Gun Laws

[AustinHoya03]

"We don't have money for a security guard, but this is a better solution."

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=167679866

This sounds like a policy created in Washington without consulting with any rural school district in America. It also ignores the simple idea that we need fewer "good guys with guns" if we can effectively reduce the number of "bad guys with guns." The experiences of many other countries suggest that is possible by enacting regulations that the N.R.A. opposes.

Leaving that aside, I think every school district with the resources to do so should have an armed police officer or security guard at the school. Having a "good guy with a gun" as the last line of defense is a good idea. For schools at which that is not an option, I am okay with a policy like the one described in the link above, as long as teachers/administrators with access to firearms go through appropriate background checks and firearms are properly secured.

[TC]

Dec 21, 2012 14:53:27 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

This sounds like a policy created in Washington without consulting with any rural school district in America.

Forget rural school districts - do you think that Newtown, which basically routinely votes down its budget - has the money for 7 armed guards?

[badgerhoya]

Dec 21, 2012 15:19:41 GMT -5 TC said:

Dec 21, 2012 14:53:27 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

This sounds like a policy created in Washington without consulting with any rural school district in America.

Forget rural school districts - do you think that Newtown, which basically routinely votes down its budget - has the money for 7 armed guards?

Or any school district in the State of California with all of the pension issues that they're dealing with? Please.

[AustinHoya03]

Dec 21, 2012 15:19:41 GMT -5 TC said:

Dec 21, 2012 14:53:27 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

This sounds like a policy created in Washington without consulting with any rural school district in America.

Forget rural school districts - do you think that Newtown, which basically routinely votes down its budget - has the money for 7 armed guards?

Fair point. I just saw a tweet from a city councilman from a Dallas-Fort Worth suburb who said armed security guards would cost his local school district around $1M per year.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

The NRA suggestion is asinine. There's no way schools could afford that. And even if they could I wouldn't want them to. I feel like going to school with armed guards would be traumatic for little kids. Heck I would find it very uncomfortable to go to college with armed guards around. Sure eventually it would probably become normal. But it would still be messed up. Also is that the solution for everything? Shouldn't logically we have to have armed guards at any place where large groups of people congregate? I feel like this would lead to people living in fear. Having armed guards may make a building safer, but I feel like it would actually make people feel less safe because they would feel like they were constantly under threat hence the need for security every day and would have a constant reminder of those events. I also don't believe on their own it would deter a deranged person from attempting such an act but rather they would just be better armed and more prepared. It could also encourage some one who might see it as a challenge and therefore might make them more newsworthy.

[HoyaNyr320]

Dec 21, 2012 14:20:02 GMT -5 Boz said:

But I think it would be a lot more effective than an assault weapons ban, which almost certainly wouldn't prevent anyone who wanted an assault weapon for nefarious purposes to be able to get their hands on one.

But the Newtown tragedy likely refutes this argument. For Adam Lanza, this was a crime of opportunity. I know you'll say "we'll never know for sure", but the fact is that if he didn't have access to an assault weapon within his own home or in a store, I don't see a 24-year old low self-esteem kid going through an arms dealer underworld to get such a weapon.

[Problem of Dog]

www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

[sleepy]

Dec 21, 2012 13:52:59 GMT -5 TC said:

Except there's nothing - not even anecdotal evidence - that supports the idea that it's a deterrent whatsoever (see: Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, etc).

I don't know what the answer is - but the idea that Wayne LaPierre has anything to contribute to the conversation was shot down today, everything out of his mouth is completely self-serving. He and his organization have no interest in solving this problem.

Well Columbine is a horrible horrible example of armed guards being ineffective. First of all, it was never supposed to be a school shooting, it was a failed bombing attempt that was a shooting/bombing as a last resort. Obviously armed guards weren't going to deter them from blowing up the school. In addition the "armed guards" at Columbine were local police that would basically drive around the school and sometimes walk through the hallways to break up fights. Not exactly the same type of security that is being discussed today. Also the "armed guards" were on their lunch break during the shooting and weren't even notified about it until 3 kids were dead. The police and security regulations at that time were to not go into the building shooting with a gun. So for over and hour the "armed guards" and police secured the perimeter and shot from the outside while the killers were safely inside massacring their school. They waited a half hour after the shooters killed themselves to even enter the building. Had the police and armed security had the same procedures today as they do today, the death and injury toll would have been much smaller.

