NRA schools report suggests training staff in weapons

[liberal N proud]

Color me surprised!


NOT!

The National Rifle Association's National School Shield project released a series of recommendations Tuesday it says will help keep schools safer, including a training program for teachers and other school staff who want to carry a firearm.

The "model training program" would include a background check for school staffers who want to carry a firearm as well as 40-60 hours in training, former representative Asa Hutchinson, director of the project, said during a press conference at the National Press Club.

The report acknowledged many schools were unable to afford adding school resource officers (SROs) to their staff, which they site as an "important layer of security for prevention and response in case of an active threat on a school campus."

While the NRA initially advocated for former police officers to volunteer to guard schools, Hutchinson said the NRA's research caused the group to back off that approach.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/02/nra-school-security-hutchinson/2045565/


If the guns are already at the schools, the shooter will not need to buy one, they can just go to the school, overpower a staff member and be set up with a weapon. More staff, more guns.

[sharp_stick]

1. Absolutely groundbreaking work

by the NRA. I seriously doubt anyone expected this incredible self-assessment and the massive outpouring of introspective voluntary spirit.

Ah fuck it I can't keep it up anymore, I may puke... I'd make a really shitty lobbyist.

[ZOB]

2. Actually, it'd be easier to just bring a gun than overpower a school employee

That said, I see too many possibilities for things going awry to train and arm most school employees. I'd rather see school security handled in a structural way (reinforced doors, bullet-resistant glass, etc).

[liberal N proud]

4. It would make it easier to overpower the staff

Then it serves to build the shooters arsenal.

[ZOB]

5. Actually, no.

Overpowering an armed staff member and taking their gun really doesn't make any sense. It would complicate the process and the shooter would then be working with an unfamiliar weapon.

Much easier to just bring what they plan to use.

[liberal N proud]

6. If you have a gun, the shooter comes in the building, knowing you have that gun...

He will target you because you are a potential threat.

Once you the threat to the shooter are eliminated, he would probably take your weapon because he doesn't want that weapon available for someone else to pick up. Now, he has your gun and his thus, increasing his arsenal.

If the shooter is familiar with a semi-automatic, I am sure that whatever pea shooter, the school board is going to spring for will be easy to figure out.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. IF the rampager knows which staffer is carrying.

Concealed means concealed. Make the rampager guess.

[ZOB]

8. I agree that the armed staff member might be a target.

They might also be the person to stay away from.

Regardless, I believe that you're oversimplifying using guns in a stress shooting situation. One would be foolish to pick up a gun that was unfamiliar just to "increase the arsenal".

I still believe that designing schools to be more secure would make the greatest impact.

[MichiganVote]

45. The surest, quickest thing schools could do would be to get rid of all the damn glass.

You go to the entry of any school and you find glass. Glass doors, glass sidelights, rows of glass doors--ridiculous. But it costs $$$ to reface these areas and schools don't have it.

[ZOB]

49. We're capable of designing more secure schools but, yes, it's costly.

Not just the glass. Redesign the entryway so it's easy to lock down. Have steel classroom doors that can be centrally closed and locked (from someplace like the school office). It's all expensive and it won't provide 100% safety, but it would definitely make it much more difficult to harm a large number of students.

[MichiganVote]

57. If/when, these are actually the easy areas. Recess, outdoor play, not so much.

[LiberalFighter]

75. Especially when school funding is cut by Republicans.

[callous taoboy]

3. Will quit teaching before I carry.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. If it is so easy to overpower an armed person, why do cops carry guns?

By your logic cops are equipping criminals. Amazing how anti-gun folks always assume that the criminal has abilities only seen in ninja movies.

[liberal N proud]

11. So we should have cops as teachers?

Teachers primary function is and should be to teach not defend. Cops primary function is to protect and defend.

They should not need to be "packing heat" on top of teaching children.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Staffers, not teachers, are to be armed.

The cops can't get there as fast as an armed staffer can, unless one is employed to be at the school full time.

[sharp_stick]

18. Nothin says fear me

like a custodian with a Glock.

Fuck me this is some stupid shit.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. What is stupid about a trained, armed staffer?

Why do you choose a custodian? The preffered person would be an office staffer. Office types have less contact with students, and usually have a counter between them and the students.

Are you aware that there are schools that have had armed staffers for some years now with no incidents? It is working in those schools.

Your method means that a rampage killer gets to kill until he gets tired or the cops finally arrive.

[sharp_stick]

21. Yup cause the only

person more scary than the fucking custodian with a gun would be the principal or secretary in my kids school. They'd be terrified.

You're assuming that someone is going to want to carry a gun around the school. What happens if they don't want to do it?

What happens when the idiot that's carrying forgets it on a sink in a bathroom?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16590086-school-security-guard-in-michigan-leaves-gun-in-bathroom-officials-say?lite

What happens when the moron carrying it gets it lifted off him/her by a student?

