Arming Teachers

[swansont]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

It would be more akin to regular policing of a village rather than a building. But realistically, I wonder if it makes sense to look at school shootings in isolation. While they are the one of the most emotionally devastating shootings one could think of, they are still a relatively rare event (I wonder whether there are historic data on school shootings in the US). The issue is that the rarity of those events may make measures specifically for schools either useless or at least provide low impact. On the other hand, overall measures that tackle gun violence as a whole may have a better success rate in eventually pulling those numbers down.

I agree; I've said something similar. Wikipedia has a list of school shootings (they include colleges and universities)

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

It would be more akin to regular policing of a village rather than a building. But realistically, I wonder if it makes sense to look at school shootings in isolation. While they are the one of the most emotionally devastating shootings one could think of, they are still a relatively rare event (I wonder whether there are historic data on school shootings in the US). The issue is that the rarity of those events may make measures specifically for schools either useless or at least provide low impact. On the other hand, overall measures that tackle gun violence as a whole may have a better success rate in eventually pulling those numbers down.

There obviously needs to be a national approach. Congress clearly needs to act. However states, cities, schools, and etc still all have their individual polices that need review. Nationally we have drug laws, each state has their own drug laws, individual cities have their own enforcement standards, and etc. Campus security is a real thing that exists. Those in charge of campus security do need to have a strategy in place for how they can prevent and respond to threats whether that threat is bullying, drugs, or guns. When it comes to underage drinking, unprotected sex, drug use, school bullying, and etc parents and administrators don't throw their hands up in the air and declare those problems can only be solved at the national level. So why take that approach with guns? Kids are raised to be aware of drugs in their community, to be aware of the dangers of drinking and driving, aware of the dangers of unprotected sex, and a so on. We have trained (often armed) police officers at schools all over the country everyday. Their job is more or less in isolation in that they are there to specifically secure the individual campus they are on. So while I 100% agree Congress and the President need to act I also think it is worth considering all levels from the top down. 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

College campus with many buildings, as apposed to a high school campus with one. Whatever measures are proposed for high schools, college campuses are going to be at least an order of magnitude harder to protect if one goes down the path of playing defense via fortification (i.e. the Maginot maneuver).

 

Many colleges have their own campus police forces. A college campus be large and populated as a city. The challenges are abundant. That said Campus police are there to keep the peace. Considering new policies and strategies isn't a total waste of time. It doesn't cost anything to ponder how schools could shore of campus safety with respect to guns.

If we accept that Congress must act or nothing can change what are we left with after Congress doesn't act? 

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 Many colleges have their own campus police forces. A college campus be large and populated as a city. The challenges are abundant. That said Campus police are there to keep the peace. Considering new policies and strategies isn't a total waste of time. It doesn't cost anything to ponder how schools could shore of campus safety with respect to guns. 

My point was that the choke point/metal detector approach doesn't scale very well.

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

My point was that the choke point/metal detector approach doesn't scale very well.

I agree. What do you think would work? 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I agree. What do you think would work? 

Better gun laws.

It's similar to shielding. You can shield close to the target or the source. Shielding the source means reducing the availability of guns, especially the ones that do the most damage.

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Better gun laws.

It's similar to shielding. You can shield close to the target or the source. Shielding the source means reducing the availability of guns, especially the ones that do the most damage.

A change to gun laws takes action from Congress and they have repeatedly refused to act. Surely there must be some small measures schools can take at the local level that would be useful? 

I don't mean that argumentatively. It just feels to me that waiting and hoping for Congress to do something is an all or nothing at all approach. There must be ways to improve safety while we wait on Congress. 

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

A change to gun laws takes action from Congress and they have repeatedly refused to act. Surely there must be some small measures schools can take at the local level that would be useful? 

I don't mean that argumentatively. It just feels to me that waiting and hoping for Congress to do something is an all or nothing at all approach. There must be ways to improve safety while we wait on Congress. 

With what money?

 

[Ten oz]

Depends on what's proposed. The cost of building 30ft walls and drawbridges around schools would be very different than including a paragraph about guns in an email sent out to students. I am not sure how we can discuss paying for anything in advance of suggestions. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It just feels to me that waiting and hoping for Congress to do something is an all or nothing at all approach. 

