Arming Teachers

[Sensei]

"Childhood Firearm Injuries in the United States"

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486

Statistics per state:

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 Worst case scenario of teachers asking students and parents about guns in homes is that more parents lock of their guns and the number of students with access to guns greatly diminishes. 

 

 

 

• 1.7 million children live with unlocked, loaded guns - 1 out of 3 homes with kids have guns.
• In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.
• More than 75 percent of first and second graders know where their parents keep their firearms and 36 percent admitted handling the weapons, contradicting their parents’ reports.
• More than 80 percent of guns used by youth in suicide attempts were kept in the home of the victim, a relative, or a friend.
• In a November 2017 review of mass shootings in the U.S., 95 mass shootings have occurred since 1982, from which approximately 76 semi-automatic handguns and 85 assault weapons and weapons with high magazine capacity were recovered.
• Gun owners in a household (predominantly men) are more likely to report that their gun is stored unlocked and loaded, compared to the non-owners (predominantly women) in those households. This argues for better education of household members regarding safe storage in homes with children.
• Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health demonstrated that from 1982 to 2011, mass shootings occurred every 200 days on average. Since late 2011, they found, mass shootings have occurred at triple that rate—every 64 days on average.
   

The US averages around a half dozen school shootings per year (with fatalities) in the last several decades. The problem with screening, as I've said before, is the vast number of false-positives where you will be detaining or otherwise taking action against students who are not going to be school shooters. 

And this screening happens how? In school teacher and administrators' copious free time?

 

As these (and other) statistics show, the mass shootings happen overwhelmingly outside of schools. Focusing solely on schools is too small a field of view. Having an armed presence did not stop this recent one. After Columbine, Colorado put an armed guard at every school. It wasn't able to prevent a school shooting on 2013. There's no way to tell if an armed presence has deterred any attacks, owing to small-number statistics.

An armed teacher is going to be less well-trained than someone whose primary job it is to carry a gun. (And if it's cops in schools, that has other negative side effects, like arresting kids for typical minor infractions of school rules that don't normally get you arrested) What I don't think I've seen is any justification for this approach as apposed to what I would consider the perfectly reasonable gun-control proposals. Banning military-style weapons does not infringe on the second amendment. Universal background checks, waiting periods and removing gun ownership from violent felons (especially in the case of domestic abuse) doesn't seem to, either. (Many states have removed voting rights for felons, after all.)

(Side note: the NRA is all in favor of restoring gun rights to ex-felons, but opposes restoring voting rights)

[Arete]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are other interested stats on the link. The ones that stood out to me as being useful to this discussion are that 1 out of 3 kids live in a home with guns and that over 13,000 kids are injured by guns each year. The over whelming majority of kids know where the guns in there homes are kept despite their parents belief to the contrary (related to a point John Cuthber made).

I am certainly not denying that the safest option is to not own guns, just as the safest option with regards to ladder accidents would be to not own a ladder. But a ladder is useful, and if used responsibly and carefully, a ladder is relatively safe. Same for most guns. 

Safe storage is a big deal, however. Less than half of the gun owners in the us store their firearms locked away in any fashion, let alone locked separately to ammunition. About a fifth of gun owners store a gun both unlocked and loaded in the house. This is a problem, for sure. 

To set the scene, we live on 12 acres in the Sierra foothills. Our property is rocky, mixed oak/pine woodland and changes in elevation by 400 feet from the lowest to the highest point. Frequent visitors to our land include mountain lions, brown bears, bobcats, coyotes, raccoons, skunks, golden eagles, pacific rattlesnakes, etc. 

We own a 12ga shotgun. Turkeys are an invasive species here and I have more than once come home to 30+ turkeys destroying the vegetable garden, so we use the shotgun to cull. I also hunt quail on our land when in season, because, well, they're tasty. We also own a rifle chambered in .22LR - ground squirrels are highly prolific here, tend to favor areas around our buildings and dig under the slabs, and are also a known reservoir of Yersinia pestis. We tried trapping to keep their numbers down but also killed a lot of non target species, so now cull with a small caliber rifle. We also own a rifle chambered in .308. I mostly use this as for couple of wilderness deer hunts in the fall.  I just recently used it to cull a problem raccoon that had learned to wait until our chickens came close to the edge of the pen, then pull their heads through the wire and bite them off. 