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/17/jacksonville-high-student-steals-gun-teacher/

Who's responsible in these situations?

[GreenStormCloud]

22. So your solution is let the rampager keep killing. N/T

[tabasco]

36. Your love of your precious has demented

your thought process.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Your personal attack does not count for a rebuttal. N/T

[tabasco]

85. Then I shall point out your failure in logic

You believe your solution is the ONLY solution. Therefore, you accuse anyone who does not support your solution of apathy regarding the problem. In other words, a demented thought process.

HOPE IT HELPS!

[GreenStormCloud]

88. That still isn't a rebuttal.

All you did was a personal attack in a different form. I have pointed out the flaws in the arguments that I have opposed.

[sharp_stick]

87. Pretty weak straw man

argument, kind of expected it but shit I didn't think it would fall over that easily.

[GreenStormCloud]

89. You haven't offered a solution.

Calling something a strawman is not a rebuttal. Your solution is to do nothing, which does allow the rampager to keep killing.

[sharp_stick]

90. Yes I have, just not here

Keep the guns out of the assholes hands to begin with. We don't need more unreliable idiots carrying guns around schools if the guy that want's to kill your kids can't get his hands on a gun to begin with.

Universal background checks, no private sale or transfer or firearms without that background check. Laws mandating safe storage of firearms followed up with laws mandating liability insurance for all gunowners.

After Sandy Hook I'm not even opposed to mandatory registration of any and all firearms anymore with that registration tied to the safe storage and liability laws.

If you can't be bothered to store your weapons properly you shouldn't be allowed to own the things to begin with based on a basic mental screening IMO.

[madinmaryland]

42. My wife is an office staffer in an elementary school. She would not ever

carry a weapon in the school nor would she want any of the other office staffers packing heat. The office staff is all in the 50's and 60's and none of them want anything to do with guns.

Now in the high schools, they have an officer assigned to the school who is armed, but is there to protect the students from each other. He/She is trained to handle situations that may arise in a High School.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. My wife and I are 67 & 66. We both work as security guards.

If they don't want anybody around with guns, then if a rampage shooter does show up (extremely unlikely) their plan is call the cops (people with guns) to come help, and do nothing until the cops get there. Wouldn't it be better if someone was there that could handle the situation if it did happen, instead of having to wait for the cops to show up while a rampage shooter was killing kids.

[madinmaryland]

62. Congratulations on being security guards and enjoying handling firearms. As to your questions...

Unless you know of other statistics, there has been one incident in an elementary school, in recent history. Adding a person with a firearm into an elementary school "might" prevent that incident from happening, but it also might actually cause another incident to happen if there is a person within the school that is arm (good guy or bad guy). Just remember that a good guy can become a bad guy in just a few milliseconds.

I do not want my children in schools where they are armed to the hilt. I do not want my children indoctrinated into the gun-nutter ideology of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA.

[MichiganVote]

46. Well for one thing do you even know where schools are getting custodians these days?

Most schools have moved over to a private company. So you have Chuck one day, Julie another and just so we're clear, most of these companies hire welfare to work employees. Meaning they already have a hard go of things, they are not consistent in their attendance and they are hardly going to be viable as trained security officers.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Staffers, not custodians.

It is only the anti-gun people that keep talking about custodians.

[MichiganVote]

58. Other than school admin. the only staffers are teachers nowadays. So say Teachers.

Go ahead.

[GreenStormCloud]

61. School admin are staffers.

Who do you think I was talking about?

[MichiganVote]

63. Well you mentioned office staff in an earlier response. Most of them are women in their 50's

and aren't likely to stop a speeding bullet and they are usually seated in an area of the school that is near the door. Naturally they are doing the job they are paid to do; talking on the phone, paperwork, helping students--not sure how it helps you to think they can watch the door continuously for the bad guy.

And just to give you some perspective, most school admin. are not in the office area during the day. They are in classrooms doing all of that Teacher evaluation stuff the public wants or they are out of the building at meetings. That's reality.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. They wouldn't watch the door.

They would respond quickly if a rampage shooter started shooting. It is next to impossible to prevent the fist few shots. Fast action can stop the shooting after the first few shots. There was a school shooting in Pearl, MS that was stopped by an administrator who went to his car and got his pistol.

[MichiganVote]

66. The first few shots in any school would likely be at the office staff, who would probably just die.

Look this isn't James Bond. These are active, changing environments full of vulnerable targets. Nice that an administrator was able to get his pistol--this time. That is not going to be the norm no matter what you claim.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. And not having a gun would enable them to live?

Being armed is not a guarantee of being able to win the encounter. There was a case of a good Samaritan with a CCW who shot at and hit a rampage shooter. Unfortunately the rampager was wearing body armor. He then shot and killed the good guy. Sometimes the good guys lose.

