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

[manaox2]

I an not against gun ownership, that was only one scenario. I do not know the statistics for people shot on accident or in altercations by their own weapons. I find it disturbing hearing locally the opinions of who deserve to be shot and for what by gun owners. It's also amazing how little consequence there is for breaking existing gun laws, even repeatedly. I know the schools around here do have armed officers in the building. I will make no comment on how many teachers possibly are carrying concealed weapons in places like their vehicles. I feel safer because of that. I do not ever wish to have live weapons being stored in classrooms though.

[The Monkey]

Ending the ridiculous and unwinnable "war on drugs" is another good place to look to try to address the gun problem.

[CarlSeibert]

I'm pretty much with Dan on this, but maybe for slightly different reasons.

 

When 9/11 happened, it wasn't two hours before the talking heads were gleefully blathering about how many freedoms we should be willing to give up because of the attack. Not to do something about the attack, just because of it. And the answer was lots. Just because. I felt physically sick when I heard that on that day. I feel physically sick when I think about it today.

 

We shouldn't have given up any freedoms that day. Not the stupidest, teeny weeniest ones. We should have grown a backbone and stood up to those clowns. Every time a policeman had to go through due process, he should have whistled a happy tune knowing he was sticking it to al Qaeda, showing them they were powerless to fuck with us. 

 

If we react in frustration to this, we're letting some astonishingly vile little person set our agenda for us. I say absolutely not. I think there are things we could do to rationalize gun regulation, but now very specifically is not the time to even think about it. We need to make a show of not being afraid, of not being cowed by murderous lunatics or fear-mongering talking heads.

 

(And rationally, there's not a lot of risk here. Mass murderers kill about 150 people every year, and the number isn't trending up. That's about on par with the rarest of rare diseases. )

 

All that said, I do think there's something very, very wrong with how we secure our schools nowadays. I'm so glad I don't have kids. Every kid in elementary school knows - knows for real -  what "lock down" means. In a decent society, only people in prison should know that.  We've lost the battle before the first threatening circumstance even happens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[catscratch]

Agree on the war on drugs issue, but that's a totally different story. I'm pretty sure history will look at prohibition and everything associated with it as one of the major repressions of the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

Right now the issue to me seems to be limiting crimes of opportunity vs penalizing legitimate, responsible gun ownership. If there is a way to do the former without infringing upon the latter - such as stricter gun control for people with a history of mental problems, or perhaps making it a crime to allow guns to fall into the hands of relatives/friends with mental problems - I'd be all for it. Otherwise, I'm fairly strictly in the pro-gun camp.

 

Background-wise, I'm from a family of immigrants that left Russia right after the fall of the Soviet Union, or more specifically political dissidents that were persecuted during Soviet times and which were very fortunate to be able to leave. I'm named after an uncle that spent a fair amount of time in prison for so-called political crimes. So if I'm a little gung-ho about "liberty," whatever it means, there's an understandable reason for it.

[Dusty Chalk]

All that said, I do think there's something very, very wrong with how we secure our schools nowadays.

I am for the most part in agreement with you as well.  But I'm not sure about this -- I heard just yesterday that this particular school had very very good security.  Short of having trained armed guards, there was no stopping him -- he basically shot his way in.  They had visitor registration and locks and monitors monitoring people on their way in in all cases with no exceptions.  There was no "back way in", and he didn't take it.

 

I also found out something else, but not sure of the accuracy of this -- it seems his first murder was his mother, who had many more guns.  He then used those, as well as his legally obtained ones.  So the moral of that story, to me is, if you're going to own a gun, be responsible about it.  Act like you own a lethal weapon and keep it secure.  And teach the proper respect to your offspring, don't use them as a crutch, or as a rage-y last resort option, then your children will learn similarly.

[guzziguy]

Everything I've read indicates that his mother was doing exactly as you suggest.  Now what?

