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

[grawk]

Especially to a slave.

[Grahame]

Its interesting that, sadly, we've been here before

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/23/jon-stewart-mocks-conservatives-trying-to-suppress-gun-control-debate/

and how familiar the points and sides taken appear.

 

I understand the emotional argument, who would want this to happen to their child. or anyone.

 

Then there's the rational argument.

 

How big a risk of this is to you on a daily basis?

 

Statistically road deaths are a bigger threat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

 

Yet where is the outrage and the call to ban car ownership? possibly because we weigh the costs / benefits.?

 

What would be a proportionate response to this? I don't have any answers, 

 

and the debate here touches any many issues, freedom , trade-offs, the rule of law etc in  the political experiment that is the United States.

 

But what is encouraging is that we can have the debate, and that its broadened to take in other related issues.

 

What world do you want to live in?

[acidbasement]

Hearing about this shocked and saddened me greatly. One of my sons is in kindergarten, and all I could think was that I wanted him home, right now. I can't imagine what all the affected families are experiencing.

I agree with a post made awhile back about needing to focus more resources on mental health. In nearly all incidents like this, the perpetrators are severely schizophrenic, yet they often get treated like evil criminal masterminds by the justice system, if they survive long enough to enter it. I'm not going to enter the gun control debate, except to say that I've never heard of a crisis of this scope being terminated by an armed vigilante. When I spend time in Churchill, however, I don't go outside without someone in my group carrying something big to deter polar bears. There's a line somewhere, but I have no idea where it ought to be drawn.

[Audiojunkie]

Of course we can get rid of the guns.  "We" just don't want to.  

 

^ THIS 100%

[catscratch]

Comparing gun ownership to slavery is, I think, a little over the top.

Agree with the mental health issue, and there's something else I've been wondering: was the shooter on SSRIs or prescription amphetamines? Amphetamine psychosis is a very real thing, and I've always wondered how much connection there was between documented SSRI side effects and a possibility for this sort of behavior. Given how psychiatric med-happy this country is, it's probably something that needs to be looked into.

[swt61]

How big a risk of this is to you on a daily basis?

Very small indeed. But to me the more important question is, should that make me feel better?

I do not wish to disrespect anyone. If anyone feels I'm doing so (other than HPA) then I truly apologize. I don't expect or even want everyone to share my opinion. What I do want is a healthy dialog. I think that the sharing of opinions is key to coming to some understanding. This was not really possible on Head-Fi, but I know most of you much better, as I consider most of you friends, and as such I think it's possible to share our ideas in an adult manner. If I'm wrong feel free to tell me to drop it. I will, and won't be offended.

[grawk]

My main issues the government doesn't reverse itself. That it happened one time (prohibition) is remarkable. And hasn't happened since then.

[swt61]

OK, I have to admit that's a valid concern.

[The Monkey]

It's  not taking the guns from the owners, really, that's the issue.  It's stopping the manufacture of said guns.  Yes, there are enough guns out there already to be a tremendous problem, but the gun manufacturers keep churning them out.   That's where any gun control needs to start and the NRA and its lobbyists aren't about to let that happen.

[skullguise]

Good thought-provoking reading folks, thanks for some enlightenment.  And yes, when I said "snap" in my post, I do mean recognizing mental health issues in general.  There is premeditation to many of these kind of tragedies, and a lot of build-up over time.

 

We chatted more at work on this, and many of us felt that gun law reform can and would help (at least when it comes to minimizing the mass deaths, for example).  Not to abolish them, but more rules about what can be had by the average person, and how easy it is to get it.  Beyond that, there is a certain amount of responsibility in the home to try and prevent guns from being misused.  But interestingly, no one believed a full ban of any kind was the answer.

 

In any case, I sat down with my son tonight, he's just about 14 and has a tough time getting to the emotional side of this.  It was a tough balancing act, to really get across the empathy & feelings we (his parents) had, without "forcing" him to try and feel that way; or worse yet, develop a sense of paranoia that can impact his day to day life.  It was a pretty good talk, even if it didn't fully resolve anything - nor was it really mean to.