Having no one armed in a situation like that is a guarantee that the rampager gets to keep killing until he gets tired of it, or the cops arrive some minutes later.

Having a trained, armed person ready at least gives people a chance. Your plan gives nobody a chance if a rampager happens.

[peacebird]

52. Armed guards were at columbine, and at va tech... Neither stopped the slaughter.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. The Columbine guard wasn't there.

He was in his car eating lunch.

Please provide a link establishing that there was an armed guard at VT. Various accounts of it have no mention of such a guard.

[rdharma]

80. "abilities only seen in ninja movies"

I can think of dozens of ways to disarm "Mrs. Lipschitz" the English teacher or even "Lynard Skynard" the shop teacher. None of these methods would involve mad ninja skills. Keep digging.

[Mike Daniels]

10. I call BS on NRA research regarding former police officers volunteering...

"In terms of volunteers, my impression of school superintendents is they would have great reluctance and so it's not the best solution," Hutchinson said. "That's why we have shifted to school staff, trained school staff, that's designated by the superintendent of the school board."


Sure, school superintendents have issues with retired police officers providing security but are totally fine with people who will receive minimal training in responding to a live crisis where real ammo may be flying around handling security.

Why do I think this is more about the NRA making a buck (through training the staff volunteers) than it is about offering the best "low cost" security available.

[liberal N proud]

14. The NRA is more about greed than the Second Amendment

They use the Right to Bear Arms to entice people to join their organization.

The NRA works for the weapons industry under the guise of working for the gun nut.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Then there is the issue of insurance liability. That will cost.

[rdharma]

81. Those who can be counted on for effective security......

..... aren't going to do it for free. And those who will do it for free........ you don't want to be armed in a school.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. In the same report the NRA suggested:

we have shifted to school staff, trained school staff, that's designated by the superintendent of the school board."

proper training programs for SROs;

online threat assessment tool for schools crafted by the school shield experts to evaluate risks;

further funding and coordination on issues of school safety between the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Education.

But you ignored that, as if it they didn't suggest it.

The idea of arming school staff does not mean arming teachers that are in frequent contact with students. That idea has been rejected by everybody. They are suggesting that volunteers among the office personnel take the training and secretly carry concealed. No one except school administration and school board leaders are to know which staffers are armed. That way there is somone who can respond immediately if a rampager starts shooting.

Of course, anti-gun people think it is better if no one confronts the rampager and he is allowed to kill until he gets tired of killing.

[ellisonz]

15. Seriously, don't defend the NRA logic.

The idea of arming school staff does not mean arming teachers that are in frequent contact with students. That idea has been rejected by everybody. They are suggesting that volunteers among the office personnel take the training and secretly carry concealed. No one except school administration and school board leaders are to know which staffers are armed. That way there is somone who can respond immediately if a rampager starts shooting.

When was the last time you were in a school office? Do you realize how common break-ins are at schools? Do you really think this is practical or logical?

Of course, anti-gun people think it is better if no one confronts the rampager and he is allowed to kill until he gets tired of killing.

That is a very ugly statement - we think that it's better if the "rampager" never gets a gun. Sadly, the NRA and their fans do not feel the same way or they would support more stringent controls.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Rampagers plan their killing sprees well in advance.

They will get guns, no matter what laws you pass. You live in a fantasy world if you think that a person who is planning to kill dozens will be detered because he will have to break a lesser law in order to break our most sacred law. In the real world you are faced with two alternatives, 1) An armed, trained person to rapidly confront the rampager, 2) Let the rampager kill until minutes later the cops arrive with guns. Those are your real world choices.

What does school break-ins have to do with anything? The armed staffer would carry concealed.

[ellisonz]

17. "They will get guns, no matter what laws you pass."

Prove it.

Do you realize the size of so many of our schools? What makes you think the "guard" will respond faster than the police? What if the staff member is the shooter?

This is a stupid fucking proposal made by an organization that is funded by blood money.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Common sense.

The staffer is at the school. The police are where ever the patrol cars happen to be. The police have to get there, while the staffer is there. Being there is faster than getting there.

What if the staff member is the shooter? You can play "what if" all day long. What if an astroid strikes? What if there is a tornado coming while the rampager is there and has brought a guard dog with him?

The proposal isn't stupid. You just don't like it because you are anti-gun. You think that guns are a magical item that radiates evil.

[Paladin]

23. You're The One Who Thinks Guns Are "Magical Items."

You and the rest of our resident Gun Enthusiasts. You whine when you're accused of proposing nothing more than "More Guns!" as a solution, and yet here you are again, you and the NRA, proposing nothing more than "More Guns!" As if that's proved in any way to be effective.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. So letting the rampager keep killing is a solution, according to you.

When you call for the police, you are calling for more guns. A trained, armed staffer cuts the response time.

