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

[jvlgato]

Very difficult topic. I see both sides ... as others have said, I'm not a gun person, but understand others' interest and right to own one. I thought this was a pretty nice start to a discussion of both sides.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/the-weapons-continuum/?hp

[Aimless1]

Wrong question. Is there a workable solution that will guarantee the safety of children or significantly improve their safety? If so there isn't much I wouldn't do or price I would not pay to protect children. I have turned in fathers who told me in confidence they were molesting their daughters ... And testified against them. Cost me friends, income and business reputation. Closed certain doors to me thereby limiting my business growth because the one man I helped convict could not have possibly molest his daughter according to local opinion. To me no cost is too dear to protect children ... but I am both a parent and grand parent.

[jvlgato]

Al, that takes a lot of guts ... but the right thing to do. I am required ethically and legally to do the same if I had such information. Are teachers not bound by the same requirements?

[CarlSeibert]

Wrong question. Is there a workable solution that will guarantee the safety of children or significantly improve their safety?

 

Very likely, there really isn't. That's part of what makes this so frustrating. We should probably being doing less rather than more, since we are making victims out of countless people who will never encounter any real physical threat.

 

The murder rate is falling, along with the crime rate in general. And these sorts of attacks are not becoming more common, even though it sure seems that way. (My own newspaper, by the way, is under-covering this story by just about any measure. Maybe we're doing a good thing by our own sloth.)

 

I think Dusty observed that this guy walked in the front door. There was no back way in. Apparently, there was no back way out, either. That's one of the things that bothers me about the way schools are built. In almost every one of these cases, the attacker manages to corner a whole classroom full of people and have his way with them. Self defense experts teach people that if their home is attacked, the first choice is to get out and run like crazy.

[roadtonowhere08]

jvlgato: Yes, teachers definitely are. We are mandated reporters. To not do so is against the law and we'd get punished (and rightly so).

The protect the children argument is very noble aim, but no matter how you slice it, short of turning schools into prisons with armed guards and full body checks, keeping them completely safe is not going to happen. Just look at the very layout of most campuses; any fool can pretty much walk into (or climb into) campus and go nuts. People are just going to have to understand that with freedom comes risk, and that anyone who wants to do harm WILL do harm.

As far as legislation to minimize harm is concerned, all one can do is try to legislate in an evenhanded manner that will try to reduce the amount of damage one can do before: a) someone tackles the bastard while he reloads or b)he runs out of bullets. That's all that can really be done. And the only way to do that is to limit the magazine size and the speed that one can shoot (automatics). I am not up on my gun control legislation, and it varies by state, so I am not sure how far laws go to that extent.

Personally, and I am a very big states rights advocate, I think the farthest the legislative branch can reasonably go is to have a federal ban on any gun that has a magazine size larger than say 10 rounds and everything has to be semi-automatic (I am not sure if any state allows fully automatics - I would hope not). That would limit the damage any one gun can do. In addition, nobody with a felony or history of a mental illness can be issued a gun of any type. Not sure if preventing any person whose sibling or child living in the house with mental illness can be legislated or not, but it would be nice as well.

I think to go beyond that is too extreme. It isn't going to stop attacks, and it isn't going to keep children any safer than what I suggested.

Furthermore, EdipisReks is completely correct, the media is fantastic at working the public into a tizzy and thinking that the next massacre is right around the corner. Scaring people is their business and it works well. Regardless of the crap they spew forth daily, the world is safer now than ever in the history of humanity for the average person on Earth.

I hope I do not come off as a callous ass. My heart really does go out to the families. I cannot imagine the loss they are feeling, but the fact remains: events like this are statistically rare. Given the ease for them to happen, it's a miracle that they stay rare.

That brings me to the root of the problem: identifying and treating or quarantining people with mental illness. The latter option would obviously be done for people who are en extreme risk to themselves or society. Done right, that would be infinitely more effective than any gun ban.

Edited December 19, 2012 by roadtonowhere08

[The Expanding Man]

jvlgato: 

That brings me to the root of the problem: identifying and treating or quarantining people with mental illness. The latter option would obviously be done for people who are en extreme risk to themselves or society. Done right, that would be infinitely more effective than any gun ban.

 

 

Realistically, how can this be achieved?  I doubt private health insurers would meet these aims.  Even if they tried, there would be gaps in coverage.

 

Your political system seems unable or unwilling to introduce a universal subsidised health scheme.

 

I'm an outsider, so forgive me if I get these things wrong.

