Ohio School District Responds to Newtown - by Arming Janitors

[Rolyo85]

It really bothers me how people smugly point those out as if to say "see, it's not that I want guns, but *snicker* the Constitution just gives them to me". I mean, come on, how about we keep it real Shangela style, eh?

Halleloo!

[Stardreamer]

It really bothers me how people smugly point those out as if to say "see, it's not that I want guns, but *snicker* the Constitution just gives them to me". I mean, come on, how about we keep it real Shangela style, eh?

Halleloo!

Oh keeping it real on this subject was left behind a LONG time ago.

[Telstra]

Then whether they have guns are not are the least of your problems.

umm the problems are, i don't want to hear people got killed by guns for no reason.
I want a compensation from the US for hearing bad news which might damage my brain.

[mightbe]

^Telstra, no one has that much money to compensate everyone.

[mitchymo]

Well that and that pesky bill of rights thing.

Erm, no. That is just the tool used to block the appropriate course of action. You could sit down and re-word that old thing any day of the week.

[GiancarloC]

That is being done too, I heard at least one California school district is expanding police coverage to every school, most districts do not have enough policemen to permanently station an officer in every school but they are making sure that an officer visits each school every day.

Police coverage, but absolutely no to armed guards. This isn't a police state where we should have trigger happy idiots who lack training... and I don't care for the so called "permit carry laws"... the training that is entailed is grossly disgustingly inadequate. Less guns, not more.

[GiancarloC]

Noone is being forced to carry a gun. The programs only accept willing volunteers and I imagine are doing some extra screening those as well. Part of the program is teaching gun safety and when to use and NOT use a gun. IIRC concealed carry permit holders have a lower crime rate than the general population because the programs screen and don't approve people who tend to not take the issue seriously.

\

Correlation versus causation. There isn't much proof for that. Permit Carry gun holders do not lower the crime rate. More guns isn't the answer to low crime rates. Los Angeles have embarked on something far different to lower its once high crime rates, and we have the lowest crime rates this city has seen in decades.

Guns owned by permit carry people will probably end up stolen or worse. It's not the answer.

I just don't understand people who say "Well to solve these gun problems we need more guns and more people carrying them!!!" No we don't. And two weeks of weapons training isn't going to help anyone. Police officers make mistakes themselves, but they undergo far more extensive weapons training and they have experience in dealing with situations. Some random joe with a conceal carry permit will probably pose more danger to people around him. And goodness I don't want some random people with two weeks of mediocre training carrying guns. That's a good way to get people seriously hurt or worse after someone overreacts.

[Telstra]

^Telstra, no one has that much money to compensate everyone.

Don't you think it is a joke in response to Stardreamer

[Stardreamer]

Erm, no. That is just the tool used to block the appropriate course of action. You could sit down and re-word that old thing any day of the week.

Well actually its a little harder to edit than that but you could actually use it as it currently exists to address the problem but that is about as likely as disarming everyone, the radicals on both sides wouldn't allow it.

[Stardreamer]

\

Correlation versus causation. There isn't much proof for that. Permit Carry gun holders do not lower the crime rate. More guns isn't the answer to low crime rates. Los Angeles have embarked on something far different to lower its once high crime rates, and we have the lowest crime rates this city has seen in decades.

Guns owned by permit carry people will probably end up stolen or worse. It's not the answer.

I just don't understand people who say "Well to solve these gun problems we need more guns and more people carrying them!!!" No we don't. And two weeks of weapons training isn't going to help anyone. Police officers make mistakes themselves, but they undergo far more extensive weapons training and they have experience in dealing with situations. Some random joe with a conceal carry permit will probably pose more danger to people around him. And goodness I don't want some random people with two weeks of mediocre training carrying guns. That's a good way to get people seriously hurt or worse after someone overreacts.

Actually I didn't say that permit carry holders reduce crime, that subject I know is debatable, I said from what I've heard permit carry holders have a lower crime rate among themselves in contrast to the population as whole. But that would be getting into the minutia of crime statistics, so I'll leave it for Kuli or the others who want to dig into that to argue. I personally think that most districts once they have done the due diligence will not approve carry in the schools or will have such policies in place that will limit the numbers of staff who will want to hassle with it.

We are NOT going to solve these guns problems with more guns. Spree killings will still happen even if there are guns in the schools, though the likelyhood of the event stopping sooner may go up, most spree killers are looking for helpless victims not firefights. This is held up in many cases of where a spree killer runs into armed resistance, like New Life Church incident here in Colorado.

[xbuzzerx]

Well actually its a little harder to edit than that but you could actually use it as it currently exists to address the problem but that is about as likely as disarming everyone, the radicals on both sides wouldn't allow it.

