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

[morphsci]

Its seems pretty obvious some here think it's part of the solution, no? We certainly don't treat all problems solely at their root(s). 

And how well has that worked out. Band aids are fine for shallow cuts but deep wounds require stitches.

[Knuckledragger]

Via Reddit: "I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help." - One mothers struggle with a desperately mentally ill son.

[robm321]

Its seems pretty obvious some here think it's part of the solution, no? We certainly don't treat all problems solely at their root(s). And how well has that worked out. Band aids are fine for shallow cuts but deep wounds require stitches.

I agree with this. I'd focus on the root cause. Terrorists have moved on from guns to bombs anyway for their effectiveness and ability to get away. eliminating one tool just leads to use of another. I really don't have a pro or anti gun position, but I like the idea of focusing on the heart of problems and not the tools or methods. I realize I may be a bit idealistic with this view However. Edited December 16, 2012 by robm321

[The Expanding Man]

Why are we arguing about gun control when that is not the root of the problem?

It determines how easy or hard it is for the mentally ill to get access to the weapons that make them more efficient killers.

[morphsci]

And the assumption then is it is better if they kill fewer?

[blessingx]

Has anyone here recommended against looking at the root cause(s)? What I don't understand is why some view any other but root cause treatment has inherently off the table. Simply can not be part of the solution. I'm being silly, but if you, your boss, your local law enforcement/fire department/mental and physical facilities, etc. only treated root causes and nothing else starting tomorrow, how well would that work out for all of us?  

[morphsci]

You are not going to stop this kind of occurrence by removing one tool. I never said that gun control was bad, good, or indifferent. Just that it would not stop this kind of tragedy. Gun control or arming teachers for that matter is a red herring and will not solve the problem. I think if we started realistically focusing on the root cause of problems we would all be better off. Treating symptoms does not cure the disease, it just makes you feel better, until you die.

Edited December 16, 2012 by morphsci

[blessingx]

I'm more a minimize the pain while treating the underlying cause kinda guy, but to each their own. 

[robm321]

It's a freedom vs safety debate. To some degree, effectiveness as well. I think I rest on the side of more freedom by a hair. But if guns become highly regulated and these horrible events are vastly reduced 5 years from now, I will think I had it wrong.

[Wmcmanus]

I don't think it's a problem that can ever be fixed. Ever. This kind of thing will happen no matter what you try to do to prevent it. Sadly. It's just something that we have to deal with as part of the human condition.

[Dusty Chalk]

Ric -- I am 100% in agreement with you -- I used to be the kind of guy that thought that law enforcement should only be allowed after the perpetration of a crime, I.E. caught red-handed, but have since come around on a few safe issues -- meth use, anything involving an underage, etc.  But for the most part, I do not believe in preventative medicine, for the reasons I stated previously.  As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

Steve, my man, I am truly sorry I hurt your feelings, but you added those two words "allowed to" which to me changes everything -- it changes the discussion from you (personal) to everyone (legal).  Yes, the gay marriage thing was meant to present to you other people imposing their beliefs on you, hence trying to make you understand how that is a bad thing.  Anyone who follows me on Facebook knows that there are three things which interest me the most -- rescuing animals, music, and gay rights.  I am very sorry that this was not more clear from before you read it.

 

Oh, and beer.  And funny things.  And my friends and family, which I consider you to be a part of.  I stand by something I told to someone recently in private -- I consider my best friends the ones that can call me out on my shit, and ones that I can call out on shit (in this case, a statement) -- I.E. argue with -- and we can go out and have a beer the next day.  I consider you to be one of those people (even though you don't drink, mostly).  I want my friends to be able to tell me I have broccoli in my teeth, and I will tell my friends when they have broccoli in their teeth.  Because no-one wants broccoli in their teeth.

 

And that goes for the rest of you, too -- even though it feels I disagree with most of you, I don't want you to take it personally just because I argue with you.  I'm just argumentative like that.

 

Now get off of my lawn.  (pumps shotgun)

[swt61]

Dusty, I have never considered you to be homophobic or bigoted in any way. I've known you now for several years, and it would be impossible for me to think anything like that. I completely understood your use of the gay marriage scenario.

What hurt me was solely this sentence...

So although I applaud your desire for a better life, I sicken at the thought of having your values imposed over other people

That seemed very much directed at me personally, given the context of the post, and now your acknowledgement of such. The use of the word "sicken" in its context seems to me more than generally argumentative, and very personal.