 

Guns are a tool here. Just like chainsaws, brushcutters, etc. They can be dangerous, sure. But not every gun owner is living in a city apartment with a loaded 9mm pistol/AR15 next to their bed. You can own a gun for good reason and be responsible about it. 

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Arete said:

Safe storage is a big deal, however. Less than half of the gun owners in the us store their firearms locked away in any fashion, let alone locked separately to ammunition. About a fifth of gun owners store a gun both unlocked and loaded in the house. This is a problem, for sure. 

But that behaviour would be consistent with being 'armed and ready' in the event of a home invasion.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

But that behaviour would be consistent with being 'armed and ready' in the event of a home invasion.

Which is why I support biometric locks on guns as the way to go for folks where home invasion is priority number 1, but those too are batted down as viable alternatives by the pro-gun crowd.

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which is why I support biometric locks on guns as the way to go for folks where home invasion is priority number 1, but those too are batted down as viable alternatives by the pro-gun crowd.

Too paranoid about a trickle becoming a flood.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The US averages around a half dozen school shootings per year (with fatalities) in the last several decades. The problem with screening, as I've said before, is the vast number of false-positives where you will be detaining or otherwise taking action against students who are not going to be school shooters. 

And this screening happens how? In school teacher and administrators' copious free time?

Can you elaborate on how a "false positive" would negatively impact anything? I am saying teacher should be aware of which students have access to guns and not implying any action against those students. It is an awareness things. I don't understand your point about false positives. 

The screening would be teachers and administrators asking the students and parents during normal parent teacher conferences and whatnot which already happen. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There's no way to tell if an armed presence has deterred any attacks, owing to small-number statistics.

I am against having armed personnel on campuses.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Banning military-style weapons does not infringe on the second amendment.

I agree 100%. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As these (and other) statistics show, the mass shootings happen overwhelmingly outside of schools. Focusing solely on schools is too small a field of view.

We have and have had other threads addressing gun control broadly. Whatever does or doesn't happen with the national gun control debate in the short term school shootings will continue. So I started this thread to ask what schools can be doing at their level. I think we all already agree that on the federal level we need a multitude of changes (Universal background checks, assualt weapons ban, automatic modification kit bans, and etc). 

[John Cuthber]

On 2/25/2018 at 1:12 PM, Raider5678 said:

Fear not!

Very little discussion is actually taking place.

Fair's fair.

Please feel free to cite dumb suggestions about stopping gun violence in schools made by Democrats.

I'm sure we will all be happy to make fun of them, just as re do with Republican dumbness.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Can you elaborate on how a "false positive" would negatively impact anything? I am saying teacher should be aware of which students have access to guns and not implying any action against those students. It is an awareness things. I don't understand your point about false positives. 

As I have written before,

1. Waste of time and resources

2. Stigma attached to being identified as a potential school shooter

Whether a student has access to guns should be several steps down any list of things to look for. By itself, or as a first, second or even third criterion it does almost nothing to identify the half-dozen or so shooters you will have out of the 7-8 million high-school-aged boys out there attending public school. You cut it down to about 2 million. Pick your 6 shooters out of that haystack.

It's not just asking the parents (some of whom are likely to refuse to answer, some might lie, and not all of whom participate) because you have to collate it along with all the other information. You want to inquire in specific cases, after you have identified two or three other risk factors/behavioral issues, then inquiring about guns would be worthwhile. Assuming the student in question can't just go out and buy (or otherwise acquire) one on his own, in which case the question is moot.

 

 

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

As I have written before,

1. Waste of time and resources

2. Stigma attached to being identified as a potential school shooter

Whether a student has access to guns should be several steps down any list of things to look for. By itself, or as a first, second or even third criterion it does almost nothing to identify the half-dozen or so shooters you will have out of the 7-8 million high-school-aged boys out there attending public school. You cut it down to about 2 million. Pick your 6 shooters out of that haystack.

It's not just asking the parents (some of whom are likely to refuse to answer, some might lie, and not all of whom participate) because you have to collate it along with all the other information. You want to inquire in specific cases, after you have identified two or three other risk factors/behavioral issues, then inquiring about guns would be worthwhile. Assuming the student in question can't just go out and buy (or otherwise acquire) one on his own, in which case the question is moot.

