The only thing that can predict shooting is access to a gun. If kids can't get guns, they can't shoot up schools.
While that may well be true, are you really in favor of infringing on law abiding people's rights to try and stop someone who wants to commit a crime?
If we allowed the police to pull people over for no reason, search people's homes for no reason, I have no doubt that we'd find and stop more crime.
However, there are good reasons we don't let them do that.
The right to keep and bear arms overrides your desire to keep guns out of the hands of kids. Only people proven to be law breakers can have rights taken away, people who have done nothing wrong cannot.
Punks are American citizens too, and they too have full second amendment rights. You don't get to decide who has who does not have the right to be armed.
So... they have the right to be armed while in jail serving time?
Don't be silly, there are reasonable limits, just as you can't shout fire in a theater, you can't allow murderers to have guns. (or walk free)
I have no issues with law abiding blacks or Hispanics or South Indian Tamil Brahmin IT professionals having guns.
I have a 6" suppressor for my AR-15, with subsonic ammo it still makes noise, but it no longer sounds quite like a rifle. It would be interesting to run tests to see how this system would respond to that.
And yes, before someone says, "oh my god, you have a silencer, you're evil", it isn't a silencer, it is a suppressor, very few guns really are silent. And it is legal, I have my Class III paperwork and paid my $200 stamp transfer tax and have my sign off from my local sheriff.
I used to own a fully automatic AK-47 (also perfectly legal), but sold it when my kids were born. Full auto is fun, but it is a quick way to turn money into noise, and kids are expensive.
Easy: If the person wishing to own a gun can demonstrate they have a good reason (work, sport, hunting, collecting, etc.) and not "I'm scared!"
That sounds so nice... but it isn't...
Who do they demonstrate it to? What if the person who decides doesn't like the answer? What if the law is on the books, but they never issue permits?
This all already happens, btw, in many places were guns are effectively banned, even if the law says that technically you can have them.
The principle problem with your idea is that it is a violation of human rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not one issued by governments, it is a human right. You can't actually take it away any more than you can take away my right to free speech or freedom of religion.
Oh sure, you can pass laws that say it is illegal, but those laws are just as immorally wrong as laws allowing slavery were 150 years ago.
Now that this incredibly complex problem has been solved in a 65 word slashdot post, how about solving war in the middle east in under 100.
Oh, oh, I love a challenge...
Ok, let me give that a try:
Given the actual situation there today (not how one might wish it were, but how it is), Israel simply needs to annex the West Bank and Gaza and make them part of Israel. They need to offer citizenship to all the people living there if they want it, or a free pass out and $5,000 cash if they want to leave.
It then becomes an internal security problem. The "two state solution" is never going to work, too many bits of land are claimed by both sides, and the hard core Hamas simply don't recognize Israel's right to exist, so they have to go.
People support Hamas because they see no way out, because Hamas sets up schools and health care clinics for the poor, this gets them support among the people. If Israel went in and did the same thing instead of bombing them (which will never work, just look at Afghanistan for the Russians or Vietnam for the Americans), they'd find support.
Yes, but we also stigmatize mental-health treatment heavily in our culture, leading to people not wanting to seek help for their problems because they don't want to be seen as a weirdo or sissy or whatever.
^ This, times ten...
If you have cancer, no one thinks bad of you, you get balloons and get well cards, everyone is on your side to get better.
If you're having mental issues, you're just a "crazy person", which isn't always true, some people just need someone to talk to sometimes. But that isn't ok in our culture.
^ This... One thing I respect about the UK is the concept of health care that is "free at the point of service".
Good healthcare is something that everyone needs. I'm a dyed in the wool Republican, and even I'm for national health care.
It is like the road system, or the water system, or the fire and police departments. We all pay for those because we all need them.
We all need health care (and that includes mental health). So it is a public service that makes all our lives better, just as universal education is better than not having it.
What happened to you happened to me... but I was the kid... I was bullied in middle school, to the point where my male teacher told me, "son, they'll never stop until you stand up to them, just punch one of them and it'll end".
So I did... and got suspended for three days... but you know what? It worked, they never bothered me again.
If he seriously and sincerely believed the cop represented government and tyranny, would he be justified in attacking the cop? With guns if necessary? Do you believe black people should exercise their second amendment rights against government tyranny?
To answer the first question, no he would not... because that doesn't accomplish anything other than to further enhance the stereotype of violent young black men.
