O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[Runscott]

Just the principal at your daughter's school, or every principal of every school, in the entire nation?

If so, I bet you would have many, many more deaths under such a scenario than you would ever have if they all remained unarmed. I could give you plenty of examples, but I would start with irate students locating such a gun that was accidentally left out (or not), principals 'going crazy' (either emotionally over an ex-spouse,etc. or literally a mental disorder), etc., etc.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Just the principal at your daughter's school, or every principal of every school, in the entire nation?

If so, I bet you would have many, many more deaths under such a scenario than you would ever have if they all remained unarmed. I could give you plenty of examples, but I would start with irate students locating such a gun that was accidentally left out (or not), principals 'going crazy' (either emotionally over an ex-spouse,etc. or literally a mental disorder), etc., etc.

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

[drc]

My general opinion is someone who seriously anticipates having to fight off a US Government invasion is someone who should probably not own firearms. Beyond the idea of the United States mounting an invasion, the Swedish army could crush you.

[CowboysGuide]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

Understood. The main point I was trying to make was that not everyone is capable of being trained to properly handle a gun. So, do we then get rid of principals and staff that can't or won't be able to use a gun, or re-assign them a different job? I'm for the properly trained personell to be present at all schools as a deterrant, not the staff.

If this gunman went to shooting ranges with his mom, which has now been reported, he did know how to load and handle the guns - which was a question of mine. Not to start another debate, but I haven't heard anything about the gunman owning any violent video games. Some of those first-person shoot 'em up games are pretty scary. It's like training to kill in the imaginary sense. Some forms of mental illness can not distinguish from real or imaginary.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

No - I would not want a principal to be armed so that he could be available to save my children's lives, if that meant that arming principals could result in more lives being lost than if they weren't armed. Not sure of any other way to state this, so I'll just politely disagree and bow out.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No - I would not want a principal to be armed so that he could be available to save my children's lives, if that meant that arming principals could result in more lives being lost than if they weren't armed. Not sure of any other way to state this, so I'll just politely disagree and bow out.

I certainly respect your opinion very much...and actually do agree with you somewhat, just not enough to sway my vote. Good people will see this differently. And not to belabor the point but a principal already has complete access, so one that wants to go crazy, already can, whether permitted to carry a gun or not. (pray and knock on wood that one doesn't)

And yes, I agree with the point about what has this society come to if we have to carry guns to be safe. To that I say, the cat is out of the bag 300 million guns later. Now we just have to find the best, albeit not perfect, solution. I don't have the perfect answer.

[barrysloate]

I'm not sure that very many principals would want to take the enormous responsibility of carrying a gun and being expected to use it in a crisis. And while in a perfect world the prinicipal might kill the bad guy before he hurt any children, so many things could go terribly wrong. The principal could aim the gun at the bad guy and miss, hitting and killing a student instead. Not a really great plan IMO.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I'm not sure that very many principals would want to take the enormous responsibility of carrying a gun and being expected to use it in a crisis. And while in a perfect world the prinicipal might kill the bad guy before he hurt any children, so many things could go terribly wrong. The principal could aim the gun at the bad guy and miss, hitting and killing a student instead. Not a really great plan IMO.

Exactly, why a non-lethal stun gun system could be implemented. It would also hopefully keep these people alive, so that more insight can be had into what exactly was going on in their heads. That knowledge alone could potentially lead to preventing these type of things. Instead we're stuck with dead bodies, and simple guesses as to motive.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Exactly, why a non-lethal stun gun system could be implemented. It would also hopefully keep these people alive, so that more insight can be had into what exactly was going on in their heads. That knowledge alone could potentially lead to preventing these type of things. Instead we're stuck with dead bodies, and simple guesses as to motive.

We still have the Aurora and Arizona killers, and there is one here in Washington who recently was moved from Western State to prison. All still alive, all probably able to give their reasoning for the murders they committed. But I don't think you would be able to figure out much - the 'manic state' is a different reality and they either remember very little, remember things incorrectly, or realize that what they did made no sense.

Emotional, 'sane' killers are a different thing, but they generally do commit suicide - distraught fathers, screwed-over office-workers, etc.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I certainly respect your opinion very much...and actually do agree with you somewhat, just not enough to sway my vote. Good people will see this differently. And not to belabor the point but a principal already has complete access, so one that wants to go crazy, already can, whether permitted to carry a gun or not. (pray and knock on wood that one doesn't)

And yes, I agree with the point about what has this society come to if we have to carry guns to be safe. To that I say, the cat is out of the bag 300 million guns later. Now we just have to find the best, albeit not perfect, solution. I don't have the perfect answer.

I think a good solution is a combination of everything we've discussed here: better control of guns, better security, addressing mental health. Brushing off any of those is a mistake. The ratio and implementation is tough, because personal rights are affected, but after hearing the President's speech Sunday night, I'm convinced that we will see some detailed proposals very soon.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely and completely disagree. Every Principal and Asst.Principal goes through extraordinary background checks AND (most importantly) already has 100% access to our kids. Even if not permitted to carry a gun a wacko principal or asst. could do the same thing. I say let them be armed. I know it's unpopular to some,...but if the day ever came and your son or daughter was about to be killed, and your vote to have the administrator carry a gun, saved their life, you would be thankful. As for irate students.....not really anything stopping them from going crazy already. My vote goes to being able to defend ourselves. This is one of those issues where there will be very good arguments on both sides, for me though, the scale tips to the side of having the good guys armed.