[Paladin]

40. I guess you're beyond the point.....

...of wanting schools, offices, shopping malls, movie theaters, etc. to be free of guns. I guess that sort of world is just something folks like you have given up on. For you, it's just a question of arming up and taking on the Bad Guys, and the sooner the better. And maybe that's where we are---God knows, our free-and-easy gun laws have allowed untold numbers of sick people to acquire arms and ammunition with ease, and there are probably years of Newtown-like tragedies in our future. That being said, it doesn't mean we should be happy and accepting of the situation. I refuse to believe you're on the correct side of this issue, that more guns is the solution to the problem. And I say that as a life-long gun owner, as somebody who put his guns away when the shooting sports in this country became radicalized to the point I no longer wanted to be associated with them. There's got to be a better way than the dark avenue the gun militancy movement is going down.

[MichiganVote]

29. Sure. And while we're at it, let's limit the # of bullets the killer can spew on everyone.

Oh wait, we can't do that cuz' some hunter or sportsman/woman might have to reload to play. Well then let's background people. SHoot can't do that either. It might lead to profiling.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. The VT killer used standard magazines.

He reloaded 17 times, and killed more people than the Sandy Hook killer did.

The Luby's killer used standard magazines and reloaded and killed a bunch of folks.

The OKC bomber did use any guns and killed 168 people including 19 children under 6.

In the Happy Land nightclub fire an arsonist killed 87 people with gasoline and two matches.

Do you really think that limiting magazine size will accomplish anything?

[MichiganVote]

33. So in actuality, your solution is just to do nothing. Just let the kids take care of themselves

That's the same thinking that slaughtered the kids at Columbine and in countless other schools.

And yes, until it is proven--not conjecture--that limiting the size of magazines will not deter 75% of the killings in this country, I have no problem with it. Since you and others have not proven that, I'm only going to piss you and others off by stating the simple truth:

You have no evidence that limiting the size of magazines does not affect the # of people dead or the # of people who survive during a gun killing event. I don't have to THINK anything. Neither you, the NRA or any other body has proven that single point.

[beevul]

34. These rampagers ignore "gun free zone" laws.

That would tend to be proof that they would ignore magazine restrictions as well.

But hey, give it your best shot:

What in your view, would cause them to obey magazine restriction laws, when they would break the law by taking a gun into a gun free zone?

[MichiganVote]

38. But how do you know that of all the schools in this country, these laws are ignored

by every potential school shooter? In all circumstances? And let's be clear, I am not saying that your end has no evidence that limiting magazines that only pertains to school shootings--I'm saying you have no evidence that the size of the magazines has no bearing on the number of people killed in ALL settings.

And you know, it wasn't that long after Newtown that a fells went into a JC Penny with an assault rifle. Do you honestly think that people, probably mostly women shopping, give a rats ass that this guy is permitted to have a larger magazine or not?

You really can't know that limiting magazine size has no bearing on the seconds it takes to kill another person and you have no way of proving that. So again, no evidence.

As such, balancing the potential deaths of children or others in community settings versus the play needs of grown adults, however legal they are, will not wash. Gonna have to steal and election on this one partner. No one in their right mind is going to support your line of thinking.

[beevul]

44. Really?

That's your argument?

"How do you know that gun free zones haven't stopped anyone?"

For the sake of discussion, lets assume its possible they have. How have they stopped them? And, have they stopped enough of them? List the ones that weren't stopped. VT. Columbine. Sandy hook. The theater shooting in CO. And how many more? I would bet that in 90 plus percent of all of them, present was a gun free zone law, and ignored it was, just like the law against murder was. It stands to reason that if someone is willing to commit mass murder, that its easily presumed accurately, that this individual will ignore any magazine laws, just like he or she is going to ignore murder laws.

"You really can't know that limiting magazine size has no bearing on the seconds it takes to kill another person and you have no way of proving that. So again, no evidence."

Sure I can. Limiting magazine size only applies to someone who intends to follow that law. Someone who intends to break the law against murdering people, isn't going to suddenly have a change of heart because he or she might break a law having to do with possession of magazines above a certain capacity.

"As such, balancing the potential deaths of children or others in community settings versus the play needs of grown adults, however legal they are, will not wash. Gonna have to steal and election on this one partner. No one in their right mind is going to support your line of thinking."

So long as it is framed as "potential deaths of children or others in community settings versus the play needs of grown adults, however legal they are", nothing is going to change. The next mass shooter will break magazine laws, murder laws, and maybe even prohibited person laws, the usual suspects will blame the guns and people that support the right to own them. Then they'll propose more gun control laws that mass murdering rampager types will ignore, just like they always have. I was around when "gun free school zones" were enacted into law, and many a time pointed out to the anti-gun types, that they would just be ignored by those with bad intent. I was right. And evidence or not, I'm right about this too.

If you want real results, secure the schools. Everything else is off target, ineffective, and counterproductive.