To answer the last question, black people should clean up their house, clean up their violent crime problem, become model citizens, and they might well find they no longer HAVE a problem.
I have nothing against civil, educated, polite black people. I'd vote for Collin Powell for President in 2 seconds flat, over most white guys (over Mittens for sure, and I call him that being a Republican)
What I can't stand are punks, of any stripe... white or black, doesn't matter to me...
Another difference is that they had a lot of illegal weapons, those armed men defending Cliven Bundy did not.
The BLM wisely realized that a shootout over cattle grazing might not be the wisest course of action. It would be extreme overkill to introduce violence over a grazing dispute.
Actually, they went in there knowing that bank tellers are trained to hand over the money in the event of a robbery, that they would rather give money than risk employees being killed.
It was the cops that showed up that caused them the problem.
BTW, why is it that every time someone uses a gun for a shooting, the first thing people do is call the good guys who have guns?
If more guns didn't help anything, why do cops have them? After all, cops tend to be terrible shots, they don't practice enough to be good at it.
No, you didn't get to take your gun INTO the school.
I didn't, but my Father did... different time I suppose...
It might work in place like Israel where kids aged 14 start getting military training (firearm control, discipline, discipline, discipline) but in LA? Not so much.
Perhaps Israel is on to something?
---
Putting that aside... we cram millions of kid into "one-size fits all schools" and expect everyone to come out the same on the other end. Someone else pointed out that some kids really hate school and don't do well there. As an adult, if your company sucks and you are treated poorly, you can leave. As a kid, you don't really have a choice.
What if we offered kids the ability to attend different schools and gave them a choice? What if we offered up the money used for kids in public school to allow them to go to private schools, or home school?
What if some kids just aren't cut out for sitting in class 8 hours a day, at the age of 13 or 14, some just want to work on cars, or build stuff... We don't make working a "trade" to be cool anymore, nor do we really give that as an option in schools anymore (the metal shop and work shop in my old high school are gone now, replaced with more classrooms).
Teenagers as a group are somewhat less than stable emotionally.
Maybe, depends on how they are raised...
I know a 14 year old girl who works on a farm and drives a combine, she goes to school, comes home, and has chores and works. She owns several guns and wouldn't hurt a fly, unless hurt first.
You bring up a great point, one that I need to mention more often...
Guns by themselves can be a problem when responsible and safe gun ownership is not taught and held to a high esteem.
I teach my kids about guns, my 9 year old son has his own gun, my 6 year old daughter will get one when she turns 8, but I make it clear how to handle them safely every single time we bring them out.
Guns are a tool that can be very useful, but just like a chainsaw, will kill you just as fast if you're foolish with them.
Respect them, handle them safely, etc... They are to only be used in defense, never for attack. To use them for attack is evil and wrong and is simply unacceptable for any reason whatsoever.
You are completely correct, if you could take his gun away before he got there, you're right, he couldn't have killed all those people.
Then we come back to, "should people be armed?"
To which my answer is, yes, they should be, it is a right, given to us by our creator. Any government that tries to take it away is violating our human rights.
You might disagree, and that is ok, I respect your right to disagree. In a civil society, we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
At the risk of going against the general feeling, here in the UK we don't have any guns, and we have remarkably few school shootings. I honestly don't think that bringing more guns to the mix would make us safer.
I won't go on any rants here, I get your view point. I understand that you're likely a very sensible person who is thinking quite rationally about it. Guns aren't good or evil, they are tools. How they are used is what counts.
I will say, we have a second amendment because of your government, the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired when British Red Coats tried to seize a militia weapons cache.
Any time you think about America and guns, it is worth remembering that point.:)
However the US has the problem that it already tolerates guns, so you need to find a different solution.
How about we start with teaching people right from wrong, how about we start with parenting and being inclusive instead of exclusive?
How about we improve our mental health care system and provide support to troubled people?
Taking it to the extreme, I could probably hand you a nuclear weapon, you'd just look at it and say, "what the heck am I supposed to do with this?", and go put it in the basement. You wouldn't suddenly have crazy murderous ideas just because you have a nuke, any more than a gun would do that to you.
You're right crazy and want to kill people, or you don't. Yes, yes, I get that guns make it easier. But do we want to live in a world where we remove the rights of good people to prevent a few bad people from doing stuff?