But the sorts of sensible solutions that everyone talks about like mental health checks before firearm purchases and bans on high capacity ammo clips (make them totally illegal, grandfathered or not) and similar don't threaten the individual right to bear arms. But we can't even keep the topic there because the loonie gun right keeps the conversation with this ridiculous ideas like let's arm the janitors and teachers.

[Stardreamer]

But the sorts of sensible solutions that everyone talks about like mental health checks before firearm purchases and bans on high capacity ammo clips (make them totally illegal, grandfathered or not) and similar don't threaten the individual right to bear arms. But we can't even keep the topic there because the loonie gun right keeps the conversation with this ridiculous ideas like let's arm the janitors and teachers.

Of course they are and I advocate them both, but both sides love to confuse the issue with loaded what if scenarios. We've already had the arming children and random joggers brought up here, I'm surprised the weapons of mass destruction silliness hasn't been brought up yet, I jokingly headed it off a bit with the sharks with lasers thing.

[GiancarloC]

Actually I didn't say that permit carry holders reduce crime, that subject I know is debatable, I said from what I've heard permit carry holders have a lower crime rate among themselves in contrast to the population as whole. But that would be getting into the minutia of crime statistics, so I'll leave it for Kuli or the others who want to dig into that to argue. I personally think that most districts once they have done the due diligence will not approve carry in the schools or will have such policies in place that will limit the numbers of staff who will want to hassle with it.

That is a weak correlation and does not equal causation. I can cite numerous developed countries with lower crime rates and stricter gun control laws than this one. i think it's irresponsible to allow some random guy with barely two weeks of training to be allowed to carry a gun at a school.

We are NOT going to solve these guns problems with more guns. Spree killings will still happen even if there are guns in the schools, though the likelyhood of the event stopping sooner may go up, most spree killers are looking for helpless victims not firefights. This is held up in many cases of where a spree killer runs into armed resistance, like New Life Church incident here in Colorado.

Killing sprees can happen and to reduce the likelihood we need stricter gun control laws nationwide. This country is widely inconsistent. Nevada, for example, has extremely lax laws regarding gun control compared to California. Armed resistance? What is this somalia? Guns isn't the answer and having a bunch of idiots with concealed permits isn't the answer either.

[Stardreamer]

That is a weak correlation and does not equal causation. I can cite numerous developed countries with lower crime rates and stricter gun control laws than this one. i think it's irresponsible to allow some random guy with barely two weeks of training to be allowed to carry a gun at a school.

There is no correlation at all between what I said and what you are trying to connect it, they are two completely different things.

Killing sprees can happen and to reduce the likelihood we need stricter gun control laws nationwide. This country is widely inconsistent. Nevada, for example, has extremely lax laws regarding gun control compared to California. Armed resistance? What is this somalia? Guns isn't the answer and having a bunch of idiots with concealed permits isn't the answer either.

Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the US, your correlation is weak and does not equate to causation.

The fact is NONE of what you site above is the answer because there is no simple answer just different approaches that can mediate the overall problem. The question is which of them can be effectively implemented, over what time frame and what consequences.

[GiancarloC]

Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the US, your correlation is weak and does not equate to causation.

False. Inconsistent laws throughout the country has led to serious loopholes.

The fact is NONE of what you site above is the answer because there is no simple answer just different approaches that can mediate the overall problem. The question is which of them can be effectively implemented, over what time frame and what consequences.

This is wrong. Guns need to be restricted. End of. I am not saying we should ban guns, but there should be far longer waiting periods and stringent psychological examinations. And take a look at other western countries with stricter gun control laws. Far lower rates of crime.

More guns isn't and never will be the answer. And nor are ridiculous conceal permits.

Edit: And please don't try to use what I said against me. It's not my correlation that is weak. At all.

[Stardreamer]

False. Inconsistent laws throughout the country has led to serious loopholes.

Which had absolutely nothing to do with Connecticut shooting.

This is wrong. Guns need to be restricted. End of. I am not saying we should ban guns, but there should be far longer waiting periods and stringent psychological examinations. And take a look at other western countries with stricter gun control laws. Far lower rates of crime.

More guns isn't and never will be the answer. And nor are ridiculous conceal permits.

Edit: And please don't try to use what I said against me. It's not my correlation that is weak. At all.

Yes all of these options should be on the table and considered, they are all relevant means of addressing the issue. Too bad NONE of them would have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings. An armed staff member would not have prevented them either but they may have stopped it sooner.

[GiancarloC]

Which had absolutely nothing to do with Connecticut shooting.

I'm not even discussing that tragedy in particular. I'm discussing the overall situation in this country.

Yes all of these options should be on the table and considered, they are all relevant means of addressing the issue. Too bad NONE of them would have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings. An armed staff member would not have prevented them either but they may have stopped it sooner.

My options would consider overall crime. An armed staff member would probably have resulted in others getting seriously hurt... it's ridiculous to even consider concealed permits at schools.