 

 

In addition there is a lack of actionable responses. The issue is not entirely the ability to track gun owning homes (though a point could be made to have a central database for gun owners as well as stricter laws for safe weapon storage). The issue is what you are supposed to do once you know it. Do you want to treat those kids differently? If so, how? Put an armed escort close to them when you think there may be situation that may upset them? Make their class mates wear kevlar vests, just in case? Frisk them every day just in case? You may feel better if you knew who has easier access to arms, but unless you have a plan that utilizes that knowledge in a way that is not to the detriment of the kids, there is no real value to it. On top of it, I suspect that gun ownership can be concentrated in certain areas. In which case a much higher proportion of the student body will live in homes with guns (say, rural areas where hunting is more prevalent).

And on top of it, a number of school shooters did not use guns from their homes (not sure whether they had any) but acquired them for the explicit purpose of the shootings (the Columbine shooters and the most recent one, for example). To make a point regarding false positives, it is like trying to solve cancer by telling everyone that they have it. You will catch all cancer cases that way. But unless you have means to selectively treat the real cases it is utterly useless at best and harmful at worst.

[John Cuthber]

22 hours ago, Arete said:

 I chose not to continue the discussion, as it was going astray from the topic of the thread and becoming obtuse, but OK. 

1) When a child can open the kitchen drawers and cupboards, do you throw out the household bleach and kitchen knives? Do you shut off the hot water when they can turn the bath taps? Demolish upstairs when they can climb over the baby gate? 

Or do you teach them that numerous household items are dangerous and not appropriate to play with? 

2) I disagree that we should expect children to inevitably crack safes. The whole point of a decent quality safe is that an adult can't access it without explicit instructions on how to open it. 

(1) It always astounds me that otherwise sensible adults can't distinguish guns from bath-taps in terms of risk assessment and management.

When someone takes a tap to their school and kills 17  other people with it you will have a valid point.

(2) Odd as it may seem, safe-crackers seldom have the opportunity to regularly watch someone open the safe, so they don't ordinarily get a chance to make a note of the combination or where  the keys are kept.

Otherwise, again, it's a fine point to make.

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

With about 30% of total students living in a home with a gun that means only about 15% of male students live in a home with a gun considering only about half of all students are male.

If about 30% of students live in a home with a gun in it then about 30% of male students live in a home with a gun (not 15%).

This " 30% of students live in a home with a gun" implies that about 30% of homes (where students live) have a gun.

All students live in homes.

The issue is not identifying those students who live in such a home (that's pointless for the reasons given above).

The problem is that a third of high school kids have more or less ready access to a gun.*
That's just not good news.

 

* it will be more than that- some of them will know where their friend's dad keeps his gun.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's not just asking the parents (some of whom are likely to refuse to answer, some might lie, and not all of whom participate) because you have to collate it along with all the other information. You want to inquire in specific cases, after you have identified two or three other risk factors/behavioral issues, then inquiring about guns would be worthwhile. Assuming the student in question can't just go out and buy (or otherwise acquire) one on his own, in which case the question is moot.

I think in many cases asking people questions they don't want to answer is an effective way to impact their behavior. School shootings aside 13,000 kids are hurt every year by guns. It very well may upset some parents to be asked and some may definitely be concerned about a stigma being attached. However there would also be the positive effect of getting it on their (parents)radar that there potentially might be a problem with their kids having access to guns. It might seem like a no brainer that ever parent would already know that but some parents don't know better than to hit their kids or smoke in close proximity to their kids. The pressure of having society watching has done a lot to impact parental behavior. Even the parents the proudly proclaim they give their kids whippings know better than to give the whippings in public (most the time). Likewise many parents object to sex education for their kids. Some even pull their kids out of school on the day the lesson is taught. Those parents are still force to confront the issue with their kids though. Force to give their own version of the birds and the bees. If sex education was just removed many of those bird and the bees conversations would never happen. So even if parents lie and get offended it is worth it if it influences  more parents buying locks and gun safes. If it leads to more kids asking their parents about locks and guns safe and why they do and or don't have them. 