This is not trolling or flamebait, but I personally find it very hard to justify that law: overthrowing a bad government would take more than just shooting a bunch of old men in the White House, you'd need to take on the military, and they have tanks
I hear this argument all the time... Yes, the military has tanks... The US military has one of the largest, most powerful tank forces in the world, we have over 8,000 M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks. We also have almost 10 million square kilometers of land, those tanks can't be everywhere.
In the 80s, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanisan and got its butt kicked by 12th century fighters on camels. In the 70s, the United States fought a war using B-52 bombers against Vietcon on bicycles and lost.
Don't assume that millions of people with basic rifles can't fight tanks, numbers do matter. The tanks can't be everywhere. And frankly, given some time, you'll end up taking some of those tanks away from the military. Less than 30 miles from where I live is a National Guard Depot. There are perhaps 50 tanks parked there, behind a pair of chain link fences and some barbed wire, guarded by perhaps 20-30 soldiers.
Do you honestly think that if a few hundred civilians with rifles showed up those 20-30 soldiers would last very long without warning?
Instant tanks for us, and the bunkers below ground have the ammo.
This is not secret, we have such caches stored all over the county, and if there was a revolt, some of those soldiers might join us (they are citizens too).
Is this going to happen tomorrow? No, of course not... I'm simply making the counter point to the "but the military has tanks" argument as to why we need those guns.
We used to be a British colony. We revolted for many reasons. Anyone who thinks the current government of America will last forever (or perhaps for thousands of years) doesn't know their history. It may not even be a revolt, it might be the military turning on the civilian leadership (which is against the Constitution, but that wouldn't slow them down), or it might be non-violent and we might decide to amend our current Constitution.
Armed teenagers? Really? Listen to yourself. Please. It's sad.
I was given my first gun when I was 8 years old, I've been shooting my whole life.
I was teased and not very popular in middle school, yet I would never in a million years have taken one of my guns (which I had access to) to school and shot anyone. You just... don't do that, it is wrong and evil...
But then I was raised by parents who taught me right and wrong and I would never have considered such a thing acceptable.
Maybe part of the problem starts at home? Too many parents want to be their kid's best friend and not their parent? Maybe being a parent is work and they don't want to do it? I'm no parenting expert, all I know is that I spend time with my kids every day and make sure I know who their friends are.
My 9 year old son has a rifle, he has learned proper shooting skills and respect for weapons, and I never, ever take him shooting without talking about the right and wrong ways to use guns, and that they are defensive weapons only, only to be used if someone physically attacks you first.
A gun in a desk drawer is useless, it is either on you, or it is useless.
The Texas Concealed Handgun Law was passed because of a shooting at a restaurant. The woman who was there had a gun, 50 feet away in the glovebox in her truck. She watched both her parents executed by the gunman who then passed her by and shot others.
It doesn't matter where you put guns, detectors, or anything else. All you can do is move the problem around.
Actually, I do agree with you, either arming teachers or putting police at schools might well move the shooters somewhere else, but you're right, it doesn't solve the problem.
Other than to stop school shootings.:) That was my point, was to make it an unattractive target. Actually fixing the core issue was the mental health park.
People who seek mental health treatment are still stigmatized for doing so
This is a wise point, no one looks down on you if you get cancer and need treatment, you get cards and flowers and balloons and everyone "understands".
If you need to talk to someone about your feelings, then you're just crazy and no one understands.
Which is why we have this problem. It needs to be ok to say, "Doc, I'm feeling all depressed and wound up, sometimes I have crazy thoughts, can we talk about it?" and not have it be an issue.
I think sometimes people just want someone to listen, these shooters are often loners who didn't have friends, or many friends, they didn't feel understood, and were bullied and treated like crap by others.
That ALSO shouldn't be acceptable, and it needs to start with the cool kids. The cheerleaders and jocks and whoever else is popular these days need to step up and take some leadership responsibility to put out the message that bullies will not be tolerated and that everyone is deserving of human decency and respect.
When I went to school, it was a large district, my high school had over 3,000 kids in a three grade school (about 1,100 kids per grade).
We had a off-duty police officer at the school, he even had his own office and he was armed. We had a gang problem in school and fights were not that uncommon. After school on a Friday, just before the football game, it came to blows in the parking lot, one rival gang drove through the parking lot and gunned down another with shotguns. But that was at 6pm well after school hours, and it wasn't inside the school.