Firstly I'm still not sure you really understand my values, as up to this point you seem to want to place me fully on one side of the issue. I am not fully on either side, and I think my posts reflect that.

I don't know what I've done to offend you, but it seems to me that I have. I'm truly sorry if I have, as that was never my intent.

Steve, my man, I am truly sorry I hurt your feelings, but you added those two words "allowed to" which to me changes everything -- it changes the discussion from you (personal) to everyone (legal).

Again I'm confused. I've looked back at all of my posts in this thread, and I don't see the words "allowed to".

In any case it's no longer important to me. I'm a big boy, I'll get over it.

[Wmcmanus]

I'm a big boy...

There you go again with that again!!!

(I can't add smiley faces for some reason... penis reference above).

Edited December 16, 2012 by Wmcmanus

[Dusty Chalk]

No, you're right, I don't fully understand anyone's values, as I doubt very much they are as black-&-white as I am seeing them right now (not just you, but many who have posted in this thread seem to be very pro-gun-contol).  So I think you're right in that I'm seeing things in an overly monochromatic eye -- but not just you, so again, please don't take it personally.

 

And yeah, I can see now how that would be seen that way, but whoever said "one" was probably closest to what I meant -- I sicken at the thought of having any one person's values imposed over other people -- not just yours, but mine, Obama's, Dan's, Romney's...anyone's.  Do you see how one little misspeak can convey such an entirely different meaning?  I honestly did not mean that directed at your one thoughts on the subject.

 

And it was this statement that seemed to cross that line from sharing one's personal feelings to imposing it on others -- you're right, the words "allowed to" weren't in there:  "I DON'T EVER WANT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT!" -- and again, I misread -- I read "ability" as "legally allowed to" whereas I see now that ... alright, no, I don't have any idea why you stuck that in there, so I'll just shut up and let you explain.

 

There was a tragedy, yes.  Do you feel helpless for it having happened under our current legal structure?  Yes.  Do we have to change it just because of your feelings?  I'm not even going to mince words -- no.  Notice I'm not saying we shouldn't change it, just that we don't have to.  Whatever we do, doesn't have to be like the fiscal cliff -- there is no deadline, whatever we do should be well thought out with all of its ramifications, not passed because of the current emotional state of the populace.

 

And to give you a little more context -- that concept of "trying" a law for a couple years like prohibition scares the shit out of me -- I don't think politicians should "temporarily" be given that kind of power, because I know they would fight tooth and nail to relinquish it, just as I would fight tooth and nail to relinquish my rights.  It's the camel's nose under the tent flap.  Why should I have to sell my guns because the government says so?  Why should I have to go through the trouble of selling them then and buying them back now?  What if I needed them during that difficult period in between?  Tell that to the victims of all the drive-by shootings during prohibition era.

[swt61]

I honestly did not mean that directed at your one thoughts on the subject.

I feel better. I really thought you had some agenda with me.

I understand this is a serious issue for you. I really don't have strong gun control leanings, I'm just really confused, frustrated and deeply saddened whenever kids are hurt. This goes way beyond that.

I still believe we need to discuss this issue though, even if we can't reach an understanding at this time.

[Dusty Chalk]

I'm alright with discussing this further.

 

And I apologize for not addressing your specific concern earlier -- you did mention it before -- blame it on my inferior reading comprehension and trying to get through this thread too quickly when reading it in bursts.

 

I'm now going to go watch Hachi and  plan on crying my eyes out.

[swt61]

I loved that movie!

[blessingx]

With trepidation, I want to make one more point and then will move to bystander status. 

 

I think there's this mistaken tone in this thread there are two immovable sides on this issue and we just need to sit down and chat. I don't believe that. Although Grawk is certainly correct neither side is 100% stedfast with its compatriots, even in this thread one side views this issue often as all guns v. none, American Liberties v. statistically insignificant safety, core reasons v. band-aids, mental health v. firearms, past freedom v. current police state, etc.

 

The other side rarely speaks in these dichotomies. They as a whole don't lobby for all guns to be removed from society, nor use the lens that all weapons removal to be necessary to have a desired effect. They don't list Franklin's famous liberty quote, because there are already restrictions and if every restriction (food, driving, healthcare, phosphorus grenades, etc.) is an assault on liberty there seems higher battles to save the country/world. They tend to target specific weapons and address possible misuse and safety. They are already trying to engage in a conversion on practical solutions (right or yes, wrong).