[Dusty Chalk]

I don't know.  Do I look like I have all the answers?  I don't -- that's one reason I don't have kids.  Because I know that being a teenager is hard, feeling suicidal/homicidal hard sometimes, and I'm sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between being actually suicidal or homicidal, and just being a teenager nobodyunderstandsmeshutupIhateyou hard.

[grawk]

The now what is "sometimes bad things happen". Society can't prevent them all. Stop giving publicity to the shooters, so at least no one can see it as a path to fame.

[swt61]

IMO if we turn our heads from 20 small children being slaughtered at school because "sometimes bad things happen", then we've committed a grave crime ourselves.

I know that mental illness is the root here. However that could become as big of a concern for personal freedoms as gun control.

#1) Getting a good grasps on who is and who isn't mentally ill is a monumental challenge.

#2) I can easily see factions of our government using mental illness laws to determine who they believe is a threat to their own agendas, and then completely contorting those laws in their own favor.

It's a problem with no easy solutions, and no solution that is going to be acceptable by all.

However we have to purists, because learning to live with these events is something my conscience will not allow, and I hope many more feel the same.

[grawk]

not making more laws isn't the same thing as turning our head.

[Dusty Chalk]

IMO if we turn our heads from 20 small children being slaughtered at school because "sometimes bad things happen", then we've committed a grave crime ourselves.

...

However we have to purists, because learning to live with these events is something my conscience will not allow, and I hope many more feel the same.

No, this is exactly what I was talking about -- acting for the sake of acting, because we're emotional.  I disagree with exactly that concept.  Whatever we do, it needs to be thought out and reviewed and unemotional.  If we change laws for the sake of changing laws to "try something", as a reactionary measure, that's exactly the sort of emotional law-passing that I am against.  Not just not feel the same, against.  Go ahead, call me cold, if that helps.

[Aimless1]

Actually, Steve is right.  Whether the plea is emotional is not the point.  Civil terrorism, aggression and assaults are on the rise.  The issues do need to be addressed and to ignore the problem like an Ostrich with its head stuck in the sand and is a crime by ommission.  A well thought out solution would be great, but solutions are driven by politics.  Can't recall the last time that system delivered a well thought out solution that wasn't tainted.  And no, I don't have an answer.  Maybe no one does, but at least we should work towards one.

[skullguise]

I also found out something else, but not sure of the accuracy of this -- it seems his first murder was his mother, who had many more guns.  He then used those, as well as his legally obtained ones.  So the moral of that story, to me is, if you're going to own a gun, be responsible about it.  Act like you own a lethal weapon and keep it secure.  And teach the proper respect to your offspring, don't use them as a crutch, or as a rage-y last resort option, then your children will learn similarly.

 

I heard the same thing....it seems she did take on weapons, including the uber-powerful one that was used in the murders, as a hobby.  And, she brought her son with her to the shooting range to try and teach him some responsibility and focus (not the exact phrasing from the reports).

 

 

Everything I've read indicates that his mother was doing exactly as you suggest.  Now what?

 

I don't necessarily agree here, I'm not sure she did all she could.  I think along with regulating gun ownership, EDUCATION is important.  And part of that education is truly knowing and understanding the risks associated with owning guns at home, especially when younger children and children/adults with possible mental or behavioral issues are present.  It seems likely there were known issues here.  How to properly secure guns and ammo is a huge educational opportunity I would bet.....

 

I think we DO need to act, but as Dusty implies, not JUST as a means of reacting to this horrible tragedy.  There seem to be enough well-thought-out proposals once the extremes are eliminated (do nothing, or total gun ban).  My co-worker and I were discussing this today, and he is very anti-gun.  But he also has extended family members who were policemen (retired) and others who were/are hunters, and he respects their feelings on the matter.  He did say that all his hunting family strongly secures their guns, and they don't allow the children to access them at all without the parent present.

 

Yet his "near nut-job" uncle also had a very good discussion with him, regarding the possibility for tighter civilian regulation around the stronger weapons (the automatic or semi-automatic types).  Just a starting point for a discussion, but something that would be good for progress in a smart way.

