Arming Teachers

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

For anyone who thinks/thought the suggestion of Armed Teachers wasn't serious or that this thread was designed to be satirical. It is a real thing.

 

How can one make satirical that which is already satiric? Catch 22 springs to mind...

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your first proposal (i.e. what I responded to) did not include other risk factors.

I thought risk factor would be understood as one of something plural. I should have been more clear.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you do this without violating medical confidentiality and free speech? How do you track tactical accessories, or "feelings of disenfranchisement"?

Do you cross a kid off the list because he doesn't have known access to guns? Despite the fact that he could get them later?

My high school had about 1600 kids when I was of that age.  So you might have had 500 or more who had some kind of access to guns (including me). In a group of 500 teenagers, how many are going to have these feeling and/or leanings? It's certainly not going to be just one or two. Now you have this burden of checking these students out, possibly stigmatizing them (and many will already have a dislike of authority; will this help?) . This sounds like a page out of the "the beatings will continue until morale improves" manual.

A system that generates too many false positives will eventually be ignored, and a system geared specifically for schools addresses a narrow slice of gun-related issues. 

 One example I used was kids coming to school with bruises. Most teachers and administrators know to sit the kid down and ask about them. Likewise assuming you have ever taken any suicide training one thing recommended is to just ask people if they plan to kill themselves. It is not 100% effective (nearly nothing is) but often those considering suicide will provide useful feedback if just asked. What I am proposing is something akin to that. People (student administrators, teachers, coaches, etc) internalize various things as risk factors and be mindful to ask the questions and probe the warning signs without fear of being politically polarizing. Ask a student if there is a gun in the home, ask the parents if there is a gun home,  ask about medication, and etc. Tiptoeing around guns for fear of offending people is making the type of dialog normally used to identify hazards in society impossible. 

Could a student lie, of course. When my doctor asks about my diet or how much booze I drink nothing stops me from lying. It isn't an absolute thing; risk factors. I am not saying school should ban kids who live in a home with a gun. Likewise my Doctor would not put me on high blood pressure medication just because I tell them I have a family history of blood pressure. What I am suggesting is more passive than that.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ten oz
Changed would to would not

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

It doesn't accomplish anything. That's all I'm saying. It just reinforces peoples opinion that they're right without a shadow of a doubt. The right does this same thing as well, why do you think they're so convinced they're always correct? They start complaining about someone, then other people join in, and then it might as well be a contest to see who can complain about the person the most.

I'm not interested in being right. I think arms manufacturers actually do things that create violence to promote higher sales, and I think they get folks like you, who just want a gun because you believe it's your right, to back their moves unequivocally. Notice how the NRA president is accusing the other side of exploiting mass shootings? "Always accuse the other guy of the bad thing you're doing" is a favorite tactic in politics. Gun sales soar every time the NRA responds this way to mass shootings.

Arming the teachers is just another way to increase gun sales. It's been shown why it's irrational, and would only make a bad situation worse. Republicans keep voting not to regulate guns so they can have their rightful firearms, but they're letting their representatives relax regulations past the point of sanity. I'm asking you this: why do you let your vote be manipulated this way? Isn't it obvious that the arms manufacturers WANT there to be extremists (they call them VIP Customers, and their #1 Marketers)? Why is it so impossible for you to imagine regulations that let you keep a reasonable amount of firepower but restricts access to extremists? I really would like an answer, because what you're doing doesn't look like standing up for your rights, it looks like you're defending the right to sell arms to the killers of American school children. 

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm assuming that's sarcasm because we're usually cursed at, called bigots, called sexist racists, etc, when we say we're pro-life at a public protest/gathering.

It's not sarcasm. Virtually every Republican I know believes in the right to life for unborn children, to the point where they can't understand the absolute need for abortion as an option. Religion is often at the center of this, and Christianity has many scriptures that refer to protecting little children, so it's understandable they would apply this to the unborn. This is where I think they err, of course. The unborn aren't really "little children".