 

And in response as a whole (again see Grawk's comment) the other side jumps to the framed dichotomy stance (coupled with 'it's a slippery slope'). That's not a two-way conversion in my book. See difference between: assault rifles X,Y,Z and kill rates versus American Freedom.

 

Okay, a few have given their backgrounds. Here's mine - grew up in rural Ohio including hunting. Was a Gunner's Mate in the Navy. Was a pretty good shot then. Have lived in urban areas (in CA) most of the last 20 years, but I don't forget what it was like to grow up in small town with nearest law enforcement 40+ minutes away. Father and Grandfather were avid collectors (Dad has gone on buying sprees twice based on elections). I've never owned a gun.

 

From my perspective it's not both sides unwilling to have 'a conversation.' One is already trying to. The other is remaining absolute.

 

It reminds me of driving through Ohio before the last election. As you can imagine there were a ton of Obama and Romney lawn signs. About a quarter of the homes participating had a "Save the Republic" sign too. They were always followed by the same candidate (wild guess?). There was no equivalent for the other candidate. Taken for their word, if those individuals really believed we were on the edge of our Republic collapse, do you think they were as prepared as others for a rational conversation with opposing opinions on new solutions? As willing to sit down and chat?    

 

[grawk]

Ok what kind of gun can you ban to prevent a school shooting?

Which color rifles are acceptable and what makes them different from the ones you think should be restricted, and what make them less likely to kill kids?

Which laws stop criminals from breaking them while not restricting law abiding citizens?

Which restrictions not already in place in Connecticut, Chicago, or Washington DC would make those places safer?

[swt61]

 

With trepidation, I want to make one more point and then will move to bystander status. 

 

I think there's this mistaken tone in this thread there are two immovable sides on this issue and we just need to sit down and chat. I don't believe that. Although Grawk is certainly correct neither side is 100% stedfast with its compatriots, even in this thread one side views this issue often as all guns v. none, American Liberties v. statistically insignificant safety, core reasons v. band-aids, mental health v. firearms, past freedom v. current police state, etc.

 

The other side rarely speaks in these dichotomies. They as a whole don't lobby for all guns to be removed from society, nor use the lens that all weapons removal to be necessary to have a desired effect. They don't list Franklin's famous liberty quote, because there are already restrictions and if every restriction (food, driving, healthcare, phosphorus grenades, etc.) is an assault on liberty there seems higher battles to save the country/world. They tend to target specific weapons and address possible misuse and safety. They are already trying to engage in a conversion on practical solutions (right or yes, wrong).

 

And in response as a whole (again see Grawk's comment) the other side jumps to the framed dichotomy stance (coupled with 'it's a slippery slope'). That's not a two-way conversion in my book. See difference between: assault rifles X,Y,Z and kill rates versus American Freedom.

 

Okay, a few have given their backgrounds. Here's mine - grew up in rural Ohio including hunting. Was a Gunner's Mate in the Navy. Was a pretty good shot then. Have lived in urban areas (in CA) most of the last 20 years, but I don't forget what it was like to grow up in small town with nearest law enforcement 40+ minutes away. Father and Grandfather were avid collectors (Dad has gone on buying sprees twice based on elections). I've never owned a gun.

 

From my perspective it's not both sides unwilling to have 'a conversation.' One is already trying to. The other is remaining absolute.

 

It reminds me of driving through Ohio before the last election. As you can imagine there were a ton of Obama and Romney lawn signs. About a quarter of the homes participating had a "Save the Republic" sign too. They were always followed by the same candidate (wild guess?). There was no equivalent for the other candidate. Taken for their word, if those individuals really believed we were on the edge of our Republic collapse, do you think they were as prepared as others for a rational conversation with opposing opinions on new solutions? As willing to sit down and chat?    

 

Ric you have just expressed my feelings so much better, and more eloquently than I ever could have. A thoughtful, concise and thought provoking post.

BTW, I'm also from a big hunting family. Guns were a part of life in my upbringing. Both of my Brother's received their first gun once they turned 12. I refused to shoot the Winchester 3030 he gave me when I turned 12. That was more about not wanting to be forced to be somebody I wasn't, than it was about guns.

Edited December 16, 2012 by swt61

[congo5]

Ok what kind of gun can you ban to prevent a school shooting?

None, you can't.