If a parent didn't want their child to go play at the house of a cigarette smoker I don't think many people in 2018 would find that strange of unreasonable. Yet unless the child was going to be playing in the run with a the smoker the health risk in very small. That stigma, on smokers, is why some many won't smoke indoors. Many smokers even won't smoke anywhere in site of the kids, even outside their own homes. Pressuring gun owners a bit to be lock their guns up and practice much gun safety as possible is a win for everyone. Less kids would be hurt and less guns would be stolen and resold on the black market. We shouldn't be so worried about offending gun owners we cannot  can even ask them questions they can voluntarily answer however they see fit. Just as the permission letter home from the school regarding sex education sparks the conversation at home whether the parent signs the letter or so to would questions about guns. At least that is my opinion. Some parents would response angrily and others by double and triple thinking about whether or not their guns are secure enough.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Whether a student has access to guns should be several steps down any list of things to look for. By itself, or as a first, second or even third criterion it does almost nothing to identify the half-dozen or so shooters you will have out of the 7-8 million high-school-aged boys out there attending public school. You cut it down to about 2 million. Pick your 6 shooters out of that haystack.

As mentioned above talking to the parents and students about guns in their homes serves more purposes than to identify a potential mass shooter. It would raise awareness and educate people to the reality that is isn't merely an issue of violent video games or poorly prescribed medication.  

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The problem is that a third of high school kids have more or less ready access to a gun.*
That's just not good news.

A much higher percentage of students use to have a smoker in the household. Cigarettes were banned. It is still legal to buy, own, and smoke all the cigarettes you want. One of the things that changed the tide of cigarettes is the way we talked about cigarettes and acknowledged their risks.

[Arete]

7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

(1) It always astounds me that otherwise sensible adults can't distinguish guns from bath-taps in terms of risk assessment and management.

This is exactly the type of tiresome strawman that made me weary to enter the debate. Of course I don't consider them equal risks, or each of my hot water taps would be locked, with a seperate lock on the mains which you'd have to go outside to unlock every time you wanted a shower. 

The point was, is and remains that risks in a home, and in life, are manifold. Risk management is part of parenting and general existence as a human being. 

When someone takes a tap to their school and kills 17  other people with it you will have a valid point.

When someone manages to conduct a mass shooting with four rounds of #7 birdshot, you'll have one too. 

(2) Odd as it may seem, safe-crackers seldom have the opportunity to regularly watch someone open the safe, so they don't ordinarily get a chance to make a note of the combination or where  the keys are kept.

I don't know how you imagine or assume guns are used when they are used for culling invasive species or hunting. I can't help but imagine you think we pull out the rifles and ride them around the living room like hobby horses on a nightly basis. I've never opened a safe, or handled a gun with my son, or any other child present. I've also never welded with a child present, never operated a chainsaw with a child present, or let my three year old drive me to work. 

As previous threads have shown, you have an extreme viewpoint here and we're not going to agree. 

[StringJunky]

59 minutes ago, Arete said:

As previous threads have shown, you have an extreme viewpoint here and we're not going to agree. 

From what you have said so far, if you lived in the UK, you personally wouldn't notice much difference or feel inhibited by our gun regulations because your use and style of guns is permitted and common in the UK. The only difference is that acquiring the necessary licence and subsequent police oversight is a more set procedure.  Two of my brothers have shotguns and high power gas guns and they pretty much do what you do. As far as home defence goes, I think any UK firearm owner will pull his gun on an intruder., particularly those that live in the countryside.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

As far as home defence goes, I think any UK firearm owner will pull his gun on an intruder., particularly those that live in the countryside.

And, just to clarify things, they will usually be acting legally if they do so.

 

2 hours ago, Arete said:

As previous threads have shown, you have an extreme viewpoint here and we're not going to agree. 

You are probably right.

Not least because, in a thread about mass shooting in schools, your first reaction to being told that your kids' access to guns is (or will be) a lot less restricted than you think, your focus was on how your little darlings are at risk from other things rather than the fact that other people are at risk (albeit a small risk) from your kids because of your decisions.

2 hours ago, Arete said:

When someone manages to conduct a mass shooting with four rounds of #7 birdshot, you'll have one too. 

It seems you did

15 hours ago, Arete said:

I have more than once come home to 30+ turkeys destroying the vegetable garden, so we use the shotgun to cull.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think in many cases asking people questions they don't want to answer is an effective way to impact their behavior.

Let me rephrase. A question they are not obligated to answer because of their constitutional rights. Public schools are agents of the state, and the state is not entitled to answers to such questions.

Given our litigious society here in the US, I would not be surprised if someone sued, and won, and that would pretty quickly be the end of that.

Quote

 If a parent didn't want their child to go play at the house of a cigarette smoker I don't think many people in 2018 would find that strange of unreasonable.

A decision made by a parent based on information they obtained without intrusion by the state.