While we had petty crime, even drugs being sold between classes, no one shot anyone. The cop was already there. I suspect that he already knew who to keep an eye on and was focused more on serious crimes than petty stuff like pot, but I was 17, what did I know.:)
Yep, when is the last time the police actually confronted and stopped the shooter?
Yea, it happens... but just as often, if not more often, some teacher tackles the kid, or as you say, he runs out of bullets, or he shoots himself so he doesn't have to live with what he just did...
Something worth considering... When is the last time a school shooter was a girl? Why is that? No one wants to talk about gender roles anymore, we're all the "same".
That is silly, we CLEARLY aren't the same, yet we keep saying, "no, no, everyone can do everything and both genders are equal".
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing that can predict shooting is access to a gun. If kids can't get guns, they can't shoot up schools.
While that may well be true, are you really in favor of infringing on law abiding people's rights to try and stop someone who wants to commit a crime?
If we allowed the police to pull people over for no reason, search people's homes for no reason, I have no doubt that we'd find and stop more crime.
However, there are good reasons we don't let them do that.
The right to keep and bear arms overrides your desire to keep guns out of the hands of kids. Only people proven to be law breakers can have rights taken away, people who have done nothing wrong cannot.
A lot of doctors who deal with these shootings say that the best way to stop them would be to reduce access to guns.
Just curious, but what makes a doctor an expert on that subject? :)
I would go to them if shot, because they are an expert in doing something about the injury, but not the cause.
Punks are American citizens too, and they too have full second amendment rights. You don't get to decide who has who does not have the right to be armed.
So... they have the right to be armed while in jail serving time?
Don't be silly, there are reasonable limits, just as you can't shout fire in a theater, you can't allow murderers to have guns. (or walk free)
I have no issues with law abiding blacks or Hispanics or South Indian Tamil Brahmin IT professionals having guns.
Subsonic ammo and suppressors remove that...
I have a 6" suppressor for my AR-15, with subsonic ammo it still makes noise, but it no longer sounds quite like a rifle. It would be interesting to run tests to see how this system would respond to that.
And yes, before someone says, "oh my god, you have a silencer, you're evil", it isn't a silencer, it is a suppressor, very few guns really are silent. And it is legal, I have my Class III paperwork and paid my $200 stamp transfer tax and have my sign off from my local sheriff.
I used to own a fully automatic AK-47 (also perfectly legal), but sold it when my kids were born. Full auto is fun, but it is a quick way to turn money into noise, and kids are expensive.
Easy: If the person wishing to own a gun can demonstrate they have a good reason (work, sport, hunting, collecting, etc.) and not "I'm scared!"
That sounds so nice... but it isn't...
Who do they demonstrate it to? What if the person who decides doesn't like the answer? What if the law is on the books, but they never issue permits?
This all already happens, btw, in many places were guns are effectively banned, even if the law says that technically you can have them.
The principle problem with your idea is that it is a violation of human rights. The right to keep and bear arms is not one issued by governments, it is a human right. You can't actually take it away any more than you can take away my right to free speech or freedom of religion.
Oh sure, you can pass laws that say it is illegal, but those laws are just as immorally wrong as laws allowing slavery were 150 years ago.
Now that this incredibly complex problem has been solved in a 65 word slashdot post, how about solving war in the middle east in under 100.
Oh, oh, I love a challenge...
Ok, let me give that a try:
Given the actual situation there today (not how one might wish it were, but how it is), Israel simply needs to annex the West Bank and Gaza and make them part of Israel. They need to offer citizenship to all the people living there if they want it, or a free pass out and $5,000 cash if they want to leave.
It then becomes an internal security problem. The "two state solution" is never going to work, too many bits of land are claimed by both sides, and the hard core Hamas simply don't recognize Israel's right to exist, so they have to go.
People support Hamas because they see no way out, because Hamas sets up schools and health care clinics for the poor, this gets them support among the people. If Israel went in and did the same thing instead of bombing them (which will never work, just look at Afghanistan for the Russians or Vietnam for the Americans), they'd find support.
Yes, but we also stigmatize mental-health treatment heavily in our culture, leading to people not wanting to seek help for their problems because they don't want to be seen as a weirdo or sissy or whatever.
^ This, times ten...
If you have cancer, no one thinks bad of you, you get balloons and get well cards, everyone is on your side to get better.
