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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by rareboy; January 14th, 2013 at 03:33 AM.
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.
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.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by andysayshi; January 14th, 2013 at 04:49 PM.
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.
And you don't even need to keep a broom securely locked somewhere.
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.
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.
^ Poverty, and its surprisingly high levels in the richest nation on Earth, is almost certainly a factor.