Subject: How old are we talking here?
Author:
Posted on: 2013-04-05 18:55:00 UTC
Kids tend to have very vivid imaginations. Having a gun hidden somewhere in the class room might be like having a boogeyman in there to them. I think it would make things feel unsafe.
And having one hidden in a high school classroom? Nuh-uh. Unless it's in a locked box, there's a possibility that people could still find it.
Okay, this is simply my opinion, and I'm not trying to offend anyone, but, yes, I do think guns should be kept at a school. And that regular citizens should have them. Believe me, if someone walked up to the shooter, in, say the Connecticut school shooting and put a gun to his head, I don't think he would have kept going. In regard to the question raised about a hidden gun frightening children in a classroom: I don't think its presence should be advertised in the first place, and in the second, being shot would frighten them a lot more. Sorry if this offends anyone.
I am going to request that, with no prejudice to anyone involved, we end this thread now. I don't like the way it is shaping my opinions of my fellow Boarders.
My specific proposal is this:
-No-one new will post on the thread.
-Anyone who has already received a reply to a post of theirs may respond to that reply with a single post.
-Any further discussion anyone wishes to hold on this subject with anyone on this thread should be taken up in another venue.
-It is acceptable to post a one-line reply requesting someone's email address.
Regardless of whether people agree to this, I will not be posting any further in this thread. Also regardless, I do not and will not harbour any ill will towards Pauline07 for starting the thread.
If people do agree, I will do my best not to allow anything said as part of the prior thread or the closing statements to affect how I see anyone. I will also not bring this thread up in any later discussions for any reason.
If people don't agree, then those last two points do not stand, since I will assume that people are willing to be seen differently based on what is said here. This is not meant as a threat, just as information on how my mind works.
My email address is linked above. Thank you for your consideration.
hS
I actually agree with Sergio Turbo, Tray-Gnome and VixenMage on this point.
And I am willing to follow VixenMage on point of the constitution and bow out before things reach an unacceptable point of discussion and reach the regret later point of heated. I've replied to the last reply of my posts that I'm going to. I know I'm reaching the point of "may regret later" if I continue the discussion so I shall instead bid the topic adieu. :)
If the only reason to stop the thread is because it would change the opinions you have on the other Boarders... well, I don't want to offend you in any way but it seems a stupid reason to me.
People have different opinions on things, and by how the thread developed I don't see any warmonger between them.
Even I, who was between those few who viewed guns in a mostly positive light, agree on the fact that in the USA guns need to be more regulated. What I didn't make clear from my post, self-and-class-defense guns in schools should be more of a stop-gap measure until the likeliness of school shootings drop.
However, as this thread seems to put you at unease, I'll refrain from posting in it anymore out of respect, and I apologize if anything in my previous post acted as a trigger.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Closing the thread now kind of feels like a contradiction with what I see the PPC as. While for the most part, we do have primarily silly conversations, every so often something serious does get discussed. And on serious issues, people are going to have vastly different opinions. I feel that closing the thread kind of seems like "no, can't do this, too serious" which seems discouraging if people want to post a serious topic later on.
I almost added a note about how there's nothing wrong with continuing serious discussions - I am a first amendment absolutist, after all. The 'Board is not an oligarchy. It should be noted, however, that the Constitution makes a provision for backing away from arguments that start to get heated. This is an okay thing.
But I'm bowing out, for the reasons I initially stated - I watched this tear my communities back home apart, following Newtown. I don't care to see that happen here.
Once again, I seem to be in opposition to the majority opinion. Over all I don't think this would be such a bad thing, though there are several addendums I would make to that. Such as I'm not sure requiring an armed guard is necessary. But I don't see the problem with letting teachers or the principal have a gun on school property, provided of course said individual went through the proper training including all possible ways to take down someone without firing a lethal shot, legal process and anyone considering the privilege under go a second and much more thorough background/psych check. I mean I know they are supposed to have that done before being a teacher anyway, but let's face it, some of the teachers you hear about and what they get caught doing, yeah... I wouldn't want them to have a gun either.