[MichiganVote]

48. So called law abiding citizens with guns violate the laws too with and without

magazine laws. The idea that people who own guns who do not play shoot em' up are some lilly white bunch of angels is ridiculous. I grew up with guns, with gun experts and every kind of firearm. Every single one of the friends and relatives I knew broke gun laws. No, they didn't ride into a town and play Gunsmoke but rampagers are not the only ones who break gun laws.

Right. Secure the schools. Sure. Just as soon as the public so much as pays for education. Which we don't. Faced with your idea of what constitutes a fair gun law (which I'm guessin' is nuttin') and the lives of others, I'll err on the side of caution and declare that unless or until you have your evidence, nothing you can say will change my mind.

Schools aren't the only community who should be accountable.

[beevul]

51. Did anyone say they didn't?

"So called law abiding citizens with guns violate the laws too with and without magazine laws. The idea that people who own guns who do not play shoot em' up are some lilly white bunch of angels is ridiculous. I grew up with guns, with gun experts and every kind of firearm. Every single one of the friends and relatives I knew broke gun laws. No, they didn't ride into a town and play Gunsmoke but rampagers are not the only ones who break gun laws."

Did anyone say they didn't? I certainly didn't. But I'm also acutely aware, that between 80 and 100 million people legally own guns in this country, and nowhere near that amount, are misusing them, or breaking gun laws. A tiny percentage at the most. Shall we just just ignore that?

"Right. Secure the schools. Sure. Just as soon as the public so much as pays for education. Which we don't. Faced with your idea of what constitutes a fair gun law (which I'm guessin' is nuttin') and the lives of others, I'll err on the side of caution and declare that unless or until you have your evidence, nothing you can say will change my mind."

I actually support current gun laws, with one caveat - I feel that if a place is going to be deemed "gun free", it becomes the responsibility of those deeming it so, to take prudent and appropriate measures to ensure that it actually is.

Since 1934 on both the state and federal level, many many gun laws have been enacted. Tens of thousands, if one counts state, federal, and local. I generally support them, but I also recognize that some kinds of laws just don't work by themselves. Comparatively little security has been added to help with the ones that don't work.

That needs to change.

[MichiganVote]

54. "Comparative little security has been added"..on that we agree.

Following Columbine, school administrators and school social workers began to receive flyers by the day/week for 'conferences' that dealt with bullying. And multiple bullying laws have been enacted.

Ok. First, all of these conferences are expensive and require time away from busy staff schedules. So schools tried bringing in various school based anti bullying programs for students. Again, expensive and time consuming. But its what people wanted so schools did what they could with the budgets they had. Neither state or federal governments have given anything to these schools for these programs. Sure, they can write a grant. But the fact is that usually means that some do-gooder admin. or other staffers take time to do this outside of their school hours. Don't tell anyone cuz' we all know that public school staff are union thugs only out for themselves. (Not)

So what does this all mean? Bullying still occurs. Should we just abandon all of these options? Conclude that because we have not eradicated bullying among uncivilized immature youth our efforts have failed for one and all?

Laws have never worked by themselves. But they do work for some and in some cases for many.

Now let's take the case of school shootings. What has the public wanted to support in the 15 years since Columbine, since the shooting at the Amish school and the assorted other instances throughout this country? I would argue that the public has held its breath and its nose and done nothing for or within the schools. People generally want to propose the bullying is the central reason for school based shootings. Research suggests that while bullying is one reason, it is not the only reason. In the case of the inside school shooter, bullying is usually the igniter but the fuel for the felon lies deep in their own psychology or world view. And let me tell you something really scary. In the schools, we know who these at risk of violence children are. They are already being dealt with, quietly and confidentially, they get handled.

In this country we have had more than one shot across the bow to warn us that individuals like Lanza exist, are active and will shoot to kill. We know that high stress in workplaces causes people to go "postal". We know that there are unstable or irresponsible gun owners who in the wrong situation will resort to violence. We know that areas such as Chicago are rife with firearms and use them against one another or unprotected youth.

I propose that we are long past the 'conference' measures. Its too late now to count on ad hoc means to control or reduce the damage that we are doing with firearms--here--today. Do I believe that the most worthless bunch of pampered multi millionaire politicians in DC will do anything substantial?

Hell no. Our problem, yours and mine, originates in Washington and among the various State legislators.

[beevul]

67. We aren't so far apart as it may have seemed.

"Following Columbine, school administrators and school social workers began to receive flyers by the day/week for 'conferences' that dealt with bullying. And multiple bullying laws have been enacted."