[Stardreamer]

I'm not even discussing that tragedy in particular. I'm discussing the overall situation in this country.



My options would consider overall crime. An armed staff member would probably have resulted in others getting seriously hurt... it's ridiculous to even consider concealed permits at schools.

In other words, any point that detracts from your argument is to be dismissed as irrelevant.

Whether or not an armed staff member would have made a difference for good or bad is just speculative what iffing, there is anecdotal examples to support it either way. Too many variables to really say for sure what the odds were in that case and we don't have access to enough information to do more than state an opinion.

The uncertainty is a big reason why I think most districts/states would not take this approach and if they did would likely have pretty stringent criteria for approval.

[xbuzzerx]

Of course they are and I advocate them both, but both sides love to confuse the issue with loaded what if scenarios. We've already had the arming children and random joggers brought up here, I'm surprised the weapons of mass destruction silliness hasn't been brought up yet, I jokingly headed it off a bit with the sharks with lasers thing.

Look at like Taft though... Taft actually had an armed security guard. And if what I read was correct he wasn't on site at the time. I just think this is a poor method for stopping spree shootings as opposed to stopping unhinged people from getting massive firepower in the first place.

[GiancarloC]

Whether or not an armed staff member would have made a difference for good or bad is just speculative what iffing, there is anecdotal examples to support it either way. Too many variables to really say for sure what the odds were in that case and we don't have access to enough information to do more than state an opinion.

More guns isn't the answer. That's the key point to my argument here.

[Stardreamer]

Look at like Taft though... Taft actually had an armed security guard. And if what I read was correct he wasn't on site at the time. I just think this is a poor method for stopping spree shootings as opposed to stopping unhinged people from getting massive firepower in the first place.

It is not going to stop spree shootings, its only a potential mediation and one with considerable risks involved which is why districts and states have to consider the issue carefully. Nobody wants 'unhinged' people to have guns and in most places it is illegal. But right now none of the proposed ideas that can reasonably be implemented in the near future is going to prevent spree killings. I haven't seen one idea that has a chance of being passed by the current congress and stand up in the courts that would have prevented most of the recent spree shootings except perhaps Kuli's militia arsenal idea and that one would take a pretty good sell job.

[T-Rexx]

Noone is being forced to carry a gun. The programs only accept willing volunteers and I imagine are doing some extra screening those as well.

Once again, you miss the point, Stardreamer.

No, of course no janitor will be forced to carry a gun against his will

But, all of us are being forced to accept the consequences for those who do.

Not to mention the average custodian has access to enough chemicals and materials to blow the school building sky high.

This is an absurd statement.

Janitors do not have access to explosive chemicals. Period. That would be absurdly dangerous.

Almost as dangerous as giving them access to guns on school property.

But right now none of the proposed ideas that can reasonably be implemented in the near future is going to prevent spree killings. I haven't seen one idea that has a chance of being passed by the current congress and stand up in the courts that would have prevented most of the recent spree shootings except perhaps Kuli's militia arsenal idea and that one would take a pretty good sell job.

You Republicans like to insist that "America can't do it."

Our criminal justice system is too incompetent to try the detainees at Guantanamo.

Global warming can't be stopped, so what is the point in trying? (Let's just pretend it doesn't exist, instead).

Providing health care to most of our citizens is beyond our means. There's just no way we can do what everyone else on Earth has been doing for decades. So let's stop those who are doing the impossible even as we speak.

Our gun problem is too big and too ingrained - all we can do is stand around and watch sadly while kids get killed.



It has been my experience of life that whenever people say American cannot do something, what they really mean is that they cannot be bothered trying.

[rareboy]

My mother throughout her long and commendable career has served in every level of the education system from substitute teacher to district superintendent. She now works in a special role for the state education department as an adviser they send out to help districts that are having troubles resolve them. So I've seen how districts deal with issues of liability and due diligence.

The vast majority of our educators are professionals who care a great deal for their job and children they are charged to care for. I have little doubt that if a district decides that allow selected staff members to be armed as a precaution against a violent attack against the school that between the district administration, the school principle, the state legal authorities and the staff members themselves that adequate procedures and safeguards will be implemented.

NO one is going to force a district to accept guns on campus if they don't want them there. Any staff who do take up such a project would be adequately supervised and trained given the paranoia most districts bring to due diligence.

There is no magic bullet solution to this problem, this is just one possible approach of many to mediate it and it should be up to the district and state to determine if it is one they wish to use.

Quoted for irony.

I think that the lunch ladies being armed should be the next step. They already exert deadly force and have weapons of mass destruction at their finger tips.

[Stardreamer]

Once again, you miss the point, Stardreamer.

No, of course no janitor will be forced to carry a gun against his will

But, all of us are being forced to accept the consequences for those who do.