 

Meanwhile, every time I turn on the TV and see stories, I tear up....I guess in some sense I envy his ability to distance himself from this.

[guzziguy]

This whole Connecticut shooting today really has my hackles up.  I can't help but think that if the victims, or in this case the teachers, were armed that there would be fewer casualties when a person snaps and goes on a rampage somewhere.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/police-respond-to-shooting-at-connecticut-elementary-school/

 

What in the world would drive someone to shoot and kill 20 innocent elementary school children !?!??!?! 

 

One victim, the shooter's mother, was armed.  The shooter used guns she owned to shoot her and the others.  Being armed not only didn't help her, it helped lead to her death.  When it comes to guns and gun ownership, you're a paranoid idiot.

 

Now I can go back to ignoring the nonsense you post.

[roadtonowhere08]

I enjoyed reading this thread, if for no other reason than to see intelligent people discuss a horrific even in a sensible and evenhanded way. That, and I cannot stand watching nonstop news of any kind cover this kind of story. These horrible events are like chum to the media sharks, and I do not want to have any part of it. It's disgusting really. And it's part of the reason why this country is so fractured and polarized.

I heard about this on the way to work, and reports were only two fatalities. That was the last I heard about it until 6th period when I saw my TA with tears in her eyes staring at her phone. We were doing independent projects at the time, so I jumped on my computer and saw the latest reports. To say I was shocked was an understatement. After class, I picked up my kids from preschool as soon as I could and spent the night with them, thankful that I have them in my life.

I cannot imagine what those families are feeling right now. I cannot come with an eloquent way of speaking about the loss and grief felt, but I hope one day the pain subsides. The path to get there will be painful and daunting, I'm sure.

I happen to agree with swt61: there is no better time to speak of painful and controversial topics than when they have been seared into our memories, because they lead to actual change (for better or worse). That's just how the political system works at the moment. It takes pain and loss to get people to have meaningful talk. To that end, I have a few thoughts:

1. The day that each teacher is armed is the day that I quit teaching. Teachers are not and will never be trained like police officers, and the risk of a student getting their hands on a school issued gun is higher than some people think. That and some people think that teachers are immune to the darker side of humanity. Some real creeps get hired, and it would be a real travesty if they ever shot up a classroom because they flipped out or were a psychopath. The hiring process does not weed out some pedophiles, so why should guns be any different?

2. I am saying this as a blanket statement, because I cannot speak to the motives of the shooter, but the media is not exactly helping in situations like this. Our country has become a nation of voyeurs and attention seekers. By broadcasting the name of these killers into infamy, they are giving some of them what they want: notoriety. I can only speak for myself, but I don't give a shit about the name or the background of the person who did this - I only hope for the well-being of the victims. Perhaps if these animals never make a name for themselves all over the news, it might deter some of the more attention seeking people out there from this. Again, I could be totally off, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

3. I am not opposed to sane people owning guns for self protection for their homes. I have often thought of the idea myself, and so has my wife, but we don't have one (we'll see). I do not see how banning guns will make much of a difference in keeping people safer from armed intruders. Bad people will get guns, period. Having said this, I cannot for the life of me think of any reason why anyone would want anything other than a pistol, bolt action rifle, or shotgun. That has both hunting and home protection covered. Anything more heavy duty should only be used by military and cops. The only people trying to make a case for owning anything more than a pistol, rifle, or shotgun are just insane, and at that point they are just jerking off to the idea of owning the damn things.

4. As a few people have mentioned, our country does a piss poor job of keeping mentally handicapped people safe and productive. I really do not know much about this guy - some people are bat shit insane, but on a macro level, we could to a LOT better to identify people as dangerous and either a) treat them or b ) keep them away from the populace. Lots of people say that social policy is a large are for monetary waste, but I see expenditures in this areas as fiscally prudent. This is a case where prevention is cheaper than reaction. I am not saying it would have prevented this from happening, but I am sure you get what I am saying.