As to the fear that a student would get a hold of the firearm, while it nullifies a point I'm going to make in a minute, they can't get a hold of said firearm if it's not made known that so and so has a gun. Just keep it locked in a desk drawer, or file cabinet or safe and only take it out if there is an actual threat, and the kids wouldn't know it was there to try to get it. On the flip side, however, can you honestly say that there would not be one less school shooting if the students perpetrating them knew they could/would face return defensive fire? I know it probably wouldn't stop them all, but just knowing that you weren't facing a completely defenseless population, would stop some, maybe even a lot of people I would think. I don't know, maybe since I can't even fathom what would cause someone to do such a thing to other people, and yes there are those that deserve to be smacked or punished for their treatment of others. But gunning down whatever random bystanders you can get at is beyond my comprehension, so maybe I'm giving their determination too little credit. But I really do think if someone is planning to shoot up a place, they would think twice or more about it if they knew they would face return fire, and the consequences of getting caught before they had the chance to take their own lives.
I agree just turning teachers/principals loose with the right to carry in school is probably not the way to go about it, but I don't see a problem with it once they have gone through the proper legal tape and had proper training, and not just safety and point and shoot, but as I mentioned, ways to incapacitate a threat with out the use of a lethal shot, and of course an additional, more thorough and up to date background check/psych evaluation. But I do agree with Rep. Jim Lucas (R) about needing to over come the negative stigma attached to guns. A lot more people than you think have guns, and have them legally, and it's no problem because they aren't out waving them around. I've known people that don't realize this and they went, pardon my language, completely ape**** when they've found out that friends of theirs are gun owners, to the point of all but accusing them of going to come running two states over and shooting up their house, just because they owned guns. So I believe there is reason to work on over coming negative stigmas, however the proper steps need to be taken as well to insure safety while doing it. I grew up in a gunless house, did I feel less safe for it? Not really, it wasn't something I ever thought about. Now I live in a house with several guns. Do I feel less safe than when there weren't any around? No, unless you count the few hours a careless person was messing around with them, but he's not allowed to touch them anymore and can't get into the gun safe. Do I feel safer knowing they are in the house and there are people who know how to use them? Maybe a little, if I ever think about it. But again, I really don't think about them being or not being there so it doesn't affect how I feel about my safety. Are there times I would have felt safer with a gun around and had been thinking about it? Absolutely! I have spent more than one night sitting with my only weapon, in this case a katana, right at, or in hand due to break-ins or drunk neighbors. And I would have felt a lot better had there been a trained gun owner around.
And to anyone that takes note of it, the only reason I left janitors out of people in school that should be allowed to under the above circumstances, to carry a gun was that janitors may not always be around during school hours, or they may not be employees of the school, ie outside contracted janitorial service. So it would be harder for them to be properly vetted, or since they might not be around during school hours, it would not be as helpful for them to be the lone school defender.
(PS I know this is a clean board and I hope I didn't cross a line by saying something even if I starred it out mostly. If I did, let me know and it won't happen again.)
Kids tend to have very vivid imaginations. Having a gun hidden somewhere in the class room might be like having a boogeyman in there to them. I think it would make things feel unsafe.
And having one hidden in a high school classroom? Nuh-uh. Unless it's in a locked box, there's a possibility that people could still find it.
The article seems to cover all Indiana schools. So all ages I think?
True and true, however, they can only feel unsafe about it if they even know it is there. And I know that the knowledge that there are adults at the school that have guns is one of my main points that they would help be a deterrent, I did also state one option to the concern that if kids knew there were guns around they could get at them and there would be more shootings was to keep it secured and not announce that this teacher or that teacher carried a weapon.
If you are going to announce to the student population who has a gun or that they are in the classrooms, then it is an excellent opportunity to teach them about gun safety and work toward dispelling the negative stigmas surrounding guns. And that goes for all ages. I also think if the teachers or principals are allowed to carry guns after the proper vetting and safety classes it's a good idea to make it known rather than hide it due to my thoughts that they would be deterrents to further shootings, because hiding it, especially from the parents is a bad way to go about things, and if the parents know, at least some of the students will find out. Plus, hiding them and sneaking around about it is not a good way to work on those negative stigmas...
I don't know if I was clear before, but I do not support guns lying around. I know I mentioned locked drawers, locked file cabinets or a safe when pointing out places to keep guns in the event students were not told about them, but the same goes for if everyone knows who has a gun. They definitely need to be locked up, public knowledge they are there or not, that would be part of gun safety. ^^
But... of course the students are going to know if there are guns in a class room. And if they didn't know, that would mean that a shooter wouldn't know either, making the entire point moot, right?