This is an absurd statement.

Janitors do not have access to explosive chemicals. Period. That would be absurdly dangerous.

Almost as dangerous as giving them access to guns on school property.




You Republicans like to insist that "America can't do it."

Our criminal justice system is too incompetent to try the detainees at Guantanamo.

Global warming can't be stopped, so what is the point in trying? (Let's just pretend it doesn't exist, instead).

Providing health care to most of our citizens is beyond our means. There's just no way we can do what everyone else on Earth has been doing for decades. So let's stop those who are doing the impossible even as we speak.

Our gun problem is too big and too ingrained - all we can do is stand around and watch sadly while kids get killed.



It has been my experience of life that whenever people say American cannot do something, what they really mean is that they cannot be bothered trying.

So what proposals that are on the table that could have stopped Sandy Hook and stand up to legal scrutiny?

[Ambrocious]

Arm the teachers too. If a person has decided to make it thier lifes effort to terach the kids IM sure they can be responsible enough to also defend the kids too. Teachers need to have mandatory fire arm safety and target pracice lessons of course but Im more than sure that they could kill an armed gunman.

[Rolyo85]

Arm the teachers too. If a person has decided to make it thier lifes effort to terach the kids IM sure they can be responsible enough to also defend the kids too. Teachers need to have mandatory fire arm safety and target pracice lessons of course but Im more than sure that they could kill an armed gunman.

Defending children from crazy gunmen is not the issue. Crazy gunmen with easy access to guns are the issue.

[chrisrobin]

You Republicans like to insist that "America can't do it."

The reason why Japan attacked us was based on the belief that America coudn't do it - that we were too soft.

Admiral Yamamoto who got some of his education here warned the Japanese military that they were wrong. His now-famous quote, "if you attack America, you will awaken the sleeping giant." Good thing Republicons weren't running the show in 1941. Too busy trying to get reelected. Just like now.

[GiancarloC]

Arm the teachers too. If a person has decided to make it thier lifes effort to terach the kids IM sure they can be responsible enough to also defend the kids too. Teachers need to have mandatory fire arm safety and target pracice lessons of course but Im more than sure that they could kill an armed gunman.

Lets have armed guards everywhere... this is wonderful. So we can live in the police state I've seen your posts complain about in the past.

Why is it pro-gun people are for armed guards everywhere and essentially creating a society of fear? That's a police state. Plain and simple.

[chrisrobin]

Lets have armed guards everywhere... this is wonderful. So we can live in the police state I've seen your posts complain about in the past.

Why is it pro-gun people are for armed guards everywhere and essentially creating a society of fear? That's a police state. Plain and simple.

Hate + Fear = POWER - George Orwell (1984)

[txjunior]

Okay, here are my two cents on these issues.

One, I am all for assault weapon bans. I really do not see the point of getting them unless you do plan to make enemies or pursue large crowds of people. However, I really hate both Republicans who only concentrate on the fact that guns can't be regulated in any way, and I also hate liberals who concentrate on the gun issue as if it is the be all and end all of violence on a massive scale. 1) I am not a naive believer in the consequences and effectiveness of total commodity bans. If these bans really work like they say there going to work, we wouldn't be dealing with massive drug cartels and fights right now through the drug war. 2) I also realize that there is a potentiality for massive underground weapon deals in the market once any government ban takes hold. This leads to further illegal activity, violence as a resort because of the inability to check ahead with actual leaders of authority, and a higher pricing that attract those in desperate straights. 3) Even if there was a way for you to take away all the guns in the world, humans with their infamous ingenuity will forever find new devices to serve as extensions of their emotions and psychosis. Around the same time as the shooting in Connecticut, there was a man who killed over 20 children with a knife.

Now, I personally think the DRUG WAR is a primary cause of a lot of violence that occurs in the streets and for the frequent, though less massive, shootings you see on television. By making certain substances with side effects illegal, it is reverted into a black market affair. Through its illegality, you are guaranteed higher and higher profits. These serve as incentives for those desperate enough to make cash, usually coming from locations suffering from social and institutional deprivation. And this serves as a motivation for drug dealers to use innocent children as their lackeys of delivery and possession. And since the activity is illegal, it remains un-monitored by actual organizations and medicinal personnel who can grade and judge quality and ingredients, leading to a lot of mixtures of different chemicals which can result in death and mental imbalance. To make something just regulated and not totally illegal is not to say you agree with the activity. It is to accept the reality of the situation.

2) In relation to drugs, the OVERMEDICALIZATION OF SOCIETY by Big Pharma is also contributing to mental disequilibrium. Over 11,000 reports to the FDA's Medwatch unit involved psychotropic drugs being related to violence. And this is only 1 to 10 percent of side effects are reported. The Columbine shooters were on Luvox, the '98 Springfield Ohio shooter was on Prozac, the 2010 Huntsville, Alabama shooter was on Zoloft, etc. Within this decade, a number of shooters were on medication to treat depression, medication known for causing suicidal behavior. And yet, there is practically no federal investigations into these. Big Pharma isn't recalling them. If anything, they can gain potential new clients through these traumatizing events.