Unfortunately, they apply the same unswerving mentality to second amendment rights as well. These folks who are normally very nice, concerned about the government staying out of our business, and patriotic about defending the country, get talked into voting to keep as many guns being sold as possible. They only want the good things that gun ownership brings, but they want it so badly that they're willing to keep electing politicians who keep the arms industry making more and more profit and putting more and more guns on the street, increasing the chances an extremist will emerge, armed to the teeth, already well within our defenses.

[interested]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

There are a number of elected government officials who have received substantial contributions from the NRA, of whom Trump is one. (Being shocked was sarcasm. See Casablanca for the reference)

Are you stating the NRA and other government lobby groups buy votes. Does the US have no laws preventing bribery of officials, and elected representaves.

The only reference I can find to do with casablanca and shocked is to do with gambling.

1. “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!” (The croupier hands him his money.) “…Your winnings, sir.” “Oh, thank you very much!”
2. “Here’s looking at you, kid.”

[Raider5678]

43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm asking you this: why do you let your vote be manipulated this way?

I don't.

43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Isn't it obvious that the arms manufacturers WANT there to be extremists (they call them VIP Customers, and their #1 Marketers)?

No. That sounds like speculation, something that we can't ever prove.

43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why is it so impossible for you to imagine regulations that let you keep a reasonable amount of firepower but restricts access to extremists?

It's not. And, as far as I know, I haven't argued against gun control measures in this thread. Nor had I said teachers should be armed.

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I really would like an answer, because what you're doing doesn't look like standing up for your rights, it looks like you're defending the right to sell arms to the killers of American school children. 

Again, I didn't try to defend the rights of anyone as far as I know.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, interested said:

Are you stating the NRA and other government lobby groups buy votes. Does the US have no laws preventing bribery of officials, and elected representaves.

It's not bribery, it's "funding".

https://everytown.org/documents/2018/02/throw-them-out-nyt.pdf

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, interested said:

Are you stating the NRA and other government lobby groups buy votes. Does the US have no laws preventing bribery of officials, and elected representaves.

Yes we have bribery laws. Donating money to campaigns does not violate those laws. There has to be a clear quid pro quo to be bribery.

12 minutes ago, interested said:

The only reference I can find to do with casablanca and shocked is to do with gambling.

1. “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!” (The croupier hands him his money.) “…Your winnings, sir.” “Oh, thank you very much!”

Can you discern the irony there, of being shocked that gambling is going on, while being handed gambling winnings?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

  One example I used was kids coming to school with bruises. Most teachers and administrators know to sit the kid down and ask about them.

My understanding is that there are patterns to be recognized within this. It's not just having bruises, it's particular bruises, and happening repeatedly.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Likewise assuming you have ever taken any suicide training one thing recommended is to just ask people if they plan to kill themselves. It is not 100% effective (nearly nothing is) but often those considering suicide will provide useful feedback if just asked. What I am proposing is something akin to that. People (student administrators, teachers, coaches, etc) internalize various things as risk factors and be mindful to ask the questions and probe the warning signs without fear of being politically polarizing. Ask a student if there is a gun in the home, ask the parents if there is a gun home,  ask about medication, and etc. Tiptoeing around guns for fear of offending people is making the type of dialog normally used to identify hazards in society impossible. 

Could a student lie, of course. When my doctor asks about my diet or how much booze I drink nothing stops me from lying. It isn't an absolute thing; risk factors. I am not saying school should ban kids who live in a home with a gun. Likewise my Doctor would not put me on high blood pressure medication just because I tell them I have a family history of blood pressure. What I am suggesting is more passive than that.

Which still leaves the false positives question wide open. If you identify 10,000 at-risk students and one of them end up an actual shooter, how effective will the program be?

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't.

No. That sounds like speculation, something that we can't ever prove.

It's not. And, as far as I know, I haven't argued against gun control measures in this thread. Nor had I said teachers should be armed.

Again, I didn't try to defend the rights of anyone as far as I know.

It was your original contention that the attack of the Republican position on guns was "mocking", and "definitely not getting shit done". I was asking why you seem to defend that position by arguing that attacking it was pointless. Are you now saying you don't defend the current GOP stance on gun control (without the idiotic Trump brain farts)? If you do, my questions all still stand. If you don't, I would ask if you would continue to support candidates who pretend to represent your reasonable stance by never passing gun control legislation, especially when you find they took a generous donation from the NRA/Arms Industry? 