I remember that, and was very glad it happened. I was the..."chosen one" when it came to being bullied when I was growing up. Every school day, for literally years, on the receiving end. It followed me from grade school, to jr high, to high school. People can be unbelievably cruel assholes, even as children, and when you're the biggest kid in school (I was nearly 6 feet tall, and wearing a size ten shoe before I was in 4th grade) but generally an easy going gentle person, the teachers and admin figure you can take it, and it isn't bullying. That's how it was in my time and situation, anyway. Toward the time I was close to becoming a legal adult, I started fighting back, but that presented a whole different set of problems, and a hard lesson in how fragile human beings are physically, and the necessity to control myself, my actions, and my temper...but that's another story.

I was and am still pleased any time I see resources devoted to end bullying.

"Ok. First, all of these conferences are expensive and require time away from busy staff schedules. So schools tried bringing in various school based anti bullying programs for students. Again, expensive and time consuming. But its what people wanted so schools did what they could with the budgets they had. Neither state or federal governments have given anything to these schools for these programs. Sure, they can write a grant. But the fact is that usually means that some do-gooder admin. or other staffers take time to do this outside of their school hours. Don't tell anyone cuz' we all know that public school staff are union thugs only out for themselves. (Not)"

I know, right? It gets old...the "thugs" meme. And, you're right about the expenses.

"So what does this all mean? Bullying still occurs. Should we just abandon all of these options? Conclude that because we have not eradicated bullying among uncivilized immature youth our efforts have failed for one and all?"

Of course not. But we shouldn't be treating the people not doing the bullying, as if they are, either.


"Now let's take the case of school shootings. What has the public wanted to support in the 15 years since Columbine, since the shooting at the Amish school and the assorted other instances throughout this country? I would argue that the public has held its breath and its nose and done nothing for or within the schools. People generally want to propose the bullying is the central reason for school based shootings. Research suggests that while bullying is one reason, it is not the only reason. In the case of the inside school shooter, bullying is usually the igniter but the fuel for the felon lies deep in their own psychology or world view. And let me tell you something really scary. In the schools, we know who these at risk of violence children are. They are already being dealt with, quietly and confidentially, they get handled."

In so many ways, you're right about this.

"In this country we have had more than one shot across the bow to warn us that individuals like Lanza exist, are active and will shoot to kill. We know that high stress in workplaces causes people to go "postal". We know that there are unstable or irresponsible gun owners who in the wrong situation will resort to violence. We know that areas such as Chicago are rife with firearms and use them against one another or unprotected youth."

No doubt. You are again, right about this. Bad things are happening. People resort to violence when they shouldn't, no question about it. The thing about Chicago, though, is generally, the people that are using them against one another or unprotected youth, are unlawful possessors of firearms. My view on that whole situation, is that part of it is due to the war on drugs. That's definitely a fuelling element of whats going on there. Another, is the militarization of law enforcement. When there were beat cops walking the beat, neighborhood cops, we didn't have problems like those that exist today. Not to the same degree anyway. Not to say those are the only issues, but those two are bigger than anyone gives them credit for being, IMO. When I start getting the vibe of "clamp down on amendment 2 and gun ownership" and ignore the rest, though, it doesn't sit any better with me than the rest of it. Note, I'm not saying I get that vibe from you or your posts, I just mean generally.

"Hell no. Our problem, yours and mine, originates in Washington and among the various State legislators."

While we may disagree on specific measures, we seem to be in total agreement here. What with the new changes in a few states, on MJ, and with the news I keep reading that leads me to believe this will spread, i'm encouraged that within my lifetime, the WOD will be ended, or at the very least dialed down a few notches, and I think that's a difference maker when it comes to things like the gun violence in Chicago. Add some real attention to poverty and education, and it would most likely turn out to have a substantial effect.

I apologize for my tone earlier in our exchange. I am admittedly pro-gun, and while i'm not real proud of it, I'm not ashamed of it either. In my time on DU, I've had some real knock down drag out spats with others on the other side of the issue, and particularly over the last few months, been called "second amendment extremist", "gun fucker", told that I love "guns more than children", accused of "nra talking points" and so forth...and it tends to color my replies sometimes. Its something that I am working on.

[MichiganVote]

78. No problem. I can tell you what I am for certain-anti bad gun owners. And there are a lot of them.

[frylock]

39. Mother Jones destroys yet another gunfucker talking point..

The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones

<snip>

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

<more>

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings

[beevul]

47. Thats nice, but its a strawman.

I wasn't making the claim that any particular one of these was chosen because it was a gun free zone, in fact I didn't discuss or mention why any of them were chosen at all.

I merely said that the fact that any of them were gun free zones was ignored by the perpetrator, which is simple unassailable fact.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. They sure didn't pay any attention to the "gun free zone" signs, did they?

How often do you see a rampage shooter going to a "guns allowed" place? A rampage shooter will have more than one criteria for his target. Being a guns-free place would be only one of who knows how many items on his list that a place must meet?

[frylock]

74. what's a "guns allowed" place?

can you provide an example?