I am still mystified why our country is in our position of having so many notable armed rampages. Sure it happens in other countries, but not to the extent here. What the fuck is wrong with our country?

Edited December 15, 2012 by roadtonowhere08

[HeadphoneAddict]

Dan, I'm actually not a hardened proponent of gun control, because I too do not know if it will work. But I'm willing to try it. We gave prohibition a try, and when the Government finally had to admit it was an utter failure, we repealed it. This is not something that is set in stone. I also believe that gun control on it's own has very little chance to do any good. But as a part of a bigger solution it might do some good. I'm not trying to impose my will. I'm willing to try other options. The unbending branch always breaks. I'm very open to hearing other options, but I think putting this on the back burner is irresponsible. It's time to acknowledge that we have a serious problem.Probably not to a slave.  You shouldn't feel guilty. As well as ridiculous, I found his first post very offensive. The fact that he doesn't get that it is offensive does little to diminish those feelings.

It's not that I don't get it, but I choose not to respond further because I'm not very good at picking the right words to convey my feelings. I already tried once to explain the course of emotions that I went through prior to posting, and how the timing of when I posted lead me to post what I did, but if you can't understand that then there's really no point in my continuing. I have a dozen things I'd like to say right now, but I can't find a way to say it without the fear of having it dissected and being passed through the grinder on the path to certain misinterpretation. I'm just a spectator here now.

[Wmcmanus]

I think Expanding Man's statistics say more about the mental health of his country than it does about gun control.

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.

[agile_one]

A horrible, horrible tragedy.  My sister used to live in Newtown, and I visited her there.  An idyllic, peaceful, picture postcard new england town.  An unimaginable setting for such horror,  As was Aurora, as was the Wisconsin Sikh church, as was Virginia Tech, as was Columbine, etc, etc.  

 

I like guns.  I am an expert shot.  In my house, though, I have zero guns.  Any gun I ever shot was owned by Uncle Sam, or kept at a range.  I was ready to call HPA out for the original "arm teachers" post, but now see he grieves like the rest of us.  He may be an ass, but he's our ass.  Gun control may not be THE answer, but it is a big part of the answer, as is dealing way better with mental health issues than we do presently.  

 

It won't be easy, but I sense, finally, some political will to tackle the gun control part, at least.

 

Finally, and most importantly, I join all of you in grieving for the families, teachers, and citizens of Newtown CT tonight,l

[blessingx]

In Public 'Conversation' on Guns, a Rhetorical Shift http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/in-public-conversation-on-guns-a-rhetorical-shift/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Dusty Chalk]

Do these kids not have the right to feel safe? Do you have another solution?

No they do not have the right to feel safe -- do you feel safe?  Ah, but you're an adult with experience and know better, that makes it okay?

 

A little background:  I was raised with -- what's the expression? -- an over-protective mother.  She told me not to go near the window without a shirt on because I could tempt someone to rape me.  I hadn't even figured out what sleeping together meant yet.  Seriously.  Thanks mom.  Ignorance is ... out the window.

 

EDIT #1:  My point being -- I didn't feel any safer.  On the contrary, I felt less safe, because my mom felt that situational awareness would make me safer.  I should also point out that "feeling safer" and 'being safer" are two different things.

 

Do I have another solution?  Yes -- live.  Be normal.  Be exemplary.  Shun the fear-mongers.  Be able to take care of yourself with the small fraction of bullies who are bigger/more violent/more successful at being bullies than you, with whom diplomatic solutions don't work.   Use sunscreen.  99.9% of the time, everything will be alright.  It's a chance you have to take.  The alternative is to be raised home-schooled by hippies, as fucked up as the children in Dogtooth.  Good luck with that.

 

Over-protective doesn't work -- not just because of the psychological ramifications, but because it does not prevent anything -- do you know what?  My chances of getting raped changed from almost nothing to that same quantum of almost nothing.  Same goes for the over-protected -- your chances of being a victim of violence are exactly the same -- and I don't mean number, I mean conceptually -- small, trivial, non-probable, but possible.  You can live in fear, or you can get over it.

