if all the perps had on hand were non lethal weapons.

Dusty, you're solution if I'm understanding you, is to ignore these horrific mass killings because they don't directly affect us, and go on with life as though nothing happened?

It's completely possible that because I'm gay I'm over sensitive. I do tear up at sad TV shows and movies, hell, even commercials. These kinds of tragedy's tend to affect me deeply. So maybe I'm just not able to put myself into the mindset of a less sensitive psyche, but I think we can do better. I think it's our obligation as concerned, caring human beings to keep trying to do better. I don't know any of the people involved in this terrible situation, but I can't turn my head and forget it's happening.

I DON'T EVER WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT!

Whoa, whoa, you don't want the ability to do that, or you don't want to do that, or you don't want others to have the ability to do that (because presumably if you don't have the ability to do that, others would be prevented as well).

 

Quite frankly, some people who are much more sensitive than you are could be affected even worse -- I think they would need the ability not to be exposed to this tragedy.  I will not be sharing this tragedy with my mother -- she has the ability to "over-suffer" such things, and in her weakened health, it will not be good for her.  So yes, I want exactly that ability for her.

 

So although I applaud your desire for a better life, I sicken at the thought of having your values imposed over other people -- that's what America is about, to me -- to protect each other from each other, not just acts of violence, but imposing each others' belief systems as well (see "gay marriage", for example).

 

And to answer your original question -- although you phrase it meanly, the short answer is yes, as far as the law is concerned, I don't feel there's any change in the law that will fix this -- you have to realize just how rare something like this occurs, and just how unlikely it is to happen in the place it happened.

 

I do agree with gun registration, however -- there definitely should be a system prevent people with known mental health issues from having access.  But that still won't prevent the ones who aren't known to have mental health issues...yet.  I'm not sure that's possible with the current state of the art.

 

The issue I'm worried about when we get into that slippery slope of "preventative" law is punishing someone who would never have broken the law.  And yes, it is a punishment to take a law-abiding citizen's guns away from him against his will.  I'm not saying I'm against preventative law, obviously (license to drive, drinking and smoking ages, etc.), I'm just saying we need to tread carefully.

[swt61]

So although I applaud your desire for a better life, I sicken at the thought of having your values imposed over other people -- that's what America is about, to me -- to protect each other from each other, not just acts of violence, but imposing each others' belief systems as well (see "gay marriage", for example).

I don't know where you're going with this, but if you don't believe that a heterosexual belief system has been imposed on me my whole life you're sadly mistaken!

I do not have the right that you do to marry who I chose.

I could be fired for being gay, without any legal recourse. I believe I'm in the last minority group to not be given that protection.

I can go on.

I'm fully aware of what it is like to have beliefs I disagree with imposed on me. I have learned to bend, and have learned to try to educate.

I also have not gotten personal in this thread, and I really don't appreciate you going there.

[guzziguy]

I'll let Dusty answer for himself, Steve.  But my reading of what he wrote is that he is using the imposition of no gay marriage as one of those things he doesn't like.  So I think that you two are in agreement here.

[swt61]

Ken, I know Dusty is not homophobic. I know that he is not disparaging gay marriage. Dusty doesn't have a mean bone in his body, and I know that.

That said...

I sicken at the thought of having your values imposed over other people

This statement really hurt, although I realize it was not intended to. That is a sore spot for me, and I guess I feel that should be obvious. I've had other peoples values shoved down my throat my entire fucking life! I thought I made it clear in this thread that I did not want to impose my values on others, but instead wanted and welcomed everyone's ideas.

Do I think that gun control might be part of the solution? Yes. Am I willing to mandate (like I held such a power) such a solution without hearing all sides for any other options. No. This was about turning a ridiculous thread into a meaningful discussion on solving a very real issue.

Maybe I am too sensitive to be involved in this thread. Bowing out now.

[skullguise]

Agreed w/Ken - I read "your values" more as "one's values" as in no one person can rule what others believe.....

 

I also agree we have some ways to go..... 

 

EDIT: sensitivity is a good thing.  I have been flowing a fair bit of tears almost every newscast......nothing wrong with that IMO.....

Edited December 15, 2012 by skullguise

[Genetic]

In Québec all the news are reporting theses sad events to a population in total shock.

                      

Correct me if I'm wrong but did your constitutional protection of guns was, at it’s origin, a basic tool against a State gone wrong?

 

Up here we dont share this historical past and Québec is the only province willing to fight before our Supreme Court of Justice for the right to keep a simple arm registry. Gun limitations is certainly not an easy field.

 

I dont intent to even  try to suggest a way to solve this. All I can say is maybe this is your window to something different in your future public policies.

 

Amicalement,

[Absorbine_Sr]

I'm trying not to fall on either side of this argument. I've never owned or fired a gun. But I know people who enjoy gun ownership responsibly and I don't want them to have their weapons confiscated. But I can also see some logic in wanting certain types of weapons not be so easily available.

 

I think this thread is doing exactly what has not taken  place in our country in general - we're talking about it. From all sides but reasonably. In Washington and other places where it matters, it seems the NRA plants its feat and the Gun Control people plant theirs and there is no discussion. This is an excellent time to change that. I don't want to take your guns away and you don't want dead innocents, especially children. So let's find some fucking way to talk about this and at least lessen the chances of these things happening that we all can agree on. Stop being bullheaded and talk to each other America.

[The Expanding Man]

No, one can twist graphs around to any purpose.  As Dan pointed out rather humorously, the trends can be made to show to follow some other trend just as easily -- it's a bit too easy to manipulate data to show what it is you want to show.

 

Your definitions of "bad things" and "costs" are a bit too sweeping for me.

 

Fair enough.

 

Can I put it this way?

 

Your car engine suddenly stalls and won't restart.  Your fuel gauge says empty.  Do you conclude you are out of gas, or do you conclude you have engine troubles and a seperate problem, a faulty fuel gauge?  It may be the latter but it is far, far more likely to be the former.

 

A Nation reduces levels of gun ownership.  Homicide rates involving a firearm (as a percentage of all homicides) declines, and homicide rates as a whole also decline.  Is it due to reducing gun ownership or lack of donuts?

[grawk]

Every law abiding citizen gets rid of their firearms. No more school shootings. Way more robberies, home invasions, car jackings, muggings, rapes, murders, etc, because the criminals decide not to follow the law.

[morphsci]

Why are we arguing about gun control when that is not the root of the problem?

Edited December 16, 2012 by morphsci

[blessingx]

Its seems pretty obvious some here think it's part of the solution, no? We certainly don't treat all problems solely at their root(s). 

Edited December 16, 2012 by blessingx

[recstar24]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="morphsci" data-cid="552041" data-time="1355616293"><p>

Why are we arguing about gun control when that is not the root of the problem?</p></blockquote>

I concur.