 

The powerful want you to think that way; all or nothing, favours those with all, because nothing seems weak.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Surely there must be some small measures schools can take at the local level that would be useful? 

Of course, Gandhi laid down in front of a horse.

Edited March 5, 2018 by dimreepr

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

I agree; I've said something similar. Wikipedia has a list of school shootings (they include colleges and universities)

I found a report, but have not read the full reference to it. However Fox and Fridel seem to conclude that shooting incidences involving students have declined since the 90s. Of course, due to the rarity, any even such as Parkland will spike those numbers. 

Quote

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

Quote

Other safety precautions, such as installing metal detectors and requiring ID cards for entry, have also proven ineffective in past school shootings. [...]

In addition to being ineffective, Fox said increased security measures of these kinds can do more harm than good. He called the suggestion to arm teachers “absurd” and “over the top.”“I’m not a big fan of making schools look like fortresses, because they send a message to kids that the bad guy is coming for you—if we’re surrounding you with security, you must have a bull’s-eye on your back,” Fox said. “That can actually instill fear, not relieve it.”

 

 

[Arete]

On 2/27/2018 at 11:22 AM, John Cuthber said:

Nice attempt at a strawman. Now show everyone where you think I claimed that  you did say that.

(Spoiler alert- I didn't).

Ok. so could you clarify what you did mean? because in the quoted post, at least to me, you appear to be insinuating that. If I'm incorrect I apologise, but I'm not really seeing any other possible implied meaning. 

 

On 2/27/2018 at 11:22 AM, John Cuthber said:

No.

It clearly shows that you are prepared to make stuff up in order top undermine my perspective. If you have to do that, what does it say for your viewpoint?

The point remains If you have often shot many birds then there's nothing to stop you shooting many people.

 

You appear to be extremely poorly versed in firearms, which may be leading to many of your poorly formed assumptions. Light birdshot is designed to take birds on the wing, not large mammals. Unless fired at extreme close range, it is unlikely to result in serious injury to a person. A sword is vastly more effective at killing people. 

Not every gun is an AR15. 

[Alex_Krycek]

We'll have to to leave it up to the states and local communities.  A one size fits all solution might not be appropriate.  Some rural areas trust their teachers with guns more than the police, who take a long time to arrive.  Other areas might have a more robust police force that can respond quicker. 

But most school shooters are armed to the teeth, packing explosives, assault rifles, body armor, etc.  You would need a teacher trained Counter Assault Team to effectively deal with most school shooters.  (Which is why the resource officer at Parkland probably stayed outside) 

One pitfall I can see is that teachers might begin to fear their students as police fear civilians, and escalate situations where they feel compelled to use a firearm.  This is what police generally do in the US.  A conflict occurs, and rather than de-escalate the situation, the police escalate it until deadly force becomes the only logical option in their mind.  If teacher's enter this same fight or flight mindset and they're armed, then schools will more unsafe.

[John Cuthber]

On 2/27/2018 at 6:36 PM, Arete said:

Nowhere did I ever state I shot dozens of birds with a single magazine from a pump action shotgun.

I never mentioned  the word "dozen".

I never mentioned the phrase "pump action"

I never specified a number of magazines.

Yet you implied that I did- which is what makes it a strawman

 

All I did was point out that  whatever you used to shoot a lot of birds could, in principle,  have been used to shoot a lot of people.

Cut to the chase, if you took the same guns + ammunition that you used to cull 30+ turkeys into a school room and started shooting at the kids, would it be counted as a mass shooting?

[Ten oz]

"SEASIDE, Calif. -- A teacher accidentally fired a gun inside a classroom here on Tuesday afternoon and a student was slightly hurt, authorities said. Dennis Alexander was teaching public safety for his Administration of Justice class in Seaside High School when a shot went off around 1:20 p.m., "

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/teacher-reserve-cop-accidentally-fires-gun-in-calif-high-school-police-say/#ampshare=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teacher-reserve-cop-accidentally-fires-gun-in-calif-high-school-police-say/

[Strange]

On 11/03/2018 at 6:21 AM, Alex_Krycek said:

We'll have to to leave it up to the states and local communities. 

