Gun Control Debate #1

[K_Z]

Metal detectors are often proposed as a solution, but advocates rarely do the math.

The school board buys two metal detectors for the town high school. If each detector can handle 10 students a minute, how long does it take to search all 1,200 students each morning?

It also doesn’t stop someone from just shooting their way into the building as was done at Sandy Hook or targetting the students lined up for security search.

I don’t want to make our nation Into a place where every school, church, playground and public venue is a fortress with armed guards. Especially when the rest of the developed world has found a better way to limit these kinds of spree killing.

Exactly. If you're going to "commit" to fortress level intensive search and metal detector security measures, you have to have such a number of stations that there is no possibility that a crowd can form at the security screening checkpoints.

Right now, these crowds of un-screened passengers, theme park attendees, concert goers, students, etc are VERY vulnerable places for bad things to happen.

 

[kittythehare]

Exactly. If you're going to "commit" to fortress level intensive search and metal detector security measures, you have to have such a number of stations that there is no possibility that a crowd can form at the security screening checkpoints.

Right now, these crowds of un-screened passengers, theme park attendees, concert goers, students, etc are VERY vulnerable places for bad things to happen.

That's a really good point.
They can just as easily be targets from the outside- a sniper posted across the street can too easily assess crowd numbers and optimal firing times..

 

[Hatfield]

Some of the larger city schools have had metal detectors for years. I think that for some of us, though, the state and/or federal govt., is going to have to aid in the purchase, and cost, of installation. Unless someone wants to grant them to us. Many schools in my region just don't have the funds and they keep cutting school funds (and many things tied to it but that's another discussion).





http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Sc...e-may-not-be-able-to-pay-bills-474123993.html

Agree the funding and operational costs of having someone to process people through the detectors is a valid obstacle that some schools will have trouble to fund.

I get so upset when I think back to when the government bailed out the large banks. That money was desparately needed for infrastructure roads and bridges and school funding. Now is a perfect time where our schools could have used that money.

 

[K_Z]

We are worried about how our kids will feel attending schools that require metal detectors and screening-- but we adults tend to forget that this is actually normal and expected now by kids. They have grown up with security screening, most of them in the U.S. Many kids have told me that it actually seems "odd" to them when there is a large gathering event and there ISN'T security screening.

 

[kittythehare]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-new-gun-laws-couldnt/?utm_term=.d90593ed1c71

This is a central argument for gun-rights proponents, echoing the line that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. But over time, Quinnipiac polling has found that the argument for more armed citizens has grown less effective. Two years ago, about as many people said more guns would make the U.S. less safe as said it would make the U.S. more safe. Now, there’s a 26-point gulf on the question.

So The Post and ABC asked whether perhaps there should be more armed individuals on campus: specifically, teachers. A majority of Americans said that having armed teachers on campus wouldn’t have prevented the massacre in Parkland, perhaps because those teachers would likely have only encountered alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz after the incident began. (It wouldn’t have been a deterrent, clearly. There was an armed guard at the Parkland high school, incidentally, who never encountered Cruz during his rampage.)

The argument generally used by gun-control opponents in situations like this is that those looking to murder aren’t going to adhere to legal mandates about who can and can’t own a firearm.

 

[K_Z]

I happen to be a proponent of more safety screening, AND voluntarily armed teachers in schools. We pay teachers to be coaches and advisory for clubs-- easy enough to solicit volunteer teachers and employees to be concealed carry "schools marshals".

The bigger issue that I see with concealed carry teachers is that inevitably a teacher will brandish their weapon, or have to shoot it. How we deal with that is a HUGE issue.

A simple part of that dilemma is that some classrooms will have armed teachers, and others won't. Would you want your student in an armed, or unarmed classroom?

Parents will demand answers to that, as well as demand the right to choose the "armed or unarmed" status of the teacher.

And think of the nightmare that would occur if kids in a classroom with an un-armed teacher were killed by a shooter, but kids in a classroom with an armed teacher fought back and killed the shooter/s. The school would be accused of not providing "equal" levels of security to the kids in the unarmed classroom. Legal and insurance nightmare.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "all" teachers should be armed, but I do think we should seriously consider a voluntary level of concealed carry in K-12 schools. Right now, with all the "gun free" signs tacked on the doors, they are all sitting ducks for those with murderous intentions, IMO.

** And by "armed", I mean ON their person, concealed, and loaded. Not in a glass or locked box, not unloaded, not in a purse or bag.