And if the thing was kept in a locked drawer, that means that the adult has to take the time to unlock it, load it, etc. which would be enough time for them to be taken down...
And... how much do high schoolers trust their teachers? Enough to not be scared that one of them WON'T freak out and pull that thing out?
And isn't there a school officer or something who has a gun? Why would there need to be more of them?
As I acknowledged, having the teacher/principals be allowed to carry guns in school without the knowledge of the student population would be detrimental to the deterrent factor, I only mentioned it as an option for those that argued that the students knowing they were there would make it easier for them to get at and would result in more school shootings.
And yes, keeping the guns locked up would mean having to take the time to unlock them, but depending on what the shooter was after, where they were forced to start from and how many teachers had their own guns the shooter could not get to them all, so once the alarm was raised more than likely someone could get to their gun and go to help defend the school and children. Is it less than ideal if the point is to defend and save everyone? Probably, but that unfortunately is a necessary delay to ensure the safety of the students from having an unsecured gun around.
Again, as I previously have pointed out, an addendum to allowing teachers/principals to have their guns in school is that before hand they be properly vetted with an additional stricter background check and psych evaluation to what they may have had to go through to gain the position in the first place to make sure people that might be prone to freak out and be a danger are not allowed to have their guns at schools.
Not every school has an officer. I went to a smaller Christian school and we didn't have officers or security guards there. And we did have trouble a couple times with strangers getting into the building and wandering around. Am I saying we needed someone there to be able to shoot them? No, but I'm just pointing out that not every school is going to have safety officers. And yes a great deal of public high schools now a-days have safety officers, security personnel or police officers, what about preschools and elementary only schools? Maybe they do too, I have no experience in those matters. (it's been years since I knew anyone that was either in or had children in public school at the younger levels.)
It's there for a reason. Guns are a tool, yes, but a tool intended to kill things. I know the argument is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". This may be true, but the gun definitely helps.
Look at it this way. Let's say you own a gun for hunting. You go out and hunt deer. Are you intending to kill the deer, or merely wound it?
Guns have a negative stigma because what they tend to be used for (i.e. killing things) is, y'know, a bad thing.
I'm not going to say I'm sorry for skipping this earlier, I'm not, at the time it was one of the replies that was pushing me toward the "stop posting or you may regret it" end of the spectrum, but that was more due to the place I was in after reading a few of the other replies, and that I think I the first read of your reply wound up in the wrong context. And I did debate whether to reply here or ask that we take it to email or IRC PM. I decided it might be best to reply here since your reply was already up here, as long as I could keep it in the realm of civil discussion. And after having taken a step back and re-reading it and seeing it more in the way it was intended, that will be no problem. I am still going to say this is going to be my last reply on the topic. :)
Since you made this point, a fine point. I will say, I've not actually thought about pointing out that while I say guns have a negative stigma they don't deserve, this does not mean I think they are wonderful or the best thing eva. More like a necessary evil that don't have to be "bad" bad so long as precautions are observed and responsibility is used. It means I think they don't deserve the totality of the negative feelings that are directed at them.
While I'm not sure where I fall on the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" issue because it's true they don't, it's the people behind them that do, but it's also true as you state they do definitely help. And while it's true that the speed will differ greatly, you can make the same case against knives, swords and the bow and arrow, and for the most part those implements do not carry the same stigma. (Although the same friend that flipped out over her friends owning guns, had the same reaction to her having a collection of pocket and small knives. So for some people they do.)
My thoughts on the hunting argument are that for the purpose of the general point of this discussion, hunting guns generally don't have quite the rapid fire capability of guns used in school shootings. As to that those who own guns for hunting intend to kill with them, yes that is the purpose of the gun in hunting and those I know that go hunting do intend to kill the quarry, but they also then use the deer or ducks for food. They are not killing for the sake of killing. I also know bow hunters, they too shoot to kill as well, but the bow and arrow don't carry quite the same stigma that I've seen. Maybe I just haven't seen a lot in that area and I'm totally off base on that.