3) This relates to the CULTURE OF VIOLENCE that is spoken about. For one, I'll let actual experts speak about these issues. I won't listen to special interests, and especially not celebrities. I watch celebrities to be entertained, not to be lectured. And frankly, most of their movies they star in can hardly be pinnacles of non-violent masterpieces. Sex and Violence sell. It might not be right for us to be entertained by it, but e are. And these celebrities who speak out against gun violence should put their money where there mouth is in regards to what they choose to saturate the market with.

4) THE MEDIA is also a contributor to societal hysteria. I find it laughable that they regard other genres of communication and mediation as indoctrinating us to angry temperaments, but they are the biggest sellers of violence in existence. If it bleeds, it leads. And more stories like this lead to better ratings for their channels. So they use these stories as 24/7 non-stop assaults. Every minute is spent dissecting the troubled individual, showing the pain of the victims, talking about violence in media and then proceeding to show the aforementioned clips. They saturate the market with this stuff and make it national trauma (despite the fact that these are local shootings), they exploit the victims and their families a second time after the initial event for ratings, and they create a culture where we idolize these individuals to an almost cult-like status. We count down their numbers of victims as if we are ranking their success. This has often led to copycats who emulate these now infamous individuals.

5) I frankly also don't understand this fear of armed security. I think the radius and impact of the fear is related to how high in the social structure the authority figure is who implements the policy. We have armed security for airports, we have armed security for banks. I really don't see how your children are less worthy than the protection of your money. These areas are public congregations with relatively defenseless people. As much as some individuals hate to admit, it is because of a coalescing of individuals in public accommodations with no method of real defense which structurally lead to mass shooters picking these environments (schools, libraries, churches, theatres, etc).

I guess all I'm trying to say is this, mass shootings are a serious problem. And mistaking causes for effects or concentrating on one substantial thing will not lead to a solution. And be wary of the institutions who voice opinions. Governments exploit tragedies for greater control, media exploits tragedies for more ratings, and pharmacies and organizations exploit tragedies to harness a more numerous clientele. Never assume that the virtue of an opinion rests entirely within the status and role of the individual or organization.

[xbuzzerx]

Arm the teachers too. If a person has decided to make it thier lifes effort to terach the kids IM sure they can be responsible enough to also defend the kids too. Teachers need to have mandatory fire arm safety and target pracice lessons of course but Im more than sure that they could kill an armed gunman.

Defending children from crazy gunmen is not the issue. Crazy gunmen with easy access to guns are the issue.

This.

I'm rather amazed at how the people with borderline nutso levels of paranoia about the government and its size or scope in any other context are now apparently okay with the idea of a program to mass arm and mass train teachers, which would undoubtedly have to be government overseen.

Not to mention the fact that most teachers are completely against this idea.

No, being called to teach is not an obligation to train like an assassin Kill Bill and be a group security expert. Nor are they paid anywhere near enough to be expected to do that.

[T-Rexx]

Arm the teachers too. If a person has decided to make it thier lifes effort to terach the kids IM sure they can be responsible enough to also defend the kids too. Teachers need to have mandatory fire arm safety and target pracice lessons of course but Im more than sure that they could kill an armed gunman.

Your confidence in the ability of teachers to kill highly armed and motivated perpetrators of violence is misplaced.

You demand mandatory training of teachers in the ballistic arts, but you ignore the fact that even highly trained SWAT teams can't seem to take these people out. At Columbine, a veteran and highly trained police officer in the school at the time of the shootings was unable to stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from killing 15 people and wounding 23 others. In fact, an entire police SWAT team deployed to the site was unable to stop them. Harris and Klebold stopped themselves, with their double suicide. It is believed that some of the student deaths at Columbine may actually have resulted from the police shooting into the building from outside, responding to other police shooting into the school from the opposite side of the building. (The coroner's reports on this have been sealed).

This is not a criticism of law enforcement. It is EXTREMELY difficult in panic situations to understand what is going on, and even who is/are the perpetrators. Even HIGHLY trained individuals cannot do this with great reliability. To ask a teacher to outperform a SWAT team is beyond absurd.

You cannot solve the problem of too many guns with more guns. Life isn't that simple. Jack Bauer may have neatly and precisely killed 268 purely bad guys in eight seasons of "24" without ever once harming an innocent person. But life isn't Hollywood. And good guys aren't even close to being perfect assassins.