I do believe that armed conceal carry "education marshals" would be a HUGE deterrent. I take all those surveys with a pile of salt, because of how they choose to select their survey recipients, and how they massage their categories, questions, and results. The surveys/ polls are not vetted, nor are they scientific. They are a snapshot in time of those who were selected and able to participate. "Convenience sample" at best.

 

[Hatfield]

Exactly. If you're going to "commit" to fortress level intensive search and metal detector security measures, you have to have such a number of stations that there is no possibility that a crowd can form at the security screening checkpoints.

Right now, these crowds of un-screened passengers, theme park attendees, concert goers, students, etc are VERY vulnerable places for bad things to happen.

True but the big difference is kids on the outside wont be trapped in classrooms and can run in all directions.

Lets remember the idea is meant to be a "deterrent" and its not meant to be a cure all.

Anyway its all i got for today. LOL

 

[rsd1200]

That's a really good point.
They can just as easily be targets from the outside- a sniper posted across the street can too easily assess crowd numbers and optimal firing times..

Bell Tower Sniper of 1966. Whitman used a Remington 700 bolt-action rifle.

On Monday, Aug. 1, 1966, a 25-year-old architectural engineering student and former Marine sniper, Charles Whitman, killed 15 people and wounded over 30 others in a mass shooting he carried out on the University of Texas’s Austin campus.

No motive was ever established for the attack, though many blamed mental illness. The day after the shooting, the Waco News Tribune described Whitman as a “good son, a top Boy Scout, and excellent marine, an honor student, a hard worker, a loving husband, a fine scout master, a handsome man, a wonderful friend to all who knew him—and an expert sniper.”

At the time, the University of Texas shooting was ranked by the Associated Press as the second most important story of 1966, behind the Vietnam War. “You knew that after this day, this moment,” said Gayle Ross, another student during the attack, “nothing would ever be quite the same again.”


https://qz.com/1091859/las-vegas-sh...-mass-shootings-begins-with-this-one-in-1966/

 

[kittythehare]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-new-gun-laws-couldnt/?utm_term=.d90593ed1c71

This is a central argument for gun-rights proponents, echoing the line that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. But over time, Quinnipiac polling has found that the argument for more armed citizens has grown less effective. Two years ago, about as many people said more guns would make the U.S. less safe as said it would make the U.S. more safe. Now, there’s a 26-point gulf on the question.

So The Post and ABC asked whether perhaps there should be more armed individuals on campus: specifically, teachers. A majority of Americans said that having armed teachers on campus wouldn’t have prevented the massacre in Parkland, perhaps because those teachers would likely have only encountered alleged shooter Nikolas Cruz after the incident began. (It wouldn’t have been a deterrent, clearly. There was an armed guard at the Parkland high school, incidentally, who never encountered Cruz during his rampage.)

The argument generally used by gun-control opponents in situations like this is that those looking to murder aren’t going to adhere to legal mandates about who can and can’t own a firearm.

No no no, please NO to armed teachers..
No to armed doctors, nurses, concert managers, event managers, football managers.. any crowd manager who is not trained to the standards of lE.

If necessary, hire more police.. with rising crime, that is valid anyway.

Less guns or NO guns.

A marksman who is highly skilled is the only person capable of taking out an active shooter.
Remember too that it is possible a shooter is a terrorist and wearing a suicide vest which will detonate if he is shot..

Just STOP

 

[Hatfield]

I happen to be a proponent of more safety screening, AND voluntarily armed teachers in schools. We pay teachers to be coaches and advisory for clubs-- easy enough to solicit volunteer teachers and employees to be concealed carry "schools marshals".

The bigger issue that I see with concealed carry teachers is that inevitably a teacher will brandish their weapon, or have to shoot it. How we deal with that is a HUGE issue.

A simple part of that dilemma is that some classrooms will have armed teachers, and others won't. Would you want your student in an armed, or unarmed classroom?

Parents will demand answers to that, as well as demand the right to choose the "armed or unarmed" status of the teacher.

And think of the nightmare that would occur if kids in a classroom with an un-armed teacher were killed by a shooter, but kids in a classroom with an armed teacher fought back and killed the shooter/s. The school would be accused of not providing "equal" levels of security to the kids in the unarmed classroom. Legal and insurance nightmare.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "all" teachers should be armed, but I do think we should seriously consider a voluntary level of concealed carry in K-12 schools. Right now, with all the "gun free" signs tacked on the doors, they are all sitting ducks for those with murderous intentions, IMO.