Again, I'm not trying to demonize Republicans. I just think your stance is being exploited, election after election, by extremist capitalism, which has no moral problems expanding into the lucrative "armed education" market - Hey! let's talk ammo vouchers!

[Ten oz]

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which still leaves the false positives question wide open. If you identify 10,000 at-risk students and one of them end up an actual shooter, how effective will the program be?

I don't understand what down side of a "false positive" would be? I have not recommended that based on risk factors administrators call the FBI, suspend a student, alert campus security, or etc. I am describing a process where teachers and administrators use the information to speak to the student and parents. If there is a false positive I don't see any harm.

I apologize in advance for story time. I lived in Boise ID a while back (over a decade ago). I work at a financial office building owned by a bank. I was responsible for preparing background checks and providing the safety briefs to new hires. Part of the building contained a call center and turn over was high. We were always hiring to stay staffed. The whole building and parking lot was owned by the Bank. It was private property. One of the rules I had to brief was that guns were not allowed on property and that included the parking lot. It was one of numerous rules but the most difficult one to brief. I'd estimate that a third of the men (never had a women do it) would challenge the rule claiming it violated their rights. A few people even turned the job down and just walk away. I had numerous meetings with HR and HQ's Safety and Security Director about how combative the briefs would become. I tried using didn't language it didn't help. We tired having other people give the briefs it didn't helped. At one point we tired just not briefing it at all. Someone floated the idea that long as we people signed it in writing that from a liability stand point we were good. So I would just present them a folder full of stuff to sign and the gun policy would be mixed in. That actually work in terms of eliminating arguments. People would just fly through the paperwork without really reading it and sign everything. Eventually an employ was caught with a loaded firearm on their person in the building. When reprimanded they claimed they were never told they couldn't have a gun. Then we went back to the verbal briefs and combative exchanges. 

My take away from that experience was the pro gun advocates control to nature of the discussion. Despite the fact that no guns on property was policy and one of the conditions of employment for those being hired I was the one afraid of doing offending. I was the one having meetings, adjusting my language, and doing everything I could think of to appease those who were offended by the policy. It was a policy put in place for safety reasons be rendered minimally enforceable by the combative nature of a small minority. We could barely brief no guns were allowed on property never mind attempting regular training; that was off the table. I learned that we cannot simultaneously both avoid offending pro gun advocates and find solutions to gun violence. It simply cannot be done at this time. Pro gun advocates are offend by all gun control and limiting gun violence suggestions. It gives them power over the issue. Just as religion and politics aren't good to talk about at work neither are guns. Not talking about it leads to doing nothing about it. Guns kill as many people per year as cars yet we simply don't talk gun safety openly as we can car safety because passions run too hot. When I was in school before a long weekend it was normal for a teacher or coach to give a quick speech about driving safe. not drink, using condoms, saying no to drugs and etc. Never a word about guns though because the issues to sensitive. 

We need to get to a point where guns can be discussed openly. Wear a teach can include the work gun along side condom, car, seatbelt, drugs, etc when telling kids to be safe. At a parent conference meeting if a teacher told my parents that I had been behaving recklessly at school and that they knew I recently started driving and hoped I wasn't driving recklessly too my parents wouldn't have been offended. We need to get to a point with guns. If a teacher false positively assumes a student is sexually active and spends a couple minutes one day telling them the safety value of condoms, so what, there is no downside.

***where I grew up in California condoms were available to students by request and recommended to be used. I understand not all schools allow staff to discuss such matters. 

 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Again, I'm not trying to demonize Republicans. I just think your stance is being exploited, election after election, by extremist capitalism (which has no moral problems expanding into the lucrative "armed education" market - Hey! let's talk ammo vouchers!).

I think his stance is off topic. The OP neither demonizes Republicans or mocks the suggestion of the President. 

[John Cuthber]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Like I said, technically true, but functionally useless. Such an approach makes my 4 year old a likely shooter merely because she lives in a house with me and I happen to own guns. 

Which makes her much more likely to be a shooter than if she lived in my, gun-free, house.