[andysayshi]

Even if there was a way for you to take away all the guns in the world, humans with their infamous ingenuity will forever find new devices to serve as extensions of their emotions and psychosis. Around the same time as the shooting in Connecticut, there was a man who killed over 20 children with a knife.

Where? I think you are confusing the incident in China which occurred on the same day as the Newtown shooting. A man with a knife entered a school and injured 20 children. None of the injuries were classified as life threatening, and the knifeman was chased from the building by school staff with brooms. He was apprehended outside the school by police. Thus clearly demonstrating that, despite the fact that there will always be psychotic attacks, limiting free access to guns also limits the damage such incidents might inflict.

[CowboyBob]

My sister is a Kindergarten teacher. I couldn't imagine her carrying a concealed weapon and taking down a well-armed gunman if they would burst into her classroom. She laughs at the gun lobbyists comments.

The more guns there are, the more gun violence there is. There needs to be strict gun control.

[andysayshi]

Your confidence in the ability of teachers to kill highly armed and motivated perpetrators of violence is misplaced.

You demand mandatory training of teachers in the ballistic arts, but you ignore the fact that even highly trained SWAT teams can't seem to take these people out. At Columbine, a veteran and highly trained police officer in the school at the time of the shootings was unable to stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from killing 15 people and wounding 23 others. In fact, an entire police SWAT team deployed to the site was unable to stop them. Harris and Klebold stopped themselves, with their double suicide. It is believed that some of the student deaths at Columbine may actually have resulted from the police shooting into the building from outside, responding to other police shooting into the school from the opposite side of the building. (The coroner's reports on this have been sealed).

This is not a criticism of law enforcement. It is EXTREMELY difficult in panic situations to understand what is going on, and even who is/are the perpetrators. Even HIGHLY trained individuals cannot do this with great reliability. To ask a teacher to outperform a SWAT team is beyond absurd.

You cannot solve the problem of too many guns with more guns. Life isn't that simple. Jack Bauer may have neatly and precisely killed 268 purely evil people in eight seasons of "24" without ever once harming an innocent person. But life isn't Hollywood. And good guys aren't even close to perfect.

Yep.

At the Gabby Gifford shooting in Arizona, the shooter was stopped by unarmed civilians. Meanwhile, a guy in a nearby store with a concealed weapon ran into the situation, hand on gun, and freely admits he was a moment from shooting one of the heroic guys who had taken the shooter's gun.

Even with extensive, highly costly training, and annual testing for proficiency, police officers and soldiers often make mistakes in the heat of dangerous situations. But here we are debating the merits of asking janitors and school teachers to fire guns in schools. It's fucking madness.

[andysayshi]

And just to show how serious the NRA are about the association between video games and gun violence...

The NRA today released a gun target shooting app for iPhones and iPads. It is classified as being suitable for ages 4 and above.

Your 4 year old can learn the difference between an AK-47 and an MR-16 assault rifle for free, with more high powered weaponry available for an extra dollar. That's responsible gun ownership for you, folks: teaching kids about weapons that can kill dozens of anything in moments.

[andysayshi]

Colbert said it a lot better than I can. In a show last week:

Wayne La Pierre: If it's crazy to call for putting police and security in our schools, to protect our children, then call me crazy.

Colbert: Folks... I don't know about you folks, but I agree with Wayne La Pierre. You, sir, are fucked in the head.

[xbuzzerx]

Where? I think you are confusing the incident in China which occurred on the same day as the Newtown shooting. A man with a knife entered a school and injured 20 children. None of the injuries were classified as life threatening, and the knifeman was chased from the building by school staff with brooms. He was apprehended outside the school by police. Thus clearly demonstrating that, despite the fact that there will always be psychotic attacks, limiting free access to guns also limits the damage such incidents might inflict.

What this story also illustrated to me was that even if teachers were in the position to intervene on a relatively equal footing with someone who came into a school to hurt children... he still managed to stab 20 of them before the teachers could stop him. Part of why I think arming teachers can't possibly accomplish anything more than an occasional, minimal limit to what a spree shooter can do... it won't stop spree shootings though, or a lot of casualties.

And you don't even need to keep a broom securely locked somewhere.

[Stardreamer]

Okay, here are my two cents on these issues.

One, I am all for assault weapon bans. I really do not see the point of getting them unless you do plan to make enemies or pursue large crowds of people. However, I really hate both Republicans who only concentrate on the fact that guns can't be regulated in any way, and I also hate liberals who concentrate on the gun issue as if it is the be all and end all of violence on a massive scale. 1) I am not a naive believer in the consequences and effectiveness of total commodity bans. If these bans really work like they say there going to work, we wouldn't be dealing with massive drug cartels and fights right now through the drug war. 2) I also realize that there is a potentiality for massive underground weapon deals in the market once any government ban takes hold. This leads to further illegal activity, violence as a resort because of the inability to check ahead with actual leaders of authority, and a higher pricing that attract those in desperate straights. 3) Even if there was a way for you to take away all the guns in the world, humans with their infamous ingenuity will forever find new devices to serve as extensions of their emotions and psychosis. Around the same time as the shooting in Connecticut, there was a man who killed over 20 children with a knife.