 

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, Arete said:

never operated a chainsaw with a child present, or let my three year old drive me to work. 

"Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide and nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as someone who does not have access, according to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature conducted by researchers at UC San Francisco."

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide

Everyone that is exposed to second hand smoke (all of us have been at sometime) doesn't get cancer. Not everyone who smokes gets cancers. However we all understand that smoke or being exposed to it via second hand smoke increases one chance of getting cancer. Owning a gun increase the chance someone will commit suicide or victim of a homicide. The notion that a gun can just be compared to a tool like a chainsaw is  silly. Owning a chainsaw doesn't increase the likelihood of suicide or murder. over 30,000 people a year don't die at the hands of chainsaws and over 70,000 people a year aren't injured at the hands of chainsaws.  

The notion of safe gun ownership is a fallacy. Statistically owning a gun, regardless of how safe one is with it, increases risk. Depending on ones situation perhaps it is worth the risk. Either way it is not comparable to a basic tool like a chainsaw. 

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Let me rephrase. A question they are not obligated to answer because of their constitutional rights. Public schools are agents of the state, and the state is not entitled to answers to such questions.

Given our litigious society here in the US, I would not be surprised if someone sued, and won, and that would pretty quickly be the end of that.

A decision made by a parent based on information they obtained without intrusion by the state.

 

That is a good point. You are right. The state isn't involved with asking parents about smoking and a lot of people would file law suits. While I feels those lawsuits might be useful for raising awareness and driving national discussion I have no way of proving they would be. They could just end up costing schools time and resources. 

What about something more akin to sex education. If schools had a gun violence/self harm day and sent permission slips home to parents? That would still nudge people to consider the issue and raise awareness while providing parents the opportunity to select to do it in their own manner.  

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not least because, in a thread about mass shooting in schools, your first reaction to being told that your kids' access to guns is (or will be) a lot less restricted than you think, your focus was on how your little darlings are at risk from other things rather than the fact that other people are at risk (albeit a small risk) from your kids because of your decisions.

It won't happen to me syndrome.  

[Airbrush]

The thing about guns (and bombs) is how they make killing people sanitary, compared to mass murder using knives, swords, or clubs.  It is so much easier to shoot at people from a distance than to get up close and personal with a knife or baseball bat.  Also in movies and video games the good guys usually solve problems by shooting bad guys with assault rifles, not using knives and baseball bats.

Anyone know the percentage of mass shootings that are from shot guns?  I've never heard of it, but maybe it is a thing.  It seems to me that a shot gun is best for home defense.   Home invasion is usually not many attackers.  An assault rifle is designed to kill the maximum number of humans as possible, in the shortest amount of time.  Why do you need an AR-15 for home defense, because you need to be ready to defend against a dozen or more attackers?

Edited February 27, 2018 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

It seems to me that a shot gun is best for home defense.   Home invasion is usually not many attackers. 

Statistically owning a gun increases ones odds of dying from a gun. So the idea of a gun being a useful home defense tool is a bit of a fallacy. Owning a gun does not increase ones safety. 

[Endy0816]

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Statistically owning a gun increases ones odds of dying from a gun. So the idea of a gun being a useful home defense tool is a bit of a fallacy. Owning a gun does not increase ones safety. 

Yeah, close quarters weapons would be more useful and can be prominently displayed safely.

[dimreepr]

On 25/02/2018 at 1:12 PM, Raider5678 said:

Fear not!

Very little discussion is actually taking place.

God The constitution is just an obstacle in these debates:

Anyone who believes is literally tied to the Bible constitution, because of that belief, so they ignore the contradictions and BS and consequently, the little nuggets of wisdom.

Anyone who doesn't believe feels completely vindicated in dismissing the Bible constitution, because of that belief, so they concentrate on the contradictions and BS and ignore the little nuggets of wisdom.

Religions The government aren't isn't responsible for either position, but people are.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Statistically owning a gun increases ones odds of dying from a gun

I don't want to speak for Arete, but he and I seem pretty close on this issue. We're well aware of this fact. We choose, with that awareness, to accept it and we take responsible steps to effectively mitigate it.

Repeating yourself is not necessary. It feels a bit like this:

Arete and I are both aware of this fact. We choose, in an informed way and with conscious awareness, to accept that risk given our individual circumstances.

Recommend that we move on now to a more productive point where we can again be allies in addressing the deeper issues at hand here.