[CarlSeibert]

That brings me to the root of the problem: identifying and treating or quarantining people with mental illness. The latter option would obviously be done for people who are en extreme risk to themselves or society. Done right, that would be infinitely more effective than any gun ban.

 

And therein lies the rub. How would we do such a thing? And would it be morally acceptable if we had the means?

 

Many people would argue that, apart from some really extreme, nonfunctional folks, even crazy people should have a shot at being responsible for their own destinies.

[roadtonowhere08]

Realistically, how can this be achieved?  I doubt private health insurers would meet these aims.  Even if they tried, there would be gaps in coverage.

 

Your political system seems unable or unwilling to introduce a universal subsidised health scheme.

 

I'm an outsider, so forgive me if I get these things wrong.

 

I would say that this issue is outside of the private insurance realm. To tackle this within their business model would surely either drive up premiums immensely or bankrupt them if constraints are placed on them by the Feds. No, I think this is something that the Feds need to do for it to work. This is more of a moral issue to me. I step back and think where I would like my tax money to go the most, and I value mental health and treatment as much as I do the military and its purpose, which is one of the Feds' core objectives. Others might have different priorities, so I doubt there will be consensus on my idea (or even a majority of people who agree with me). Hell, this conflicts with my overall stance on government roles, but I cannot think of a better way at this time.

 

And therein lies the rub. How would we do such a thing? And would it be morally acceptable if we had the means?

 

Many people would argue that, apart from some really extreme, nonfunctional folks, even crazy people should have a shot at being responsible for their own destinies.

I have those same questions and concerns. It is a very difficult subject, because there is so much subjectivity throughout. I do not have a concrete answer or proposed solution that would work for all.

Edited December 19, 2012 by roadtonowhere08

[Dusty Chalk]

If I need to further limit my rights to ensure the safety of children I am happy to do so.

That's very noble of you, but what you should be saying is that if the need to further limit everyone's rights will ensure the safety of children you'd be happy to do so, but you have to realize that not everyone feels the same way. 

 

Another facet to the problem is the assumption that it will help.  What if it doesn't?  Sorry, as long as we have drug cartels right across our border, I have a hard time believing it necessarily will, but I've got no problem with them forming a study to make that determination.  Even so, I will be just as sad every time I hear about someone getting caught in the crossfire of a gone postal incident, act of terrorism, home invasion, armed robbery, etc., I think it's more tragic when someone could have defended themselves and were prevented from doing so by you lot.

 

And lastly, I realized overnight that part of my problem in discussing this with you all is the company the gun control proponents keep.  Namely, other gun control proponents.  They seem just as emotional and presumptuous as the new ones are.  So I'll try to keep my cranky manopausal comments to a minimum.

[HeadphoneAddict]

Man, I'm still afraid to get back into this discussion but I appreciate everyones comments, on both sides.  I especially want to thank Peter and Dan (and others) for representing their positions so well, which are more in alignment with my feelings.  

 

This is a very touchy issue, and one where a good debate is still unlikely to make someone else change their position/philosophy just based on the discussion at hand.

[swt61]

Is there a workable solution that will guarantee the safety of children or significantly improve their safety?

In fact there are a lot of things we can do to start. Problem is they will piss off as many people or more, than are angered by the thought of any gun legislation.

Deny it, call it ridiculous, whatever, but it is my full belief (as well as many others) that violence in video games and movies most certainly has a desensitizing effect.

Both parents at work and kids monitoring themselves is another contributing factor.

Rampant "medicate the problem" ideologies, as well as basic things like quality of food and water all contribute to the problem.

Mental illness is not all luck of the draw. We as a society are generating cases in many ways.

Edited December 19, 2012 by swt61

[jvlgato]

Ive been told that our suburban but close to the city school (the high school but not the elementary) has a police officer stationed at the school and has metal detectors in the entrances. Kind of makes me sad. And can't I,aging every school in the country an do this.

Regarding mental health ... everyone agrees we should improve the system to help the mentally ill. However, who pays for that is a legitimate problem. Public funding has been reduced, and multiple state hospitals and community health centers have been closed here. Private insurances have traditionally limited coverage for mental health for years, and only recently has there been required equity for mental health insurance coverage if a large company offers health insurance. Small companies are excluded. And the mental health equity act was an uphill battle for years. It only got slipped in as a part of another larger act (can't remember which). It's too expensive, says the insurance companies. And they have to offer reasonable rates to businesses.