 

My wife was a little knee-jerk at one point, talking about banning guns.  I told her we should ban alcohol then, as it is the cause of many deaths as well.  Never mind that overwhelming majority of people are responsible drinkers..... if just ONE person could be saved by banning all alcohol, wouldn't that be worth it?  She got my Devil's Advocate point.... 

Edited December 18, 2012 by skullguise

[robm321]

IMO if we turn our heads from 20 small children being slaughtered at school because "sometimes bad things happen", then we've committed a grave crime ourselves.

 

 

We do that everyday when car accidents kill men women and children in much greater numbers than these relatively small events. I'm just pointing out the slippery slope this can lead to.

[Dusty Chalk]

The issues do need to be addressed ...

I just want to point out that I do not disagree with this.  If I've been stressing the "let's not over-react" part, that is a mistake in my communication.  I've got no problem with addressing them, which starts with exactly this discussion.

[grawk]

I heard the same thing....it seems she did take on weapons, including the uber-powerful one that was used in the murders, as a hobby.  And, she brought her son with her to the shooting range to try and teach him some responsibility and focus (not the exact phrasing from the reports).

Pet peeve. The AR15 is not uber-powerful. It's the US battle rifle because it's light, easy to shoot, and reliable. It's not powerful enough to use deer hunting in most states, however.

[swt61]

We do that everyday when car accidents kill men women and children in much greater numbers than these relatively small events. I'm just pointing out the slippery slope this can lead to.

A car accident is exactly that...an accident. A mass killing is intentional.

I do agree that acting during an emotional state can be a bad decision. All I'm asking is that we don't just put this aside once the fervor dies down. Anyone near my own age knows how drastically these acts have risen during our lifetime.

[grawk]

or at least how much more attention it gets because of the 24 hour news cycle.

[robm321]

The population has risen as well. I believe the murder rate per capita has been going down since the 90s.

[skullguise]

Pet peeve. The AR15 is not uber-powerful. It's the US battle rifle because it's light, easy to shoot, and reliable. It's not powerful enough to use deer hunting in most states, however.

 

Understood and agreed.  My ignorance of the weapon....but better point probably being that it's not your average civilian gun....

[skullguise]

Then i guess I'm a bit anti-gun, even though I respect and recognize the right to have them.....

 

I'm guess I'm just very surprised that this type of gun would be commonplace for a suburan CT type home....and quite frankly, given the possible lack of education about gun safety I mentioned previously, that scares me....

[MoonShine]

Ironically enough, according to some gun enthusiast customers I spoke to today, guns are flying off the shelves as people stock up in anticipation of stricter laws.

[grawk]

AR15s are pretty safe as guns go. The safety works well, it's easy to handle it without being near the trigger, and it's easy to tell if it's loaded or not. The very things you'd want in a battle rifle, because recruits are idiots.

They're just scary looking because they're black.

[Aimless1]

I just want to point out that I do not disagree with this.  If I've been stressing the "let's not over-react" part, that is a mistake in my communication.  I've got no problem with addressing them, which starts with exactly this discussion.

I can feel the pain in Steve's posts. I don' t read them as offering a blind response. Rather I hear and feel a plea for a solution to end the madness that will work. Even as a gun toting hunter I agree that we must respond in some measure. To not respond at all is just wrong in my view. I agree that we must not over react, but we must meet these senseless acts with some measured response. We make it illegal to yell fire in a movie theater. Equating a tragedy like this to alcohol abuse or auto accidents is faulty logic at best. We pass many laws for our safety such as seat belt laws and no longer regard them as an imposition. Again, I have no answers. If I need to further limit my rights to ensure the safety of children I am happy to do so.

[jpelg]

I need to further limit my rights to ensure the safety of children

 

I think the fundamental disagreement from both sides is whether doing the former will necessarily accomplish the latter.

 

Btw, I am unaware that the shooter obtained any of the guns used thru legal channels. It is my understanding that the rifle & two pistols were all stolen from his mother.