Maybe people buying guns should have to go through similar background checks. Or is that too great a restriction on our precious freedom? Or does that make it too easy for our government to invade?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe people buying guns should have to go through similar background checks. Or is that too great a restriction on our precious freedom? Or does that make it too easy for our government to invade?

Peter, they are going through background checks. Even if the background checks were more extensive (which I believe they could/should be), the problem is there is nothing in their background that would keep them from obtaining these weapons.

Please tell me, what in James Holmes' or Adam Lanza's background would have been discovered that would have made them fail the check?

Edited to add: I know the guns in the Midtown shooting were registered to the mom, but my point is that even if Adam had obtained them legally himself, nothing would have come up in the background check that would have prevented him from purchasing them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, they are going through background checks. Even if the background checks were more extensive (which I believe they could/should be), the problem is there is nothing in their background that would keep them from obtaining these weapons.

Please tell me, what in James Holmes' or Adam Lanza's background would have been discovered that would have made them fail the check?

Holmes was under psychiatric care at the time, was he not? And no check was required for him to buy hundreds of rounds of ammunition, was there? Perhaps some reform there is warranted, although again, we may make ourselves vulnerable to invasion by the Feds.

[Leon]

One small district in Texas already has teachers with guns....I know there isn't a perfect solution....but as I have said, if a bad person goes into my daughters school to cause tragedy I would rather the staff be able to defend our kiddos and themselves than not ....It's really just a preference. I am certainly open to better solutions.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...174238129.html


.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Leon

One small district in Texas already has teachers with guns....I know there isn't a perfect solution....but as I have said, if a bad person goes into my daughters school to cause tragedy I would rather the staff be able to defend our kiddos and themselves than not ....It's really just a preference. I am certainly open to better solutions.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...174238129.html


.

Interesting.

I'm thinking back to the teachers I had, and considering which ones I'd want to be in class with if things went bad.

Maybe 1/4 of them? probably much less. And I was in HS when a decent percentage of the male teachers were veterans of either WWII or Korea. The headmaster was a Marine reserve colonel, so he'd probably be ok.

The difficulty with guns for protection is that unless you're well trained, not just target, but simulations with moving and surprise targets and non-targets.
AND
You're absolutely willing to use it to kill someone.

If not, then it's a major liability. Many people react by freezing up or running.
Either takes the defending yourself out of the picture.

Steve B

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe people buying guns should have to go through similar background checks. Or is that too great a restriction on our precious freedom? Or does that make it too easy for our government to invade?

When did I ever say people shouldn't have to go through background checks? Look, if you don't want to protect yourself, no problem. Others that do want to protect themselves, and meet the qualifications, should be able to. On the invading of our government, silly argument and I have no comment. I don't think the world is ending in 3 days or the sky is falling either.

And Clayton- I see we are on opposite sides of the invading government debate. Sorry, my opinion, which is exactly equal to yours (they both count as 1) is that is a silly debate. It won't happen regardless of Pol Pot.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

When did I ever say people shouldn't have to go through background checks? Look, if you don't want to protect yourself, no problem. Others that do want to protect themselves, and meet the qualifications, should be able to. On the invading of our government, silly argument and I have no comment. I don't think the world is ending in 3 days or the sky is falling either.

I actually feel safer without a gun, but I'm all for people having the right to protect themselves with a gun if they choose to. I just question guns outside of the home, when not used for hunting (non-human hunting). I see too many angry poor-decision makers walking around town - even policemen, who are supposedly well-trained on use of force.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Leon

When did I ever say people shouldn't have to go through background checks? Look, if you don't want to protect yourself, no problem. Others that do want to protect themselves, and meet the qualifications, should be able to. On the invading of our government, silly argument and I have no comment. I don't think the world is ending in 3 days or the sky is falling either.

And Clayton- I see we are on opposite sides of the invading government debate. Sorry, my opinion, which is exactly equal to yours (they both count as 1) is that is a silly debate. It won't happen regardless of Pol Pot.

No problem Leon I am not saying it will happen, and hope it never does. But, alot of gun owners feel their guns are a sort of "safety net" from something like this happening here. I do not own a gun, but I feel responsible people have the right to own any type of firearm they want. It's part of being "free".

Group punishment never works. That is what some people seem to be for.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

No problem Leon I am not saying it will happen, and hope it never does. But, alot of gun owners feel their guns are a sort of "safety net" from something like this happening here. I do not own a gun, but I feel responsible people have the right to own any type of firearm they want. It's part of being "free".

Group punishment never works. That is what some people seem to be for.

Sincerely, Clayton

Sure Clayton, if you could make sure that only the responsible people got them, that would be great. But as things stand, mentally ill people capable of a psychotic rampage, and sane but evil people can get them too.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sure Clayton, if you could make sure that only the responsible people got them, that would be great. But as things stand, mentally ill people capable of a psychotic rampage, and sane but evil people can get them too.

Very true Peter.

I think society is stressed out, and we are seeing the results. The media seems to love pumping the public with fear and tragedy, financial devastation and endless wars, it isn't much of a suprise to me that people who aren't mentally stable are begining to snap.

I hope we as a country can start figuring out a way to heal and find some compassion for everyone who is hurting and struggling. Not just when a horrible tragedy strikes.

Sincerely, Clayton