** And by "armed", I mean ON their person, concealed, and loaded. Not in a glass or locked box, not unloaded, not in a purse or bag.

JMO
I agree with your thoughts on this. I am thinking a little selfishly too that if I was a teacher I would want the right to be able to protect myself.

Its sad how we hear of those unarmed teachers having to stand in the way of the bullets and died to protect the students.

 

[kittythehare]

JMO
I agree with your thoughts on this. I am thinking a little selfishly too that if I was a teacher I would want the right to be able to protect myself.

Its sad how we hear of those unarmed teachers having to stand in the way of the bullets and died to protect the students.

Respectfully , it would be a helluva lot sadder if a teacher shot a terrorist who detonated a belt or a vest before dying.

Teachers cannot be trained to marksman level or take the authority to kill a gunman with a head shot in case he is actually a terrorist..

 

[kimlynn]

Support for gun control hits record high.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686

"In the last two months, some of the biggest surges in support for tightening gun laws comes from demographic groups you may not expect — independent voters, men, and whites with no college degree," Malloy said

The new poll also found that 50 percent of gun owners support tougher legislation and backing for universal background checks was at 97 percent of all those surveyed, with same amount of support among gun owners.

 

[kittythehare]

[FONT=&amp] https://twitter.com/AP/status/966054698422882304

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]BREAKING: In wake of school shooting, Florida legislators vote down attempt to revive bill to ban assault rifles.[/FONT]

 

[rsd1200]

I happen to be a proponent of more safety screening, AND voluntarily armed teachers in schools. We pay teachers to be coaches and advisory for clubs-- easy enough to solicit volunteer teachers and employees to be concealed carry "schools marshals".

The bigger issue that I see with concealed carry teachers is that inevitably a teacher will brandish their weapon, or have to shoot it. How we deal with that is a HUGE issue.

A simple part of that dilemma is that some classrooms will have armed teachers, and others won't. Would you want your student in an armed, or unarmed classroom?

Parents will demand answers to that, as well as demand the right to choose the "armed or unarmed" status of the teacher.

And think of the nightmare that would occur if kids in a classroom with an un-armed teacher were killed by a shooter, but kids in a classroom with an armed teacher fought back and killed the shooter/s. The school would be accused of not providing "equal" levels of security to the kids in the unarmed classroom. Legal and insurance nightmare.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "all" teachers should be armed, but I do think we should seriously consider a voluntary level of concealed carry in K-12 schools. Right now, with all the "gun free" signs tacked on the doors, they are all sitting ducks for those with murderous intentions, IMO.

** And by "armed", I mean ON their person, concealed, and loaded. Not in a glass or locked box, not unloaded, not in a purse or bag.

I do believe that armed conceal carry "education marshals" would be a HUGE deterrent. I take all those surveys with a pile of salt, because of how they choose to select their survey recipients, and how they massage their categories, questions, and results. The surveys/ polls are not vetted, nor are they scientific. They are a snapshot in time of those who were selected and able to participate. "Convenience sample" at best.

I'm cool with trained, plain clothes, security but not arming teachers. I've had some teachers that I'd definitely not want to see armed (they'd likely be the ones who'd want to be armed, too). Also, if they can't pay for my kids bus transportation, pencils, and other school needs, how do they propose to ensure that a sane teacher is the one who is holding the firearm, in addition to paying for their instruction, re-upping that instruction, and paying for their firearm? Teachers would have to train like LE or military, in assessing a threat. What if a kid drags something ominous looking out of their book bag, and it's not a firearm, and the teacher overreacts? No. I don't want teachers with firearms.

 

[Hatfield]

Respectfully , it would be a helluva lot sadder if a teacher shot a terrorist who detonated a belt or a vest before dying.

Teachers cannot be trained to marksman level or take the authority to kill a gunman with a head shot in case he is actually a terrorist..

Im ok with adding more armed security personnel instead.

I can actually go either way on this point but I dont like how these victims are sitting ducks with no way to defend themselves. We have to do something. Its been nothing short of a massacre lately.

Thats why i think we need to take some baby steps. We have to do some of these ideas. Install some of them and if they dont work then try another. Its time we act though.

I really thought Sandy Hook would make some actions happened.