[TC]

Dec 21, 2012 18:53:57 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Also the "armed guards" were on their lunch break during the shooting and weren't even notified about it until 3 kids were dead.

Columbine showed how ineffective armed guards are at responding to an unknown threat - and the same will be the case in any school shooting scenario. We think school shooters today are going to wait till after the lunch break finishes? What about the numerous other examples (Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, etc) where armed guards failed to prevent or deter?

Even if we could afford it - and we can't - this is school security theater, not a measure designed to actually counteract any type of threat. It's typical conservative "throw money at a problem" thinking rather than reexamining an issue that challenges the tenets of their intractable ideology.

[sleepy]

Dec 21, 2012 19:22:02 GMT -5 TC said:

Dec 21, 2012 18:53:57 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Also the "armed guards" were on their lunch break during the shooting and weren't even notified about it until 3 kids were dead.

Columbine showed how ineffective armed guards are at responding to an unknown threat - and the same will be the case in any school shooting scenario. We think school shooters today are going to wait till after the lunch break finishes? What about the numerous other examples (Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, etc) where armed guards failed to prevent or deter?

Even if we could afford it - and we can't - this is school security theater, not a measure designed to actually counteract any type of threat. It's typical conservative "throw money at a problem" thinking rather than reexamining an issue that prevents challenges for their ideology.

Except school shootings aren't unknown threats anymore and the procedures for dealing with them are completely different than in 1999. Police were completely ineffective in dealing with it too, and had procedure not changed then all of Sandy Hook elementary school would have been killed. And like I said they were nothing like what security guards in schools are like today. For one they wouldn't be taking their lunch breaks at the same time leaving the school vulnerable to attack. The security guard that would have been over by the entrance where the shooting started happened to call in that day. Basically if people knew then what they know today no more than 5 kids would have had to die.

And I'm not advocating for armed guards, I'm jus saying Columbine is a horrible example because it wasn't a "normal" school shooting. I don't think having police in every school is affordable.

[TC]

Dec 21, 2012 19:39:14 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Except school shootings aren't unknown threats anymore and the procedures for dealing with them are completely different than in 1999.

This I agree with and a lot of lives were spared in Newtown because every one of the Newtown teachers knew what to do because of procedures that were put into place post-Columbine at every school in Newtown (move kids away from windows, try to hide them, turn off the lights, lock the doors, codewords for lockdown that can be given under duress, etc). I'm sure police procedures have changed as well and that that helped things as well.

What I disagree with is the idea that an armed guard deters or prevents anything. The armed guard would just end up being the first one shot by a shooter starting their rampage.

[sleepy]

Dec 21, 2012 21:05:09 GMT -5 TC said:

Dec 21, 2012 19:39:14 GMT -5 sleepy said:

Except school shootings aren't unknown threats anymore and the procedures for dealing with them are completely different than in 1999.

This I agree with and a lot of lives were spared in Newtown because every one of the Newtown teachers knew what to do because of procedures that were put into place post-Columbine at every school in Newtown (move kids away from windows, try to hide them, turn off the lights, lock the doors, codewords for lockdown that can be given under duress, etc). I'm sure police procedures have changed as well and that that helped things as well.

What I disagree with is the idea that an armed guard deters or prevents anything. The armed guard would just end up being the first one shot by a shooter starting their rampage.

Well I wasn't arguing for or against. Personally I think if they were affordable having armed police officers going around schools would be great. There sole purpose wouldn't be to stop massacres but they'd be great in helping other areas. Fights, drug dealing, general behavior issues that are increasing in schools, and promoting the general police civilian relationship. Im not sure people realize how dangerous schools are these days without the threat of intruder. The high schools and middle schools around me are all full of security, a lot of it "undercover". It really isn't that uncommon and it certainly wouldn't hurt if something extraordinary did happen to have a few trained professionals around. One guy probably isn't going to make a difference, but 3-5 would. Unfortunately that's unrealistic for most school districts.