Also, in terms of forcing treatment, that is very difficult, First off, guys like this just don't come in for help. I've hardly ever see these folks in my office. If they come, they are brought in by a parent or spouse, then they sit there and don't speak. If I suggest a medication or more intense therapy, they decline. They stop coming in after a few visits, saying it's worthless or ok, I went, are you happy? Forced hospitalization is very difficult. They can simply deny having any harmful thoughts, and even if we hospitalize against their will, we have 5 days to obtain clear evidence of dangerousness. Again, they sit quietly for a few days, then we have to release them. That's just how the laws are set up, at least in IL. Just as the argument for and against gun control is complicated and heated, there are very complicated factors and strong opinions on either side of the forced treatment for the mentally ill issue. Individual rights to choose treatment or not, the right to not be locked up against your will, these are very emotional and complex issues. I get phone calls all the time from concerned family members saying their loved one isn't acting right. But he isn't saying he is suicidal or homicidal ... just acting funny, isolating, irritable, really quiet, not himself ... but refuses to get help or see anyone. No one can force that person into treatment, and again, if they are talked into coming, they sit there and don't follow your recommendations.

So it's great to say let's improve mental health treatment, but that is just as complicated as let's control weapons.

[swt61]

Regarding mental health ... everyone agrees we should improve the system to help the mentally ill. However, who pays for that is a legitimate problem.

A heavy tax on guns and ammo should cover it.

JUST KIDDING! Lighten up.

[jvlgato]

Haha. There you go ... I'd be ok w/ that.

[MoonShine]

There are some steps we could take now :

Require all of the licensing & background checks that are currently in place for new guns for the sale of used guns (they are no less lethal than new guns). 

Strengthen the depth of background checks and expand them to include all household members.

 

Would the gun enthusiasts here oppose this? If so, for what reason?

 

Also - a question for the gun people: where you draw the line as far as what level of semi-automatic / fully automatic weapons being a "right?

[acidbasement]

Richard Dawkins chimes in, on his foundation's official facebook page:

 

 

First gun control numbers, then Richard Dawkins quoted on gun control below. Numbers:
Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)
Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906
US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960
America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.
"Friday's mass carnage was a major historical event requiring serious analysis and action. Is opposition to gun control a religion? What is the data supporting this view? All reasoned analysis is welcome on this serious topic regardless of conclusion." Sean Faircloth, Dir. of Strategy & Policy. "The reason Richard Dawkins is so loved is because he tells the truth." 

Richard Dawkins: "'Guns don't kill people, crazy people kill people.' Can you believe anyone could be so STUPID as to trot that out, yet again? Every country has its psychopaths. In the US they have guns. Thank you NRA. Thank you cowardly politicians of both parties who give in to the NRA." Read more about the effectiveness of gun control here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/after-newtown-mourning-outrage-and-questions.html 

 

 

There's certainly a strong correlation between gun control and gun violence, according to these stats - maybe a better way to say that is that the US is a clear outlier in terms of both gun control and gun violence rates.  Of course, all the other countries cited are far more socialist with regard to health care - the 'S' word is repugnant to the American voters, but it removes the financial barrier to accessing mental health services for a lot of people.  In a country like the US, where you have nearly exclusively private medical services, it seems obvious that mental health care will be among the most difficult to get, given that the severely mentally ill are going to be disproportionately unable to work jobs with medical benefits.

[grawk]

There are some steps we could take now :

Require all of the licensing & background checks that are currently in place for new guns for the sale of used guns (they are no less lethal than new guns). 

Strengthen the depth of background checks and expand them to include all household members.

 

Would the gun enthusiasts here oppose this? If so, for what reason?

 

Also - a question for the gun people: where you draw the line as far as what level of semi-automatic / fully automatic weapons being a "right?

 

Do you believe that those checks will prevent criminals from getting guns?  Do you believe that those checks would have prevented what happened in CT?

 

I personally draw the line at "if the gov't can have it, the people should be able to have it", as that was the standard when the constitution was written, because it was for the people to regulate the militia.

 

Just for giggles, look up how many legally owned machine guns have been used in crimes.

[Knuckledragger]

I was going to post this in slow forum, but it's a bit to heavy for there.  TotalBiscuit goes on a 17 minute rant about the Newtown shooting, violence in video games and the US (and UK) media.

 

[crappyjones123]

Dan, what can the govt not have?

[grawk]

They can have anything they want, they're the government.

[dsavitsk]

[Dusty Chalk]

There are some steps we could take now :

Require all of the licensing & background checks that are currently in place for new guns for the sale of used guns (they are no less lethal than new guns). 

Strengthen the depth of background checks and expand them to include all household members.

 

Would the gun enthusiasts here oppose this? If so, for what reason?