[Airbrush]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Statistically owning a gun increases ones odds of dying from a gun. So the idea of a gun being a useful home defense tool is a bit of a fallacy. Owning a gun does not increase ones safety. 

That is true, but many Americans feel they need a last resort in case they know someone is trying to get into their house, and they would have at least a fighting chance to defend themselves. 

I think arming school teachers is complicated and problematic, but if a veteran or x-cop is now a teacher, and he or she is expert with a gun, and passes some tests, let them keep it in school, but it should be on their body all day.  What good will it do if it is locked up and it takes too much time to access it?  The long-term solution is improve school security (as well as malls and other crowded places), guards, cameras, and restricted access to the campus (or mall).  Raise the age for any gun ownership to 25, improve background checks, report crazies, and ban all weapons of war.

I lived in a bad neighborhood and experienced an intruder trying to enter my bedroom window at night.  Not a smart guy because he was entering my apartment just a few feet away from where I was sleeping.  He had already removed the screen and I confronted him by saying in a loud, angry voice "What do you want?!!!"  He dropped the screen and ran.  I'm glad I didn't kill him.  I called the police and an officer came over and took my report and advised me that I should have a gun.  He said I should wait until he gets inside then "blow him up".  I do have a shot gun hidden near my bed, and my wife and I don't have kids.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

don't want to speak for Arete, but he and I seem pretty close on this issue. We're well aware of this fact. We choose, with that awareness, to accept it and we take responsible steps to effectively mitigate it.

I make and drink craft beer. I know beer is unhealthy. I knowingly engaged in something that isn't good for me. We all do things that are unhealthy or increase the risk of bad things. I am not attempting to reprimand you or Arete. I am not implying either of you are  doing something unusual. Rather I just want to change the language surrounding issue. When it comes other habits people have that are statistically shown to be counter productive people tend not to be nearly as defensive. Guns occupy that unique space where statements of facts about them annoys people. Like factual statements about evolution  annoys those who believe in creation. Owning a gun does increase ones risk if being killed by a gun. That is a fact and not a personal attack on you. It doesn't criticize you personally. For example smoking is bad and I don't think people should smoke. Obama smoked for years. In my opinion Obama was an excellent President. I am not saying you or Arete are bad people or anything close to that. Just as smoking didn't make Obama bad. 

I feel the insistence on a delineations between safe gun ownership vs non safe gun ownership is one of the reasons this issues always just stales out. Everyone thinks they are the safe gun owners. The risks apply to all. 

As this applies to schools I think schools are a good place to change the language on guns. Educating people that guns increase danger rather than reduce it is a good lesson in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

That is true, but many Americans feel they need a last resort in case they know someone is trying to get into their house, and they would have at least a fighting chance to defend themselves. 

People are also bad at assessing risk. Buying a gun to protect oneself for a random home invasion is like buying scuba gear to protect yourself from a drowning accident. The scuba gear needs to be on you and ready to use to have a chance of helping. 

[Arete]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not least because, in a thread about mass shooting in schools, your first reaction to being told that your kids' access to guns is (or will be) a lot less restricted than you think, your focus was on how your little darlings are at risk from other things rather than the fact that other people are at risk (albeit a small risk) from your kids because of your decisions.

Actually, no. When I replied to you back on page #3, I first outlined the multiple gun control measures I voluntarily undertake to mitigate the risks associated with owning firearms. These closely resemble Australian regulations regarding firearm ownership. You know, that place where effective gun control measures resulted in no mass shootings since they were implemented in 1996? 

The point of other examples is that we mitigate risks in our daily lives all the time. Unsubstantiated claims about children learning to open multiple safes, defeat safety devices and any possible security mechanism leads us down a rabbit hole of absurdity to the eventual point of view which you've expressed in other threads - that the only form of acceptable gun control is a complete ban on private firearm ownership. 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It seems you did

What an asinine comment. Nowhere did I ever state I shot dozens of birds with a single magazine from a pump action shotgun. This clearly illustrates the extremity of your point of view - not every firearm can be used to commit the kind of mass shootings we see in the US. In countries with restrictive firearm legislation, like the UK and Australia, people are still able to own firearms. Even with existence of firearms, mass shootings in these places are rare or non-existent. Is the risk zero? of course not. No one is saying this. 

The risks CAN be mitigated to acceptable levels through effective gun control measures, and are in places that aren't the US. We aren't going to agree on this.