 

EDIT #2 -- I agree with everything grawk said, not because he's grawk, but because he's right.

[The Expanding Man]

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.

There have been no further mass shootings that I can recall following changes in the law.

The Port Arthur massacre that led to gun buyback laws involved the fatal shooting of 37 people by one lunatic with automatic weapons.

As to overall statistics of the percentage of homicides involving a firearm (out of all homocides), a clear down ward trend since the gun buy backs laws:

Overall homicides during the relevant period also show a downward trend:

Source: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

 

 

Edited December 15, 2012 by The Expanding Man

[grawk]

Yes, but the entirety of the data for Australia would be lost in rounding for the US. They're just not comparable in any real measure. Australia has less than 300 murders a year, the US has 13,000.

Let's stipulate that if you could conceivably get everyone, including the criminals, to give up all the firearms in this country, and have them destroyed, and institute gun laws similar to those in Australia, we could in all likelihood eliminate every school shooting, and prevent dozens of senseless shootings. Dozens.

There have been no further mass shootings following changes in the law.

Sure, and there were none prior to that one shooting. There was 1 shooting.

[The Expanding Man]

All I'm really trying to do is to tell you how another country responded positively to such a tragedy.

 

Food for thought.  That's all.

[grawk]

I don't consider removal of a basic right a positive response to a tragedy. I call it using a tragedy as an excuse to accomplish a political goal.

They could have banned donuts after the port macarthur tragedy and in all likelihood had a similar result.

[Torpedo]

My opinion on this must be understood from the perspective of someone who lives in a country where fire weapons are allowed only for military/police, sport shooting (usually are small caliber, you need to be federated participating in competitions to have one, and your storing safe is strictly controlled), hunting (same restrictive conditions) and very special risky conditions/professions like jewelry, but get ready if you end up using yours.

Crime, as in assaults, robbery and such, here is as high as in any other 1st world country--though it could get worse with this crisis--, Yes, you might feel safer carrying a gun, but you're not allowed to. It's that simple. As in any other place, if you really want to, you can get an illegal weapon without a license for a price, but likely just a pistol, not an assault weapon. Further problem is getting the ammunition  The bad guys always have weapons to use, the good ones only if they're professionals.

 

Fortunately we don't have this kind of crimes, perhaps for not having the precedents, or for the difficulties getting a "big" weapon, or could be just cultural, I really don't know. What I know is that to me is quite tranquilizing that if I run into a traffic dispute, or any of those silly situations where you might get involved in violence without not even wanting to, it's extremely unlikely that the guy in front will produce a gun and start shooting me and my family. Problem aren't really the guns but the morons who might get to own and use them. IMHO Controlling that is where the key to prevent these horrible crimes resides. But you have a lot of economical interests and other conditions which make it very hard to implement.

I wish you get to avoid something like this happening ever again.

[jp11801]

I'm very saddened to see a tragedy like this and maybe more saddened to see the press frenzy afterwards. While I am extremely pre gun control I don't want to jump sown the rabbit hole of that debate. 

 

The sad thing is the sensational press tends to get reactions like HPA's who react to singular events as if they were a clear and present danger in their lives. Arming teachers will not solve mental illness. So rather than arming each other to the teeth or take every ones guns away why not address the root issue, getting crazy fuckers the help they need before they blow some ones head off. 

 

Read Culture of Fear by BArry Glassner when you get a moment , it's an eye opener. 

[The Expanding Man]

I don't consider removal of a basic right a positive response to a tragedy. I call it using a tragedy as an excuse to accomplish a political goal.

They could have banned donuts after the port macarthur tragedy and in all likelihood had a similar result.

 

I acknowledge that as an outsider, there are certainly things to this debate that I do not understand.  Please excuse any offence I may cause with this post.

 

28 people have just lost an even more basic right.  What should a nation do when these different rights compete with each other?

 

I'm genuinely curious - Is there more to this side of the debate than accepting that the costs of this constitutional right are these semi-regular tragedies?

[grawk]

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.