Since there are deaths caused by 4 year olds with guns, the observation is not functionally useless- you can act on it by removing the guns from the house.

Will you?

Also, it's important to recognise that a "good man with a gun" might be even less use than shouting at Republicans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634

Edited February 23, 2018 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

if she

Being a male is another risk factor with regards to school shootings. I am not of aware of any carried out by females. 

[John Cuthber]

19 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

...not functionally useless- you can act on it...

 

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Which makes her much more likely to be a shooter than if she lived in my, gun-free, house.

Since there are deaths caused by 4 year olds with guns, the observation is not functionally useless- you can act on it by removing the guns from the house.

Will you?

No. They're already in a safe to which she does not have access.

[Airbrush]

Anyone know easy it is for a non-student to get onto a school campus, such as the Parkland FL school?  Why don't outsiders need to pass through a gate where an armed guard asks them what are they doing there if they are not a student?  Also, any "soft" target, such as a school, or a large shopping mall, or any large group of people, there should be limited access and exits so that anyone suspicious can be stopped for questioning.  There could be video cameras watching and recording the perimeter.  One guard watches the monitors while an armed guard patrols the perimeter.  Then after a few hours they trade places.

I am in favor of banning all assault rifles, or any gun that fires too rapidly.   For home defense or hunting you don't need an assault rifle.

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

No. They're already in a safe to which she does not have access.

I think the issue here is that it is increasingly unspecific what is defined here as functionally relevant. As already said, presence of guns is associated with increased gun-related morbidity. Mitigating factors include access, storage (e.g. having ammo and gun store separately and not easily accessible), training, etc.. But rather obviously having dangerous items anywhere increases risk relative to not having them. That much is trivial and that is what typically is described as risk factor (such as smoking increasing risk of cancer). Essentially a risk factor is something that is associated with a given outcome.

Quote

Considering school shooters nearly always use a weapon that was in their home it might be a good idea for school administrators to start keeping track of which students are in homes with firearms. Having firearms in a home does seem to a an identifiable risk factor. 

The issue with this proposal is that it conflates the term risk factor with a predictor. Because here, we do not look at what is associated with gun death but actually predictive of a shooter. Later on it is clarified that it is used as one of the factors, but considering the prevalence of guns in the US it will have little impact. Even if we put characteristics together such as gender and gun ownership, the predictive power is incredibly low as many men own guns and very few go on a rampage. It is unlikely that one can piece together a decent model that actually is predictive to a useful degree. 

Essentially just tracking all boys is probably as useful as tracking firearms in the home. What I would agree though is to have stronger regulation for gun safety when kids are in the house. That is a different proposal, though.

[Arete]

Since moving to the US in 2012, I have been physically on campus during two active assailant lock down events. One resolved peacefully, one resulted in four people being stabbed non-fatally by an assailant who was ultimately shot and killed by campus police. The assailant in this instance had a written manifesto in which he planned to steal a gun from a campus police officer in order to kill more people. 

I'm also a gun owner. I live on a 12 acre, woodland property in the Sierras, and own 3 long guns. I store these unloaded in a locked safe, bolted to the floor. Ammunition is stored in another building, also in a locked safe. This is what safe gun ownership looks like to me, because a) The guns we own are far more likely to hurt us in an accident than be used in self defense, b) are attractants to thieves, and have the potential to be stolen, sold illegally and used in a crime, and I wish to prevent that, and c)  so they cannot be used against us in the extremely unlikely event we disturb a burglar or someone invades our home. 

I would beg any policy maker to not force me to carry a gun in my classroom. Already cited statistics in this thread empirically demonstrate that my chances of stopping a shooter are minimal. I'm not a trained counter-terrorist operative and never will be. Studies also show that any such gun is orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in an accident or suicide than self defense. I don't want that burden placed on me or my campus. 

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

prevalence of guns in the US it will have little impact. Even if we put characteristics together such as gender and gun ownership, the predictive power is incredibly low

Other risk factors would take out large portions of the 20-40% of households with guns. For starters we are talking specifically about school shootings. All  the school shootings I am aware of the shooter was recently associated with the school. So households with guns but without children in school or recently in school won't factor in. All school shooters are male. That cuts another big slice out of the number. I will have to research the numbers when I have time but the number of households with a gun and a male school age person in the home is possibly or perhaps uneven likely less than 10% of the population. So the prevalence of guns is being over stated a bit. Other factors like mental health and access to the gun would shrink the percentage even lower. 