 

[SHASPE]

I had my first run in with guns in schools in middle school in 1993. My neighbor brought a a gun to school to sell and was caught with it. The district instituted a policy that included see through back packs. Now, this was during the time of baggy jeans, which I came to learn was exactly how he got them to school later-after he completed his school "sentencing" which was off an off campus detention school. We are talking Houston in the 90's people. There was tons of gang activity in the inner city schools, but we were in the suburbs and this happened. There was a push for metal detectors, and despite the arguments of cost, feeling like a prison, taking too long for the kids to get into the school, paying to man these stations, etc, the districts figured it out. We had state of the art camera systems, parking lots were locked down like Ft. Knox, there was security at all times. I don't know when we deviated from this-and I know the rest of the nation may have never really got on board with it, but it works. We are talking about a 5A school, with over 4000 kids in the high school. The administration figured it out. I truly feel like this is the cheapest solution. Several detectors and people to man them is cheaper than replacing every door and window in the school and praying no one gets in. If I remember correctly, we had a 25 minute "free" period that was used at lunch time to accommodate the varying lunch schedules. I think this was moved to the morning so that no time was taken out of the day, but it can be done. If you are in a district that successfully uses detectors, I urge you to reach out and share your procedures with schools who don't.

 

[Hatfield]

I had my first run in with guns in schools in middle school in 1993. My neighbor brought a a gun to school to sell and was caught with it. The district instituted a policy that included see through back packs. Now, this was during the time of baggy jeans, which I came to learn was exactly how he got them to school later-after he completed his school "sentencing" which was off an off campus detention school. We are talking Houston in the 90's people. There was tons of gang activity in the inner city schools, but we were in the suburbs and this happened. There was a push for metal detectors, and despite the arguments of cost, feeling like a prison, taking too long for the kids to get into the school, paying to man these stations, etc, the districts figured it out. We had state of the art camera systems, parking lots were locked down like Ft. Knox, there was security at all times. I don't know when we deviated from this-and I know the rest of the nation may have never really got on board with it, but it works. We are talking about a 5A school, with over 4000 kids in the high school. The administration figured it out. I truly feel like this is the cheapest solution. Several detectors and people to man them is cheaper than replacing every door and window in the school and praying no one gets in. If I remember correctly, we had a 25 minute "free" period that was used at lunch time to accommodate the varying lunch schedules. I think this was moved to the morning so that no time was taken out of the day, but it can be done. If you are in a district that successfully uses detectors, I urge you to reach out and share your procedures with schools who don't.

Thanks for sharing your real life example. Thats a pretty large school population too.

 

[kimlynn]

[video=youtube;GXE_n2q08Yw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXE_n2q08Yw[/video]

Amen.

Some sold for cheap.IMO

https://www.fec.gov/data/disburseme...1/2015&max_date=12/31/2016&recipient_state=FL

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

No no no, please NO to armed teachers..
No to armed doctors, nurses, concert managers, event managers, football managers.. any crowd manager who is not trained to the standards of lE.

If necessary, hire more police.. with rising crime, that is valid anyway.

Less guns or NO guns.

A marksman who is highly skilled is the only person capable of taking out an active shooter.
Remember too that it is possible a shooter is a terrorist and wearing a suicide vest which will detonate if he is shot..

Just STOP

I don't think waiting on a skilled marksman to take out an immediate threat is a good idea. How would you know his intention isn't to detonate the suicide belt anyway? If you can't hide or run then fight. An armed teacher is a fighting chance to survive. IMO

I don't conceal carry however I will gladly take my position behind the 'good guy with a gun' any day.

 

[kittythehare]

Im ok with adding more armed security personnel instead.

I can actually go either way on this point but I dont like how these victims are sitting ducks with no way to defend themselves. We have to do something. Its been nothing short of a massacre lately.

Thats why i think we need to take some baby steps. We have to do some of these ideas. Install some of them and if they dont work then try another. Its time we act though.

I really thought Sandy Hook would make some actions happened.

Babysteps won't cut it.. they are insufficient.. they palliate, like today's bump-stock ban proposal followed quickly by Florida's refusal to ban assault weapons..

There is no negotiation space for mass killers.
I say aim high.. go mega, don't accept pittances..

Fully trained armed security personnel at all schools and large gatherings funded by the govt.

They can find money for mindless military parades and budgets that are off the Richter scale for military expenditure- they need to be forced to protect those that elected them, and those who did not..

go straight for the top and accept no less..
-top security
-top mental health services
- top drug rehabs
- mega police recruitment drive


Now really is the time for bIG STEPS- accept no less..
Go for it, just go for it and do not stop until you get a properly protected nation.
Let their lives not have been in vain.
PLEASE!