[TBird41]

Dec 21, 2012 18:34:02 GMT -5 HoyaNyr320 said:

Dec 21, 2012 14:20:02 GMT -5 Boz said:

But I think it would be a lot more effective than an assault weapons ban, which almost certainly wouldn't prevent anyone who wanted an assault weapon for nefarious purposes to be able to get their hands on one.

But the Newtown tragedy likely refutes this argument. For Adam Lanza, this was a crime of opportunity. I know you'll say "we'll never know for sure", but the fact is that if he didn't have access to an assault weapon within his own home or in a store, I don't see a 24-year old low self-esteem kid going through an arms dealer underworld to get such a weapon.

The term assault weapon is meaningless in this discussion and I think it confuses the issues. Legally, Lanza did not use an assault weapon. Connecticut has an assault weapon ban. The weapons Lanza used were purchased legally under that ban.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/17/nyregion/connecticuts-rules-for-purchasing-this-gun.html?hp

[AltoSaxa]

I am not sure why the idea of armed guards (outward or undercover) at schools is considered to be a crazy notion.

Eleven years ago no one would every think there would be a weapon aboard a plane.... then we had 9/11. Armed US marshals were implemented not as a primary prevention but as secondary prevention. Those that argue only for gun restrictions are looking only at primary prevention. Post 9/11, secondary prevention was implemented... Good guys stop bad guys.

No matter how many gun restrictions are implemented they will not prevent illegal access to guns. Also, gun restrictions will not have any impact on other means of violence in schools.

I asked my 8 year old son what he wanted for Christmas. He responded "peace." Surprised I asked why that was his wish. He said "the world is a very, very dark place" and "I don't want what happened in Connecticut to happen again." I asked how he would feel about a police officer at each school. He embraced the idea saying "we know who our friends are; the police are our friends."

No easy answers but dialogue is a start.

So I believe the notion of children living in fear because of a police presence at school may not be so

[GUJook97]

IMO, if LaPierre stopped at armed security guards at schools, it would have been opening a dialogue. But, his other comments were so just insane, that I almost think they were intentionally calculated to make the dialogue more about extremism - e.g., bannning all guns vs arming all citizens. To me, that's what the NRA wants - they want the discussion to be about extremes so that they can detract from reasonable restrictions.

I encourage people to read the entire transcript. I mean, he was saying things like, all that gun free school zones do is enable mass murders to prey on schools. Yes, i am sure insane killers have that consideration in mind when planning attack.

[TC]

Dec 22, 2012 11:36:54 GMT -5 AltoSaxa said:

I am not sure why the idea of armed guards (outward or undercover) at schools is considered to be a crazy notion.

I'd be fine with it if we raise every dollar of the 5-10 billion price tag from new taxes on the sale of firearms and ammunition.

(just for sense of scale, the gun industry has maybe $12B in sales every year, and the NRA's suggestion here is that we spend roughly the same amount in taxpayer money so that they don't have to implement any restrictions on their industry)

[Filo]

Dec 22, 2012 13:58:55 GMT -5 GUJook97 said:

IMO, if LaPierre stopped at armed security guards at schools, it would have been opening a dialogue. But, his other comments were so just insane, that I almost think they were intentionally calculated to make the dialogue more about extremism - e.g., bannning all guns vs arming all citizens. To me, that's what the NRA wants - they want the discussion to be about extremes so that they can detract from reasonable restrictions.

I encourage people to read the entire transcript. I mean, he was saying things like, all that gun free school zones do is enable mass murders to prey on schools. Yes, i am sure insane killers have that consideration in mind when planning attack.

I agree. I read and re-read that transcript looking for any ideas other than armed security guards at every school under a program that the NRA would help sponsor. There was nothing.

[EasyEd]

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

[Problem of Dog]

I live right near Sidwell. Near a lot of Sidwell families too. Their security guards are absolutely not armed, outside of the secret service guys. I've been to a lot of Josh Hart's games over there and seen their security guys. They're your basic mall security guys.

Somehow someone started this rumor on Twitter and it caught fire, but it's just not true. Maybe they have access to a gun, but they're not carrying concealed weapons. Or open carrying.

But Breitbart is the absolute depths of the internet, so I don't know why I even clicked that link.

[Buckets]

The Economist on mandating liability insurance for gun owners