O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[Leon]

Originally Posted by CowboysGuide

Okay...I get that, but it's not really people in homes that have the need for protection. Sure 'bad guys' break into homes to steal stuff and do on occasion commit murder, but what gun law could be changed to allow firearms in schools? Schools that have our childeren and young adults. Should admin. staff be trained and pack heat? How about shopping malls, or movie theaters? I doubt any laws would deter the mentally ill.

I at least want to give my view on this. My daughter is a sophomore in high school in N.Texas. I love her more than anything in this world. If I got to vote for her principal and asst. principal to be able to carry a gun on campus I would vote YES all day long. Why limit the guns to people doing bad stuff? I don't get it. Is it a perfect answer, no, but there isn't a perfect answer. And if some crazy person goes to her school with a gun to shoot my daughter, I would want the admin to be able to defend her, the other students and themselves. Just my opinion and I know there are as many against it as are for it.

[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 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


.

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

I at least want to give my view on this. My daughter is a sophomore in high school in N.Texas. I love her more than anything in this world. If I got to vote for her principal and asst. principal to be able to carry a gun on campus I would vote YES all day long. Why limit the guns to people doing bad stuff? I don't get it. Is it a perfect answer, no, but there isn't a perfect answer. And if some crazy person goes to her school with a gun to shoot my daughter, I would want the admin to be able to defend her, the other students and themselves. Just my opinion and I know there are as many against it as are for it.

Agreed. If nothing else, why coudn't we have armed guards at the entrances of the schools? It's sad that it has come to that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect the kids (and teachers too).

Edited to add: Or better yet, we could have armed military personnel at the schools. As we bring them back from Afghanistan and Iraq, let's put a few in each of our schools. It may sound extreme, but unfortunately I think it's come to that.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Agreed. If nothing else, why coudn't we have armed guards at the entrances of the schools? It's sad that it has come to that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect the kids (and teachers too).

Edited to add: Or better yet, we could have armed military personnel at the schools. As we bring them back from Afghanistan and Iraq, let's put a few in each of our schools. It may sound extreme, but unfortunately I think it's come to that.

I was at lunch with Rich Klein a little while ago (approximately 30 minutes ) and we were discussing this. His wife is a teacher here at a High School in North Texas. They have an armed guard every day at their school. And the school isn't even in a bad part of town, so to speak.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Edited to add: Or better yet, we could have armed military personnel at the schools. As we bring them back from Afghanistan and Iraq, let's put a few in each of our schools. It may sound extreme, but unfortunately I think it's come to that.

All you need is one veteran with untreated PSTD to go on a rampage.. or a principle/teacher who had a really bad day.

It seems to me everyone is looking for a solution without taking guns out of the picture. Why don't we create a world where guns are no longer needed or readily available? Is that so bad?

[Texxxx]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

All you need is one veteran with untreated PSTD to go on a rampage.. or a principle/teacher who had a really bad day.

It seems to me everyone is looking for a solution without taking guns out of the picture. Why don't we create a world where guns are no longer needed or readily available? Is that so bad?

You dream of a utopian world. As long as humans are involved utopia can not happen. We are a flawed species and that want change.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

All you need is one veteran with untreated PSTD to go on a rampage.. or a principle/teacher who had a really bad day.

It seems to me everyone is looking for a solution without taking guns out of the picture. Why don't we create a world where guns are no longer needed or readily available? Is that so bad?

Ideally, that would be nice. But as soon as we put ourselves in a position where they are no longer needed or readily available, we will find ourselves in a position where they ARE needed...

I'm gonna throw out an idea, and if it comes to be used. I want f*cking paid..Because our government clowns have yet to think of a good system..

Now, for the teachers/administrators with guns thing. I for one like the idea, but am willing to admit that there will be enough people opposed to it that it'll probably never happen. At the very least, why can't a stun-gun system be implemented though.. Maybe an electronic lock system with one in every room. Teachers and other school personnel can each carry a universal electronic swipe card that will only be "active", once a master code is punched in from the principals office. Cards never leave the school, and would be handed in and the system reprogrammed at the end of every school day.