O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[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.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterent.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

If their ultimate goal is to commit suicide, then wouldn't the strong possibility of being disabled and apprehended using a stun gun, be more of a deterent.

I disagree with your hypothetical, but my answer in such a scenario would be 'no'.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

The idiot that shot congresswoman Giffords would not have passed a mentle health background check. The problem in Arizona is that guns have invaded every level of society and there is little checking done. I remember working at an animal hospital in Tucson and 2 Saturdays in a row we had men in their mid 70's show up with hand guns strapped to their sides. Why do people feel the need to bring a handgun into a veterinary hospital other than the reason "because I have it and can do it"? Arizona still thinks the Wild West is still alive and nobody can take their guns away. Glad I do not live there any more
.

[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.