[jp11801]

Congo5 FOAD

[grawk]

The reason why I am firmly opposed to any kind of gun control at this point is both that I think our laws are currently sufficient, and that most anti-gun legislation that has been proposed has been a back door gun ban. Charging a multi-dollar per round tax on ammunition, banning anything that can "penetrate a standard police bullet proof vest" (every rifle, basically), legislation requiring you keep your gun locked in a safe at your gun club (thus making it pointless for anything except use at said hunt club).

It sucks when innocent people are hurt. It sucks when it is in schools, it sucks when it's in a traffic accident, it sucks when it's in the stock market. When guns are banned, it's still possible for someone who leans that direction to commit mass murder. The problem is that some people still feel like murder is an option. That someone can know that they can make a mark on history by blowing themselves up, or shooting up a school. Our laws protect the names of the victims, but our media promotes the criminals. We treat people who get treated for mental illness as criminals. We give lip service to stopping bullying, but it still happens every day, both on personal and institutional levels.

Not only will banning guns not solve society's problems, I don't think it will even make a dent. If you want to make a difference toward preventing incidents like what happened today, say hi to someone who's marginalized. Listen to them when they talk. Help them if you can. Don't punish the law abiding people.

[manaox2]

Gun control is important, but is ultimately a red herring to me as well. School shootings happen because the person is mentally ill, if not guns, it would be cars or improvised explosives, etc. Right now, I am scared by our culture. If ask any of my classes about Rhianna, 80% would say that she deserved it.

 

My brother had a home invasion Tuesday night. He has a broken nose and black eyes, some bruising, but not too much stolen. I'm thankful the three guys who did it did not have guns. or a knife. or decide to curb him. I don't like thinking about how horrible it could have been. I would like to focus on fixing people that would like to harm others for pleasure. I have no idea where to start, I teach technology and am total geek.

 

And if one of you would like to say a gun would have stopped that, I do doubt it. After they knocked him out in the hallway, he probably would not be here if he had a gun on him. Two blocks away that same week, people were executed in their home over drugs with a single shot through their heads. His friends were robbed after being shown a gun by a theif that same month. People don't know the circumstances of when they may have to use that gun even with the best of intentions. It can be fun as a hobby, but in reality I don't like the idea of individuals being judge and jury.

Edited December 17, 2012 by manaox2

[Dusty Chalk]

Sorry, gotta disagree with that last statement, but when someone is obviously going postal, I have no problem with someone stopping them.  I'm not saying that about any other situation, but if someone at that school was armed, it might have been shorter.  Paraphrasing Obama in something he said just tonight, if we can save the life of one child, aren't we obliged to at least investigate that possibility?  20 is a lot of children, anything cutting that shooting spree short would have been a good thing.

 

He did piss me off when he said that "year after year after year" comment, trying to make it sound like an annual event.  Fear-mongering.

 

Ric, I don't think both sides are being silent, unless I missed something -- I've seen all four (over-simplifying, but I will make my point) stances:  pro-gun, anti-gun, pro-gun-but-something-must-be-done, anti-gun-but-not-full-out-gun-control.

 

Regarding open or concealed carry, I realize a lot of you are against this -- I am certainly against the concept of obliging anyone unwilling to be armed -- but it is not as horrible a world as many of you have painted.  I realize http://www.thebulletin.ca/cbulletin/content.jsp?ctid=1000157&cnid=1003264'>this is largely pro-gun propaganda, but it's still worth knowing, in short, that there have been several mass shootings stopped by open or concealed carry.  I went looking for this because my friend from Utah mentioned the story in Utah, where the shooter was stopped after 3 or 4 killings, by someone carrying (the point being that a lot of people carry in Utah).  3 or 4 is a lot less than 20.  So by Obama's own reasoning, should we not seriously consider this?

 

And please don't feel obliged to stay out of the discussion, you are indeed eloquent and intelligent.  Even if I do quote Ben Franklin.  In a previous version of that post, I specifically mentioned that I do think some preventative law should be okay (age of consent, child pornography, license to drive, drinking age, smoking age, etc.), but I must have deleted it.

 

Back to my stance -- I am fighting the concept of any action regarding gun control laws now because I think it is badly timed, and should be well thought out intellectually rather than emotionally "react".  I actually don't have any problem with gun regulation (background checks, registration, etc.), so am not as hard-nosed as I sound.  I also do think regulation should be stricter or less strict based on what the weapon is capable of.  But I disagree with any concept that makes it impossible to own a gun.  That's just a little too Orwellian for my tastes.