You're right that what a tool is used for determines how it's seen. I was just trying to say that perhaps it's more than is deserved in the case of guns, and with some education in the matter, that they could shake the knee-jerk they are absolute evil reactions they cause. Because I don't believe they are evil, and since we're never going to get the people that use them in the way that gains them the terrible reputation they have to give them up, or stop obtaining them. I think it's a good thing for responsible people to be able to also own them to defend themselves and in this case others should need arise. So I still think allowing them in schools in the hands of responsible adults is not a bad idea.
I'll start giving out my personal background on the issue: I live in Italy, where guns have thigher regulations. I don't own a gun myself, but my father owns a .22 semiautomatic carbine, used for target shooting at shooting ranges but once used around 1985 to repel would-be burglars with warning shots.
The right solution is to do proper regulations about firearms, like background checks and force everyone who owns a gun to store it in a gun locker and not a random drawer.
I see no problem too in letting teachers carry a gun, as long as they are properly checked, trained and a safe way to keep those guns is found. Security guards would be a better choice IMHO though, since well... that's what they are supposed to exist for, right?
The true problem underlying that is, though, that the gun stygma is going to make things worse. As Myrddin just said, there's people who is branding other people as psychos just because they own a gun.
Pardon me if that sounds like medieval witch hunting to me. If nobody could use guns legally, criminals would still have them. (Black marked unregistered guns exist)
Besides, knives still exist. Sure, with a knife the body count would be surely lower... if someone still has a gun to shoot the perp, or a really good karate/judo/whatever fighter is there, that is. But a crackpot with a knife in a classroom would still be able to do a massacre.
In the end, the true problem isn't the weapon. The true problem is the "human" being behind it.
...is that you can reduce it to: "Flamethrowers don't incinerate people. People incinerate people." This doesn't make sense, so the original statement shouldn't make sense either, right?
How many home runs can Babe Ruth hit if you don't give him a baseball bat?
The answer to this problem is not to escalate the situation by arming yourself and screening every person on the street as a potential threat. In my opinion, the answer is to take away the weapons entirely.
I respectfully disagree. Please don't take this personally. Murder is completely against the law. However, people still murder. Certain drugs have an absolute ban in some areas, yet they're still dealt there. The thing is, even if you ban it, people will still find a way to get it. Banning is not the answer here.
In the most recent mass murder in the US, the gunman killed 26 people in less than 5 minutes. That was before the police could arrive. He also had to shoot his way through a window to get into the building. If he had only had access to a knife, how many of those teachers and students would have made it out of there alive? Maybe not all of them, but many more than did.
The gunman was faced with at least 4 adults as soon as he was through that window. Two were killed and two were injured. Now, I am a large man. I weigh almost 300 pounds, much of which is muscle. If 4 people tried to keep me from moving, they could easily keep me from doing much of anything for a good long time. This gunman, as I understand it, was not a large man. He probably would have injured someone; maybe even killed someone. However, he would not have been able to kill the 20 children and 6 adults that he did, if he were wielding a knife.
Guns don't kill people. They allow people to kill people with speed, efficiency, and ease.
-Phobos, who will take a murderer with a knife over a murderer with a gun any day of the week.
They are implements designed for the sole purpose of causing crippling or lethal harm to other living beings. Guns kill people. Yes, it is possible to kill people without a gun, but it is a heck of a lot easier with one. Guns kill people. They kill lots of people, very quickly, and in large numbers.
And yes, I do think that people who desire to own a lethal weapon which serves no purpose other than to cause harm to others are not good people. This is not a good thing to want to own. Guns sharding well kill people because they make it incredibly easy for other people to do so.
There is a simple, easy, and extremely cheap way to stop gun crime:
Stop
making
sharding
guns.
Stop making them! Stop selling them! Stop letting people own the stupid, deadly, horrible things. Stop saying "Sure, it's fine that you want something designed only for killing!" The people committing school shootings are not career criminals. Even if the massive criminal-run gun factories with a salesman in every city which are required for that glib 'Black marked unregistered guns exist' to make the blindest bit of sense - even if such things existed - the messed up people who go shooting up schools do not have the contacts to get those guns.
And.
I just.
Sure, with a knife the body count would be surely lower... if someone still has a gun to shoot the perp, or a really good karate/judo/whatever fighter is there, that is.