Now, I personally think the DRUG WAR is a primary cause of a lot of violence that occurs in the streets and for the frequent, though less massive, shootings you see on television. By making certain substances with side effects illegal, it is reverted into a black market affair. Through its illegality, you are guaranteed higher and higher profits. These serve as incentives for those desperate enough to make cash, usually coming from locations suffering from social and institutional deprivation. And this serves as a motivation for drug dealers to use innocent children as their lackeys of delivery and possession. And since the activity is illegal, it remains un-monitored by actual organizations and medicinal personnel who can grade and judge quality and ingredients, leading to a lot of mixtures of different chemicals which can result in death and mental imbalance. To make something just regulated and not totally illegal is not to say you agree with the activity. It is to accept the reality of the situation.

2) In relation to drugs, the OVERMEDICALIZATION OF SOCIETY by Big Pharma is also contributing to mental disequilibrium. Over 11,000 reports to the FDA's Medwatch unit involved psychotropic drugs being related to violence. And this is only 1 to 10 percent of side effects are reported. The Columbine shooters were on Luvox, the '98 Springfield Ohio shooter was on Prozac, the 2010 Huntsville, Alabama shooter was on Zoloft, etc. Within this decade, a number of shooters were on medication to treat depression, medication known for causing suicidal behavior. And yet, there is practically no federal investigations into these. Big Pharma isn't recalling them. If anything, they can gain potential new clients through these traumatizing events.

3) This relates to the CULTURE OF VIOLENCE that is spoken about. For one, I'll let actual experts speak about these issues. I won't listen to special interests, and especially not celebrities. I watch celebrities to be entertained, not to be lectured. And frankly, most of their movies they star in can hardly be pinnacles of non-violent masterpieces. Sex and Violence sell. It might not be right for us to be entertained by it, but e are. And these celebrities who speak out against gun violence should put their money where there mouth is in regards to what they choose to saturate the market with.

4) THE MEDIA is also a contributor to societal hysteria. I find it laughable that they regard other genres of communication and mediation as indoctrinating us to angry temperaments, but they are the biggest sellers of violence in existence. If it bleeds, it leads. And more stories like this lead to better ratings for their channels. So they use these stories as 24/7 non-stop assaults. Every minute is spent dissecting the troubled individual, showing the pain of the victims, talking about violence in media and then proceeding to show the aforementioned clips. They saturate the market with this stuff and make it national trauma (despite the fact that these are local shootings), they exploit the victims and their families a second time after the initial event for ratings, and they create a culture where we idolize these individuals to an almost cult-like status. We count down their numbers of victims as if we are ranking their success. This has often led to copycats who emulate these now infamous individuals.

5) I frankly also don't understand this fear of armed security. I think the radius and impact of the fear is related to how high in the social structure the authority figure is who implements the policy. We have armed security for airports, we have armed security for banks. I really don't see how your children are less worthy than the protection of your money. These areas are public congregations with relatively defenseless people. As much as some individuals hate to admit, it is because of a coalescing of individuals in public accommodations with no method of real defense which structurally lead to mass shooters picking these environments (schools, libraries, churches, theatres, etc).

I guess all I'm trying to say is this, mass shootings are a serious problem. And mistaking causes for effects or concentrating on one substantial thing will not lead to a solution. And be wary of the institutions who voice opinions. Governments exploit tragedies for greater control, media exploits tragedies for more ratings, and pharmacies and organizations exploit tragedies to harness a more numerous clientele. Never assume that the virtue of an opinion rests entirely within the status and role of the individual or organization.

Something that is often left out of the debates on gun violence in the US is most of it is violence between gangs and other criminal enterprises. If you got rid of the 'war on drugs' you would likely cut gun violence in the US in half.

[GiancarloC]

Something that is often left out of the debates on gun violence in the US is most of it is violence between gangs and other criminal enterprises. If you got rid of the 'war on drugs' you would likely cut gun violence in the US in half.

Criminal enterprise isn't just focused around drugs. They find other ways of making money... like selling illegal cigarettes without tax stamps. I'm just being a bit of a devil's advocate here. I'm against the war on drugs, but to think it'll cut gun violence in half... is perhaps a bit overly optimistic.

[Stardreamer]

I talked with my mom to get her view from a professional educator point of view. I pretty much came out of the discussion with my previous assumption confirmed, very VERY few school districts will adopt such a policy once they have done the due diligence of considering it. The liability issues alone will simply make it untenable. The most common approach would be what she did in her district, they entered into a contract with the county. The district provided a building to open up a sheriff's substation and 70% of the costs for the increased manning. The county provided the equipment to include arms and managed the training and liability. In return both the schools and surrounding community got increased local sheriff's coverage with armed deputies to provide security on the campuses. A win win for the community.

