Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[exzel]

Your point was that their just being there being there would be a deterrent. History has show it has not. You are trying to attribute rational thought to irrational people. As we've seen, these were people who were no more concerned with their personal safety than they were of those whose lives they took. You also put a lot of faith into the ability of those guards to take down the shooter.

From the Huffington Post:

In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy. After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."

The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.



LaPierre said having armed security on the scene is necessary so someone is there to shoot back. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away -- or a minute away?"


But in chaotic situations, it's often impossible to identify the "bad guy," as Smoker said in his account of Columbine: "There was an unknown inside a school. We didn't know who the 'bad guy' was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who 'they' were."


And you're suggesting that the solution is adding several armed guards in the more is obviously better theory that seems to be prevalent with most of the hard-line gun rights advocates. Yes, we need more but not guns...we need more in the way of safer buildings, we need more in the way of help for the mentally ill, we need more in the way of background checks, we need more regulations on what types of guns and ammunition that should be available to the general public, we need more in the way of teaching conflict resolution, we need more in the way of dealing with drugs, gangs, poverty, etc. I do not at all disagree that we need to do more to protect not just our children but all of our citizens but I absolutely disagree with your methods for how that gets accomplished. What you're suggesting is just more of the same that has done little to prevent another situation from happening.

Wouldn’t teachers who would go through reserve officer training together know the unknown person at the school shooting at kids and staff is the bad guy? Wouldn’t the local police know which teachers are the trained reserve officers? If a would-be killer is dealing with an armed and trained reserve officer, then they aren’t killing kids.

Mine is a reasonable and immediate safeguard. What you envision will most probably never happen in any of our lifetimes. I’m not advocating more of the same, just better training and methodology to deal with a serious situation.

(And your story about Columbine High School indicates that laws limiting the amount of cartridges a magazine can hold is potentially a very bad thing for those who would need to use a gun for good.)

[Sepia and Dust]

If you were in desperate need of police assistance, would you turn down the assistance of a trained and capable reserve officer, or would you say “let me die because you aren’t a real police officer?”

They're not reserve officers. They're teachers.

We already know making assault weapons illegal to purchase, and limiting the amount of cartridges magazines can hold, will do nothing to protect our kids from such events as Sandy Hook.

Disingenuous bull****. We know no such thing.

And if you received proper training, and proved capable, you could drive a race car on the track, right? No one is saying give them a gun and tell them to go at it.

I tend to prefer my kids' teachers to be well-trained. But in education, ot in how best to fire into the base of the skull to ensure an instakill.


If you want armed security on school grounds, petition your schoolboard to approve the funding for them.

Teachers are already underpaid and overstressed, and they are not a resource for you to exploit.

[Sepia and Dust]

(And your story about Columbine High School indicates that laws limiting the amount of cartridges a magazine can hold is potentially a very bad thing for those who would need to use a gun for good.)

Indeed. With MaxAmmo, he could have fired--and missed--an unlimited amount of times toward a crowded and panicked schoolhouse.

[Moderator]

In all the cases of school shootings so far, the persons who did the shooting were known to the school personnel. Wouldn't that make them able to blend in even more?

It may be a reasonable solution to you but not to me or many others. And having that "it will never happen in our lifetimes" attitude is exactly the kind of self-limiting mentality that our current legislators and so many others in our society have that can ensure that it won't.

And the belief you have that limiting cartridges is a bad thing is also an opinion I and many others do not share. Proliferation of guns and ammunition is not our godsend to ending violence.

[Robert Gray]

Police across the United States support gun control. Security experts and think tanks support gun control. The armed forces of the United States exercises gun control too. Regular soldiers lock up their weapons and don't get to carry them around unless on the front and engaged in a conflict. Guns are efficient, lethal weapons and the most potent of them most certainly do not need to be easy access.

The answer to our problem is not to put MORE guns out there. Let me ask you a few questions:

1. Who is going to pay for all these guns, training, and additional manpower?
2. How much should the salaries of teachers and administrators go up if they must also be trained security guards?
3. Who pays if a firefight or mistake ends up in dead people as a result of such individuals?
4. Will every building (not just schools) require them?
5. What about escalation? Will these people be armed with fully automatic weapons? What if the criminals and crazies come with them?
6. What jurisdiction will these people be under?
7. What kind of background checks, criminal record checks, tracking, and extra registration will their guns require?
8. What kind of legal regress will people have against them for other things?
9. Who will pay for their insurance, medical bills, etc. if they are injured in any way during these duties?
10. If we don't do every building, how ethical is it to steer the crazies to softer targets?

Let us return to the Wild, wild west of the United States. It wasn't tamed until they took away the guns. There was a time when everyone had a gun. That didn't seem to work. Law enforcement took it upon itself to create zones, i.e. you surrender your weapon when you enter the town. If you don't, we put you in jail or on boot hill. In effect, the Wild, wild west was tamed by gun control. It worked then. Your logic simply does not track. We don't have the resources to pay for the endless armies, weapons, and/or litigation after the fact. If we could do it, the very process we would have to setup to train said people would end up REGULATING guns too. Historically, the process you suggest doesn't work. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Answer those ten questions. Demonstrate where we are going to get the money when we can't even afford to pay teachers properly or have a decent student to teacher ratio. Figure out all the other obstacles.