How long do you think it would take to shoot the occupants of an entire room? I'm guessing less than a minute, and you can stand by the door the whole time. How long do you think it would take to stab every person individually (and with the precision needed to kill them)? While still preventing every single one from reaching the door? Yes, people would still get killed. But it would be less without the gun.
No. Just... no.
Guns sharding kill people. That's why we invented them. That's what they do.
hS
On the flip side, however, can you honestly say that there would not be one less school shooting if the students perpetrating them knew they could/would face return defensive fire?
Yes. I can.
If you can find me just one example of a school shooting where the shooter didn't either kill themselves, or expect to die by returning fire (this is a point that comes up in testimony), I will be very surprised.
Beside the point that I don't think you can honestly say that since it's never been tested, and can't be (you can't have the same shooter go in under two different circumstances and find out if they wouldn't have gone at all under one of them.) Just as I honestly can't say that it would prevent any of them. I just think it would, just as you think it would not. And maybe it wouldn't because they already planning on not coming out of it.
My point was not that they thought they might get out of it alive, but that knowing they were going in to a situation where everyone one was not defenseless would help, because I don't know the percentage of school shootings that take place where they are expecting return fire, but pretty much all of them go in expecting to die as they are going to kill themselves anyway, but the point is maybe they wouldn't take out a bunch of bystanders with them if they knew that 1) the place wasn't defenseless, 2) not only is there the possibility of return fire, but the likely hood that it would happen before they accomplished the taking out of innocent (or in some cases not so innocent, but still not deserving to be shot) bystanders and 3) that there was the distinct possibility that they would not be able to take themselves out before the consequences caught up with them.
I don't think there is one school shooter that goes in expecting to come out, the point is they are wanting to die, but they want to be remembered and/or exact vengeance or make some point as they do it, so since they know there are no armed personnel on the premises they know they can walk in, wreak whatever havoc they have in mind and take themselves out before they can be held accountable for their actions. Where as if you allow people who have been properly trained and vetted to carry guns then 1) it might stop some people, 2)even if it doesn't stop them, they can be stopped before they slaughter a couple dozen people and/or 3) they can be taken alive and held accountable for their actions whether anyone was killed or not. And that last one is also a big factor, I mean I believe people are a lot more prone to do things they wouldn't do otherwise, terrible or not, if they know there won't be any consequences. And if you're not planning on sticking around to feel them, why not do whatever you want?
How about making firearms LESS accessible for everyone? But no, bloody Second Amendment or whatever... 'Murica. *sighs*
The Indiana amendment's sponsor, Rep. Jim Lucas (R), said he believes mass shootings like the one in Newtown could be prevented by more firearms. "The way they are right now, school is a gun-free zone. Tragically we see the tragic consequences of gun-free zones, defenseless zones like the Colorado theater, Columbine, and Virginia Tech," Lucas told The Huffington Post Wednesday. "We have to work to overcome the stigma that firearms are a bad thing."
Um. No.
I would write more, but I'm too angry.
hS
"[...] mass shootings [...] could be prevented by more firearms."
Is this guy listening to what he says?
I'm going to agree with Vixen on slowing down your posts, but I do think it's all right that you post such things.
And as for that bill...it doesn't seem particularly well-thought.
Being a Connecticut native who's seen my friends, family, and my entire community at my last college torn apart on this debate, I don't think I have the stomach to enter it lightly. I will say that the last article I wrote for that college before leaving was on the topic of guns - control thereof, and arming security therewith. Opinions from student and faculty alike were pretty solidly against arming guards. Most people felt that if someone was determined to bring a gun to school, an armed guard wouldn't stop them, and might increase the casualty rate - especially if, in a worst-case scenario, the students get ahold of the firearm. I was inclined to agree. If it comes to a shoot-out, things have already gotten pretty bad. About a week after I moved away, though, there was a gun scare at the school, and my friends were posting updates from where they were hiding, underneath their desks in dark classrooms. I don't know whether it changed anyone's mind.
On a completely different subject, Pauline, you might want to slow down with the posting. Not so much slowing the "serious" topics specifically, but if you've got something that might fit into another thread, it helps to put it there, rather than start a new thread altogether. You've probably noticed that each new thread pushes the old ones down - eventually, they all fall off the side of the 'Board, and several pages down, disappear entirely. So it's preferable to avoid double-posting when possible. Thanks!