[GreenStormCloud]

82. Any place that doesn't have a no-guns sign.

If guns aren't banned at a place, then they are allowed. However some places display signs like this:



There are several business in my town that have such a sign. Here is a bank that invites guns:



The sign on the door is a guns-allowed sign. There are several such banks in Texas. There was a thread about it on DU2.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. My solution is a trained, armed person at the school.

I am pointing out that your solution accomplishes nothing. It is up to you to prove that you solution would help. The 1994 AWB outlawed new magazines of greater than ten rounds and it accomplished nothing.

With 3-D printing magazines of any size can be printed at home and they will work in the guns. Limiting magazine size will be as futile as banning pot.

[XRubicon]

41. Who will pay for this new requirement?

I don't think this is a good idea- but I'd like you to tell me who would bear the cost.

[MichiganVote]

43. So prove the merits of your solution with data. You need evidence.

But permit me to add to the scope of your investigation.

In the case of schools with students anywhere or everywhere in a building or on the grounds, are you prepared to also provide:

-Commensurate firepower to say equal the Columbine or Newtown killers?
-Commensurate training? How often? On whose dime?
-A trained negotiator-afterall, hostages are a likely scenario, cheaper than ammo maybe
-A sniper-with today's firpower, kids can be on a playground with a shooter some distance away-how does a six shooter on the hip of a "trained, armed person" help with that?
-A "trained, armed person" on the buses, at the bus stops or during field trips?
-A "trained, armed person" during conferences or school events?
-How many "trained, armed person(s)" do you anticipate for a college campus the size of U of M or any of the other big ten?
-Private schools? How about private school such as the Amish who object to violence and only use their weapons for specific agricultural needs?

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Those are fair questions.

First, I wish to give you a compliment. During this discussion you have remained civil and have avoid insults. Usually anti-gunners just start hurling insults at me.

Firepower - Usually not needed. Rampage shooters tend to be cowards who often kill themselves as soon as they encounter armed resistance. Distances inside buildings and classrooms tends to be short. However, there are no guarantees, only probabilities.

Negotiator - Too late for that. Standard police doctrine is that one the rampager starts shooting there are no further negotiations. The rampager has to be shot.

Sniper - So far all school rampage shooters have been indoors, where they can have kids trapped. Outdoors kids can run away, scatter like birds from a cat. At Univ. of Texas, 1966, once people realized that there was a madman in the tower shooting at folks, people kept undercover. In general, a sniper won't be needed at a school rampage.

Busses, bus stops, etc. - Can't be everywhere. Total, absolute security is impossible.

College - Allow students with CCWs to carry on campus. There hasn't been any problem with colleges that do allow it. Please don't throw out the college kids and booze argument. You have to be 21 to have a CCW, and booze parties happen off campus, where campus gun rules don't apply.

Private schools - Let them have trained and armed staff too. If they are pacifists, well - that is the price of pacifism. They will just have to be hypocrites and call for police to come and deal out violence on their behalf.

[MichiganVote]

77. Thank you. But for the record I'm not an anti-gunner. I am opposed to AR-15's or their

equivalent with high magazines in the hands of the public. I wouldn't give a sports car to a 16 year old and these firearms are simply too dangerous and too prevalent.

That said, god that you are thinking.

[Hoyt]

59. They might get them now because of you guys, but in future it will be tougher.

We should do a lot of things that might not payoff in short-run, but will benefit us a decade or two from now. Instead we'll do it your way, and another 100 million guns will be added on the streets.

[MichiganVote]

28. IN case you've missed it, the public won't even pay enuf' for books in schools today

let alone another job title for teachers. You want guns in school? Pay for security. Teachers are hired to teach.

[neverforget]

84. This will be paid for by either cutting teachers pay, eliminating

some positions or a combination of both. The money isn't there for this but the Republicans will "fund it" through cuts to teachers because it's the Republican Way. Plus they get their rocks off by arming people AND cutting funding. It's a win-win for the assholes thanks to the NRA.

[MichiganVote]

86. Teachers throughout the country are taking pay cuts, positions have been cut,

positions have been eliminated entirely and frankly, the job of teaching is not enhanced by the public and their demands, it is demeaned by the public and their demands. Public school teaching today is the bad child, the spoiled child, in the eyes of the general public. Its not true, of course, but that is the perception aided and abetted by the corporate no nothings who usually want to make a buck.

The NRA has a bias in favor of increased firearms. I get that. They can have their position. But its the public that has to act as a counter balance and its not happening. Politicians don't really believe in public service and could care less about safety in schools. They pay lip service to the public and gladly take money from interests that run counter to that.

Other than the military and social security, we run this country on the cheap. So we get cheap results. We have only to consider that we created a war in one country for so called WMD for ten years--long past the time even the public had to acknowledge that they did not exist. If that doesn't say idiocy I don't know what does. Imagine what that money could have done in this country, in our schools, to our infrastructure, among our seniors and for the next generation.