Although we have already seen the NRA sue Florida after the made some half-hearted improvements. So they clearly don't approve of democracy when it goes against them (or the 1st amendment when it lets people speak out against the dangers of guns).

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Although we have already seen the NRA sue Florida after the made some half-hearted improvements. So they clearly don't approve of democracy when it goes against them (or the 1st amendment when it lets people speak out against the dangers of guns).

i've come to realise  that the NRA are the doormen of the gun industry. The gun industry pay the NRA to keep people off their backs. Notice how the arms manufacturers never speaks? Protesters need to get them out in the open and start making them speak. Interestingly, .pre-1960, the NRA  supported gun safety and control. The fact is, whatever gun control laws are enacted will hurt gun sales.

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The gun industry pay the NRA to keep people off their backs.

And apparently this is where nearly all of their money comes from. So people boycotting them will have a very limited effect (apart from the publicity).

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The fact is, whatever gun control laws are enacted will hurt gun sales.

Maybe they should agree to limit the types of weapons that can be owned but say that they can only be kept for a year and then you have to buy a new one.

[Ten oz]

On 2/22/2018 at 3:37 PM, Ten oz said:

The President has suggested arming Teachers as a way to prevent future mass shootings. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-floats-bonuses-teachers-willing-carry-guns-class-n850281

Is this something that would work to prevent school shootings?  What are the things schools can do to reduce the likelihood of on campus shootings? 

"Thousands of students, emboldened by a growing protest movement over gun violence, stood up in their classrooms on Wednesday and walked out of their schools in a nationwide demonstration, one month after a gunman killed 17 people at a high school in Florida.

The 17-minute protests unfolding at hundreds of schools are intended to pressure Congress to approve gun control legislation after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., and come 10 days before major protests in Washington and elsewhere."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/us/school-walkout.html

 

Student protesting their representatives to pass new gun control measures seems to be a useful things. It remains to be seen if it will successfully result in significant change or reduce on campus shootings. 

[zapatos]

Quote

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by zapatos

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Student protesting their representatives to pass new gun control measures seems to be a useful things. It remains to be seen if it will successfully result in significant change or reduce on campus shootings. 

It sure makes for powerful photos, though:

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/14/17114430/school-walkout-gun-control-photos

[StringJunky]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

It sure makes for powerful photos, though:

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/14/17114430/school-walkout-gun-control-photos

i hope the momentum can be sustained long enough in the the younger US population, so it impresses them for long enough, that in a couple of decades they will be the lawmakers to make that change.

[iNow]

Today's children are tomorrow's voters. 

[Arete]

On 3/11/2018 at 3:16 AM, John Cuthber said:

Cut to the chase, if you took the same guns + ammunition that you used to cull 30+ turkeys into a school room and started shooting at the kids, would it be counted as a mass shooting?

A) I SAW 30+ birds. I did not shoot 30+ birds. Fire one shot at a group of turkeys, you kill one, maybe two birds and the rest scatter. Then you have to pack up and walk after them to take a second shot. 

B) No, it's extremely unlikely anyone would die, or even have serious injuries - that's not how light birdshot works. I would be like peppering the classroom in hundreds of bb gun pellets .

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

"A" seems to be the instructions for shooting kids in a classroom except that, in order to deal with "B" you need to make sure you get close.
I doubt an mass shooter would not recognise that.

I also doubt that people reading this will fail to spot that you have gone from "guns don't't kill: people do" to simply "my guns don't kill people".

 

That's the problem; they can and (more generally) they do.

[Arete]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I also doubt that people reading this will fail to spot that you have gone from "guns don't't kill: people do" to simply "my guns don't kill people".

I doubt anyone will miss the fact that your position is that "every gun is an assault weapon capable of killing an entire classroom of children". If you can't recognize the difference between a field shotgun and a bump stock equipped AR15, there's no sensible discussion to be had. 

Just to confirm - your position is that the only effective form of gun control is a 100% ban on all firearms? You do know that the only country in the world with zero private gun ownership is North Korea, right?  Everywhere else effective gun control includes civilians owning guns for recreational activities.