It seems that the problem is solved more efficiently by simply making it harder for criminals and crazies to get guns.

[Sepia and Dust]

Let us return to the Wild, wild west of the United States. It wasn't tamed until they took away the guns. There was a time when everyone had a gun. That didn't seem to work. Law enforcement took it upon itself to create zones, i.e. you surrender your weapon when you enter the town. If you don't, we put you in jail or on boot hill. In effect, the Wild, wild west was tamed by gun control. It worked then. Your logic simply does not track. We don't have the resources to pay for the endless armies, weapons, and/or litigation after the fact. If we could do it, the very process we would have to setup to train said people would end up REGULATING guns too. Historically, the process you suggest doesn't work.

The Wild West was never very wild. The per-capita violent crime rate in, say, Tombstone or Dodge City was so low as to be nonexistant in some years, and it was always well below the rate in cities like Baltimore and Cleveland. Of course, most people in the Wild West didn't own a handgun (let alone a holster), either.

[exzel]

In all the cases of school shootings so far, the persons who did the shooting were known to the school personnel. Wouldn't that make them able to blend in even more?

They may have been know to school personnel, but the school personnel weren't trained reserve officers. I don't think someone shooting at kids would be easy to "blend in."

It may be a reasonable solution to you but not to me or many others. And having that "it will never happen in our lifetimes" attitude is exactly the kind of self-limiting mentality that our current legislators and so many others in our society have that can ensure that it won't.

I'm sure one day there will be flying cars. Should I hold off getting a much needed one with 4 wheels, and wait for the flying one to come on market?

And the belief you have that limiting cartridges is a bad thing is also an opinion I and many others do not share. Proliferation of guns and ammunition is not our godsend to ending violence.

Well that is your right to think so, as is mine to think not. And as of now (perhaps not in the future) the law is on my side. Taking guns and ammunition away is also not a godsend.

aside: Homeland Security is purchasing thousand of fully automatic assault rifles, billions and billions of rounds of ammunition, and now 2,700 light armored tanks. Why Homeland Security? Are we in danger of being invaded (but wouldn't that fall under defense)? Perhaps Homeland security is planning on protecting our schools. Would ya'll be good with that?

[Lily Sawyer]

Wouldn’t teachers who would go through reserve officer training together know the unknown person at the school shooting at kids and staff is the bad guy?

Not if the shooter is already upon them in their classroom. Teachers don't accept teaching positions to become armed militia members. They agree to, well, teach. They shouldn't be expected to become part of a paramilitary.

Mine is a reasonable and immediate safeguard. What you envision will most probably never happen in any of our lifetimes.

Dude, it *already* has. Just because it hasn't happened in your 'hood to *your* children doesn't mean it "probably never will happen in any of our lifetimes". That attitude is disrespectful to the victims, their families, their schools, their teachers, and the local law enforcement teams who showed up to save other kids and school staff. I, for one, am grateful I'm not reliant on your take of what constitutes a "reasonable and immediate safeguard" when I am in public.

What part(s) of Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook will it take to impress upon you that the existing gun laws in the U.S. need to be more restrictive?

Will it take one of your loved ones being blown away for you to finally get it?

And your story about Columbine High School indicates that laws limiting the amount of cartridges a magazine can hold is potentially a very bad thing for those who would need to use a gun for good.)

The only people I can think of who "would need to use a gun for good" are members of law enforcement and the military. Their jobs justify higher-capacity magazines, but someone who hunts for food or needs a rifle because they live on a ranch (kill varmints threatening livestock, etc.)? Nope. Those folks don't need large numbers of cartridges to kill a snake, deer, or coyote.

[Moderator]

I'm out. As I said in one of the other threads, I am at the point of recognizing that I am not conceding that I do not have valid arguments but am at the point of realizing they will be an exercise in futility.

[exzel]

Who is going to pay for all these guns, training, and additional manpower?
I'd venture a safe guess that if a teacher would volunteer to do this, they already have a gun. And does my daughter really need 3 math teachers in her classroom because we can’t group kids by ability as to not stigmatize them?

How much should the salaries of teachers and administrators go up if they must also be trained security guards?
Do you mean reserve police officers? Perhaps we make it easier to get rid of bad teachers, eliminate out of control benefits, and shift some of that money around.

Who pays if a firefight or mistake ends up in dead people as a result of such individuals?
Who pays now if it happens with a police officer.

Will every building (not just schools) require them?
No, make it voluntary.

What about escalation? Will these people be armed with fully automatic weapons? What if the criminals and crazies come with them?
No, they serve as deterrents… speed bumps for the killers until the police with fully automatic weapons eventually do show up.

What jurisdiction will these people be under?
Local perhaps. Isn’t that what reserve police officers are now.

What kind of background checks, criminal record checks, tracking, and extra registration will their guns require?
Good ones!

What kind of legal regress will people have against them for other things?
What other things?

Who will pay for their insurance, medical bills, etc. if they are injured in any way during these duties?
Who pays for the police today?

If we don't do every building, how ethical is it to steer the crazies to softer targets?
I’m talking about protecting our kids. That is my primary focus.

Now I’ll ask you just one. If your local school district wants something like this, and supported by the majority of people, and it’s shot down in courts by a few fervent individuals such as yourself, what do you tell the mother of a grieving child if they are no longer with us because of your actions? Too bad, so sad?