And what is the solution to this debacle in public policy? Tax he vulnerable, continue to place economic stresses on the middle class who let's face it-support the rich elite and the very poor. And it can't sustain itself, it won't sustain itself.

Our society is as sick as the repeat shootings we see.

[etherealtruth]

26. The answer to every question

MORE GUNS

[moondust]

31. More guns = more profits.

Somebody's gonna be rich rich rich!!!!

(Pay no attention to the bodies.)

[jmg257]

27. GREAT idea - what could possibly go wrong?

"School security guard in Michigan leaves gun in bathroom, officials say

"Accidental shooting at University of Colorado dental school
A spokesman for the {Colorado} university says the owner of the gun is a CU employee and is currently on administrative leave."

"MANCHESTER, Conn. (AP) — The campus of Manchester Community College was locked down for several hours Wednesday after a student reported seeing a man with what she believed to be a gun in his waistband, and one of the officers involved in the response was injured in an accidental shooting...."

"Instructor shot during public school handgun training safety class in Texas
Back in January, the Van Independent School District school board authorized "certain school employees and other persons" to carry authorized firearms on school property."

"HIGHLAND, N.Y. — A police officer has been suspended without pay as officials investigate an incident at a high school here in which his gun fired. Sean McCutcheon, an officer in the Lloyd, N.Y., police department and a school resource officer for Highland Central School District, accidentally discharged his gun at 1:38 p.m. Tuesday in the hallway of Highland High School here, the school district and police said. "

[DirkGently]

30. The NRA has turned a corner ... on sucking.

It's just a transparent, squawking shill for gun sales at this point, and even the gun owners know it. A conservative Republican who, for fun, trades in private market AR-15s, tossed me the NRA's currently monthly mag / rag, the other day, laughing himself at the fact that it was just a gun ad pamphlet, with one wild anti-Obama screed ("President Pinocchio&quot stapled to the middle.

I've never seen a text-to-ad ratio like that. And the focus was not on hunting. It was all tactical gear and "scary black rifles" and tiny little pistols you can cup in your palm. Simply demented and sad.

[Bigmack]

50. Dumb fucking idea!....

For the folks who think arming teachers is the answer to the school shootings..

Do you imagine some kindergarden teacher... even heavily armed and trained... kindergarten teacher is gonna be able to “hold 'em and squeeze 'em” while under fire and trying to shield her kids..? Somebody who has never fired a round in combat is going to calmly fire a head shot on somebody wearing body armor? Dream on. The "Die Hard" movies are not documentaries.

Where is the teacher going to wear or store their weapon? Kids get into everything in classrooms. Any teacher will tell you about how their keys/purse/grade book was stolen.

Imagine a handgun going adrift in a school. You really want teachers wearing a handgun at their waists? That’s a recipe for an accidental discharge. If the teacher’s weapon is locked away securely, how long would it take to retrieve it in an emergency?

Ever hear of fratricide... blue on blue... friendly fire...? It happens with the best of trained troops. Think Pat Tilman. Now think 3 or 4 untrained shooters spraying rounds around a school.

With teachers - or anybody else, you're talking about a bloodbath before the bad guy gets off a single round. How would the teacher/guard know that anybody with a weapon wasn't the bad guy? They’d shoot each other, or more probably miss and kill those they are trying to protect.

And what do think the cops are going to see when they arrive...? A teacher standing there with a weapon. Bye-bye (hero) teacher!

Teachers are trained to teach. They are not warriors. These days, I'd even be nervous having a cop armed with a handgun on campus... he could be overpowered and the weapon used on students.

I have no idea what to do to stop the school shootings, but I know arming the teachers or students is dumber than hell.

Besides, teachers - especially elementary teachers - are surrogate parents, counselors, nurses.....are you gonna ask them to be armed guards, too.? Anybody willing to pay teachers combat pay..?

[moondust]

53. Next up: Theaters, malls,

churches, concert halls, workplaces, college classrooms, dormitories, post offices, sidewalks, and backyard patios.

Why are all those places unprotected??!!

(Somebody's gonna get rich rich rich selling all those guns and ammo and bulletproof vests and uniforms and badges and on and on and on!!!! YeeHawwww!!!)

[spanone]

64. who the fuck are they to recommend anything to anybody

[bluedigger]

68. LOD is destroying these clowns on the The Last Word.

[ellisonz]

70. Yes, yes he is. Hutchinson wouldn't say how much he's being paid.

Also, that he would express frustration that only the "controversial" parts of his "report" are being discussed is idiotic considering he's shilling for the NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

[Hotler]

71. THAT IS JUST FUCKING INSANE........ fucking eh! n/t

[Deep13]

76. I'm a teacher, not a soldier. nt

[Apophis]

79. The NRA needs to die.

[Starry Messenger]

83. Not I.

I refuse to have my classroom culture colored by speculation over my firepower.