If you're having mental issues, you're just a "crazy person", which isn't always true, some people just need someone to talk to sometimes. But that isn't ok in our culture.
^ This... One thing I respect about the UK is the concept of health care that is "free at the point of service".
Good healthcare is something that everyone needs. I'm a dyed in the wool Republican, and even I'm for national health care.
It is like the road system, or the water system, or the fire and police departments. We all pay for those because we all need them.
We all need health care (and that includes mental health). So it is a public service that makes all our lives better, just as universal education is better than not having it.
^ You sir, deserve double mod points...
What happened to you happened to me... but I was the kid... I was bullied in middle school, to the point where my male teacher told me, "son, they'll never stop until you stand up to them, just punch one of them and it'll end".
So I did... and got suspended for three days... but you know what? It worked, they never bothered me again.
It is sad that was what it took...
Time for a change?
Yes, but not the one you're thinking of.
You see, the problem you have, is that firearm ownership is a right, just like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
There is not, and cannot be, a change to that right, so you can't go there without running into that issue.
If he seriously and sincerely believed the cop represented government and tyranny, would he be justified in attacking the cop? With guns if necessary? Do you believe black people should exercise their second amendment rights against government tyranny?
To answer the first question, no he would not... because that doesn't accomplish anything other than to further enhance the stereotype of violent young black men.
To answer the last question, black people should clean up their house, clean up their violent crime problem, become model citizens, and they might well find they no longer HAVE a problem.
I have nothing against civil, educated, polite black people. I'd vote for Collin Powell for President in 2 seconds flat, over most white guys (over Mittens for sure, and I call him that being a Republican)
What I can't stand are punks, of any stripe... white or black, doesn't matter to me...
I assume your father was white.
My Father went to school before 1964, it was another time...
But even back then it wasn't so simple as you make it out to be... Maybe in 1864 it was, but not 1964...
White men gather together with weapons and point them at federal agents to protect a tax cheat. Nothing happens to them.
Regarding Cliven Bundy, those armed men were behaving in a civil manner and spoke with authorities rather than shooting at them.
If you doubt that, most of the people in Waco, TX were white, and the FBI brought in tanks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Another difference is that they had a lot of illegal weapons, those armed men defending Cliven Bundy did not.
The BLM wisely realized that a shootout over cattle grazing might not be the wisest course of action. It would be extreme overkill to introduce violence over a grazing dispute.
Well, ideally we wouldn't do THAT...
I'd rather address the reasons why we have kids in that situation to begin with...
But for some reason, we don't want to do that...
Actually, they went in there knowing that bank tellers are trained to hand over the money in the event of a robbery, that they would rather give money than risk employees being killed.
It was the cops that showed up that caused them the problem.
BTW, why is it that every time someone uses a gun for a shooting, the first thing people do is call the good guys who have guns?
If more guns didn't help anything, why do cops have them? After all, cops tend to be terrible shots, they don't practice enough to be good at it.
No, you didn't get to take your gun INTO the school.
I didn't, but my Father did... different time I suppose...
It might work in place like Israel where kids aged 14 start getting military training (firearm control, discipline, discipline, discipline) but in LA? Not so much.
Perhaps Israel is on to something?
---
Putting that aside... we cram millions of kid into "one-size fits all schools" and expect everyone to come out the same on the other end. Someone else pointed out that some kids really hate school and don't do well there. As an adult, if your company sucks and you are treated poorly, you can leave. As a kid, you don't really have a choice.
What if we offered kids the ability to attend different schools and gave them a choice? What if we offered up the money used for kids in public school to allow them to go to private schools, or home school?
What if some kids just aren't cut out for sitting in class 8 hours a day, at the age of 13 or 14, some just want to work on cars, or build stuff... We don't make working a "trade" to be cool anymore, nor do we really give that as an option in schools anymore (the metal shop and work shop in my old high school are gone now, replaced with more classrooms).
Teenagers as a group are somewhat less than stable emotionally.
Maybe, depends on how they are raised...
I know a 14 year old girl who works on a farm and drives a combine, she goes to school, comes home, and has chores and works. She owns several guns and wouldn't hurt a fly, unless hurt first.
What happened to that way of life?
Amen...
You bring up a great point, one that I need to mention more often...
Guns by themselves can be a problem when responsible and safe gun ownership is not taught and held to a high esteem.