 

Also - a question for the gun people: where you draw the line as far as what level of semi-automatic / fully automatic weapons being a "right?

I don't have a problem with the government knowing what I have...except when they try and take it.  So I have mixed feelings on that subject.  In principal, I am not against any gun registration, and I didn't realize there was any kind of differentiation between used and new -- I don't have any problem with them being the same.

 

I also don't have a problem with stricter requirements for higher power guns.  I.E. I live in Woodbridge, I should get a shotgun.  And a back holster.  And learn how to reload quickly, and under duress.  Dan lives in the sticks, he should get a bear-stopper.  My sister, when she lived in Alaska, needed the appropriate type of defense against mooses.  And by that I don't mean a spray.

 

And in principal, I understand the household extension...except then you have to start worrying about everyone who can break into my apartment.  Should everyone who can access my apartment get a background check?  What about burglars, should I be declined access just because I could get burgled, hence my weapon could end up in the wrong hands?

[acidbasement]

 

And in principal, I understand the household extension...except then you have to start worrying about everyone who can break into my apartment.  Should everyone who can access my apartment get a background check?  What about burglars, should I be declined access just because I could get burgled, hence my weapon could end up in the wrong hands?

The Canadian solution (from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-2.html#h-3 ):

 

 

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

• 5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

  • (a) it is unloaded;

  • (b) it is

    • (i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

    • (ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

    • (iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

  • (c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

• (2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

• (3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

[manaox2]

Carl, I like what you are saying a lot for the present time. A schools emergency plan for the current state of things is to lock doors, turn off lights, and hide children while creating as little panic as possible. Put out color coded cards if possible for first responders in an obvious location. There is no flight or matched fight opportunity really. It does not account for assemblies, fire drills, cafeterias very well if at all. We don't have the ability in financial regards to provide decent onsite security forces like large private businesses or other government facilities. It seems very intrusive and intensive to check everyone like they do at airports before they enter the campus area. Note that this in airports has not been able to thwart a single possible attack yet in the last decade and is public knowledge on how to defeat these measures. These schools were not built with these things in mind and still aren't for the most part. We have a lot more security procedure, but little had changed with regards to a threat detected response. In every simulation, double digit death numbers seem expected. Guns exist and are ultimately simple machines. So best we can do is make it slightly more difficult for those who don't follow the law to receive, think I read that 40% of all guns are sold without background check, many of these shooters are just boys. I'm usually disheartened by media perpetuating dangerous cultural views. They project the macho male action hero tough unfeeling model in almost every show, movie, song, and game. Maybe there is a reason the overwhelming majority of these attackers are male. It seems like the majority of popular media involves destroying or killing enemies in some fashion (cause its justice/revenge!) and acceptable that it's a common wish of all. To an outside culture, much less to the mentally ill, it could seem like we condone it or even admire it. The way the news covers it seems focused on starting a panic and creating a cult following. While it's very unlikely to happen to a student, all schools perceived safety goes down which has an effect on many student's educations. So how about some media regulations? Our negative culture is a slippery slope that won't be fixed any time soon and memories are short. Maybe a little more education on gun safety by owners sounds good too. Don't see much anyone or anything can do though personally.

Edited December 19, 2012 by manaox2

[CarlSeibert]

A heavy tax on guns and ammo should cover it.

JUST KIDDING! Lighten up.

 

 

I don't think that's a dumb idea at all. There are any number of statistically dangerous activities that turn out to be safer - orders of magnitude safer - for people who spend a lot of money on them, join a club, or attain some sort of expertise. Think bicycling. We know that the concealed weapons permit folks people are pretty trustworthy. But licensing for all gun ownership wouldn't fly second amendment-wise. (Nor do I think it should, frankly). A hefty tax might have the desired effect and heaven knows, the government could use the dough. (Of course it's an open question whether they'd use it on health care or war.)

 

I agree that we present a lot of images that are damaging. Video games, most of entertainment, books, even. Most of that we can't do anything about. It's a reflection of who we are. To become a totalitarian place where art and entertainment are heavily censored would be, well, a worse reflection.

 

On the other hand, there are some things that we can control and we ought to. Has anybody looked at a policeman lately? Arrested development cases posturing to look like killers. Nice role model work there. Would it hurt to lose the storm trooper/ outlaw biker get-ups? All our heroes seem to be the people who operate outside the rules. Cold hearted violent killers way too often. That's stuff that authority figures can actually control. Without subjugating anybody, without eroding the liberties that are (or were) the underpinnings of our society, and maybe, just maybe, with effect.