[andysayshi]

Something that is often left out of the debates on gun violence in the US is most of it is violence between gangs and other criminal enterprises. If you got rid of the 'war on drugs' you would likely cut gun violence in the US in half.

How does anti-drug law enforcement differ in the US, compared to anti-drug law enforcement in the UK, Canada, Australia, or any of the other dozens of western nations where drugs are also illegal but gun deaths are exponentially lower? What about the US drug war is different to other nations?

[Stardreamer]

How does anti-drug law enforcement differ in the US, compared to anti-drug law enforcement in the UK, Canada, Australia, or any of the other dozens of western nations where drugs are also illegal but gun deaths are exponentially lower? What about the US drug war is different to other nations?

Mainly the nature of the street gangs in the US compared with other countries. The vast majority of gun violence in the US is between street gangs and similar groups fighting over territory fueled by drug money. While spree killings make the headlines they represent a very tiny fraction of the gun violence in the US and are really anomalies.

[andysayshi]

I talked with my mom to get her view from a professional educator point of view. I pretty much came out of the discussion with my previous assumption confirmed, very VERY few school districts will adopt such a policy once they have done the due diligence of considering it. The liability issues alone will simply make it untenable. The most common approach would be what she did in her district, they entered into a contract with the county. The district provided a building to open up a sheriff's substation and 70% of the costs for the increased manning. The county provided the equipment to include arms and managed the training and liability. In return both the schools and surrounding community got increased local sheriff's coverage with armed deputies to provide security on the campuses. A win win for the community.

It's estimated that Lanza killed 15 first graders in one Sandy Hook classroom in about 60 seconds.

James Holmes fired 30 rounds into a movie theatre audience in 27 seconds.

Jared Loughner emptied his 33 round magazine in less than 60 seconds, and dropped a second magazine which was grabbed by a bystander.

The point is that, with the lethal weaponry available to most citizens in the US, armed assistance will not stop the killngs. They happen in moments, not even minutes. The only logical step is to restrict the weapons available.

[andysayshi]

Mainly the nature of the street gangs in the US compared with other countries. The vast majority of gun violence in the US is between street gangs and similar groups fighting over territory fueled by drug money. While spree killings make the headlines they represent a very tiny fraction of the gun violence in the US and are really anomalies.

The US does not have a monopoly on gangs or drugs. The majority of gun homicides in Australia are also gang and drug related. But the homicide rate in the US is exponentially higher. Are US gangs just more badass? Or is it just that Australian gangs have less access to guns?

[Stardreamer]

It's estimated that Lanza killed 15 first graders in one Sandy Hook classroom in about 60 seconds.

James Holmes fired 30 rounds into a movie theatre audience in 27 seconds.

Jared Loughner emptied his 33 round magazine in less than 60 seconds, and dropped a second magazine which was grabbed by a bystander.

The point is that, with the lethal weaponry available to most citizens in the US, armed assistance will not stop the killngs. They happen in moments, not even minutes. The only logical step is to restrict the weapons available.

Gun regulation is certainly ONE important step. But schools are faced with more threats than just the rare spree killer, taking steps to evaluate the need and provide for security is certainly another.

[xbuzzerx]

The US does not have a monopoly on gangs or drugs. The majority of gun homicides in Australia are also gang and drug related. But the homicide rate in the US is exponentially higher. Are US gangs just more badass? Or is it just that Australian gangs have less access to guns?

Or is that we have a more concentrated, larger, more desperate underclass engaging in a much more competitive market to control their local drug trades?

[Stardreamer]

The US does not have a monopoly on gangs or drugs. The majority of gun homicides in Australia are also gang and drug related. But the homicide rate in the US is exponentially higher. Are US gangs just more badass? Or is it just that Australian gangs have less access to guns?

There are some folks who would say yes they are 'more badass'. IT being a cultural thing. Kuli talked about that some in other threads. I also think the legal issues involved with guns make a difference, when just carrying a gun is a crime the criminals are often carrying less often. Thus it is likely the added risk of punishment and not the lack of availability (which isn't as effective as you might think) that encourages the reduction in gun crime. In the case of the US where achieving a significant reduction in the number of guns available is going to be very difficult, a likely more effective approach is adding extremely prohibitive punishments for the criminal use of a gun over and above the punishment for the crime itself.

[andysayshi]

^ Poverty, and its surprisingly high levels in the richest nation on Earth, is almost certainly a factor.

[Stardreamer]

Or is that we have a more concentrated, larger, more desperate underclass engaging in a much more competitive market to control their local drug trades?

That is likely as good part of it as well.