Again, I will need to research the numbers. I probably won't have time to do that till Sunday. 

34 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is a different proposal, though.

In the OP I asked for ideas. I provided one of my own elsewhere in the thread but what I proposed is not the thread's topic. It wasn't a proposal much as it was a thought I posted. I would like others to address the OP's second question which asks what Schools can do. What I suggested is but 1 of many possible suggestions. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

presence of guns is associated with increased gun-related morbidity. Mitigating factors include access, storage (e.g. having ammo and gun store separately and not easily accessible), training, etc.. But rather obviously having dangerous items anywhere increases risk relative to not having them

Of course, and I'm not challenging that. I just find the risk highlighted by John to be (in my case) minuscule and choose to accept it due to the safety precautions I've taken. Not 100% safe, but let's 98%. I'm good with that. He asked me if I'd give up my 2 guns, and I said no.

[John Cuthber]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

No. They're already in a safe to which she does not have access.

That's what the last guy said- right up until he found out that she had watched him put the keys away.

 

OK it's a hypothetical "last guy", but let's see how you rule it out...

 

[Arete]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's what the last guy said- right up until he found out that she had watched him put the keys away.

 In order for this to happen - the 4 year old needs to find the keys to my shop, unlock the door and let themselves in. They need to know the 6 digit safe combination, open the safe and take out the 12ga pump with a 28 inch barrel (either of the rifles would be more difficult as I store them with their bolts out). They now need to carry the 1.2m long gun back down to the house and get to the top shelf of the master bedroom closet. They need to know the 4 digit combination to that safe too. They need to take out a box of shells and successfully load one or more shells past the loading flap into the magazine, remove the safety, rack the shotgun...and now tragedy is imminent... 

Personally I'm more concerned about the hot water taps, getting the keys to a car and getting it out of park, forks in electrical outlets, boiling water on the stove, the head height bench corners, riding bikes down the stairs, rattlesnakes, etc etc etc. 

[iNow]

With only one exception, exactly as Arete said.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, Arete said:

  ....riding bikes down the stairs, rattlesnakes, etc etc etc. 

Aww c'mon, a kid's gotta have some fun.

[Strange]

What could possibly go wrong...

Quote

Nobody was injured Monday afternoon when a student at the Harmony Learning Center fired a school liaison officer’s gun, Maplewood police say.

https://www.twincities.com/2018/02/05/maplewood-police-officers-gun-fires-at-school-no-injuries-reported/

[nec209]

On February 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? 

And the U.S. The only country in world with teachers armed.

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, Arete said:

 In order for this to happen - the 4 year old needs to find the keys to my shop, unlock the door and let themselves in. They need to know the 6 digit safe combination, open the safe and take out the 12ga pump with a 28 inch barrel (either of the rifles would be more difficult as I store them with their bolts out). They now need to carry the 1.2m long gun back down to the house and get to the top shelf of the master bedroom closet. They need to know the 4 digit combination to that safe too. They need to take out a box of shells and successfully load one or more shells past the loading flap into the magazine, remove the safety, rack the shotgun...and now tragedy is imminent... 

Personally I'm more concerned about the hot water taps, getting the keys to a car and getting it out of park, forks in electrical outlets, boiling water on the stove, the head height bench corners, riding bikes down the stairs, rattlesnakes, etc etc etc. 

A 4 year old child is already learning a new word every 40 minutes or so, how to ride a scooter, how to tell the difference between a postman and a policeman, that there are many languages in the world, and, in some cases they are learning a second language.
Anyone who  underestimates the ability of a child to learn unexpected  things just isn't paying attention.
However, I take our point.

It's unlikely that a 4 year old would manage what you described

Butone thing's for sure.
She will acquire the ability to get the gun before she has the full understanding of the consequences of what it does.

So, do you plan to get rid of the guns by the time she's 5, or 8, or 10 or when?