I teach my kids about guns, my 9 year old son has his own gun, my 6 year old daughter will get one when she turns 8, but I make it clear how to handle them safely every single time we bring them out.
Guns are a tool that can be very useful, but just like a chainsaw, will kill you just as fast if you're foolish with them.
Respect them, handle them safely, etc... They are to only be used in defense, never for attack. To use them for attack is evil and wrong and is simply unacceptable for any reason whatsoever.
You are completely correct, if you could take his gun away before he got there, you're right, he couldn't have killed all those people.
Then we come back to, "should people be armed?"
To which my answer is, yes, they should be, it is a right, given to us by our creator. Any government that tries to take it away is violating our human rights.
You might disagree, and that is ok, I respect your right to disagree. In a civil society, we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
At the risk of going against the general feeling, here in the UK we don't have any guns, and we have remarkably few school shootings. I honestly don't think that bringing more guns to the mix would make us safer.
I won't go on any rants here, I get your view point. I understand that you're likely a very sensible person who is thinking quite rationally about it. Guns aren't good or evil, they are tools. How they are used is what counts.
I will say, we have a second amendment because of your government, the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired when British Red Coats tried to seize a militia weapons cache.
Any time you think about America and guns, it is worth remembering that point. :)
However the US has the problem that it already tolerates guns, so you need to find a different solution.
How about we start with teaching people right from wrong, how about we start with parenting and being inclusive instead of exclusive?
How about we improve our mental health care system and provide support to troubled people?
Taking it to the extreme, I could probably hand you a nuclear weapon, you'd just look at it and say, "what the heck am I supposed to do with this?", and go put it in the basement. You wouldn't suddenly have crazy murderous ideas just because you have a nuke, any more than a gun would do that to you.
You're right crazy and want to kill people, or you don't. Yes, yes, I get that guns make it easier. But do we want to live in a world where we remove the rights of good people to prevent a few bad people from doing stuff?
This is not trolling or flamebait, but I personally find it very hard to justify that law: overthrowing a bad government would take more than just shooting a bunch of old men in the White House, you'd need to take on the military, and they have tanks
I hear this argument all the time... Yes, the military has tanks... The US military has one of the largest, most powerful tank forces in the world, we have over 8,000 M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks. We also have almost 10 million square kilometers of land, those tanks can't be everywhere.
In the 80s, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanisan and got its butt kicked by 12th century fighters on camels. In the 70s, the United States fought a war using B-52 bombers against Vietcon on bicycles and lost.
Don't assume that millions of people with basic rifles can't fight tanks, numbers do matter. The tanks can't be everywhere. And frankly, given some time, you'll end up taking some of those tanks away from the military. Less than 30 miles from where I live is a National Guard Depot. There are perhaps 50 tanks parked there, behind a pair of chain link fences and some barbed wire, guarded by perhaps 20-30 soldiers.
Do you honestly think that if a few hundred civilians with rifles showed up those 20-30 soldiers would last very long without warning?
Instant tanks for us, and the bunkers below ground have the ammo.
This is not secret, we have such caches stored all over the county, and if there was a revolt, some of those soldiers might join us (they are citizens too).
Is this going to happen tomorrow? No, of course not... I'm simply making the counter point to the "but the military has tanks" argument as to why we need those guns.
We used to be a British colony. We revolted for many reasons. Anyone who thinks the current government of America will last forever (or perhaps for thousands of years) doesn't know their history. It may not even be a revolt, it might be the military turning on the civilian leadership (which is against the Constitution, but that wouldn't slow them down), or it might be non-violent and we might decide to amend our current Constitution.
Armed teenagers? Really? Listen to yourself. Please. It's sad.
I was given my first gun when I was 8 years old, I've been shooting my whole life.
I was teased and not very popular in middle school, yet I would never in a million years have taken one of my guns (which I had access to) to school and shot anyone. You just... don't do that, it is wrong and evil...
But then I was raised by parents who taught me right and wrong and I would never have considered such a thing acceptable.
Maybe part of the problem starts at home? Too many parents want to be their kid's best friend and not their parent? Maybe being a parent is work and they don't want to do it? I'm no parenting expert, all I know is that I spend time with my kids every day and make sure I know who their friends are.
My 9 year old son has a rifle, he has learned proper shooting skills and respect for weapons, and I never, ever take him shooting without talking about the right and wrong ways to use guns, and that they are defensive weapons only, only to be used if someone physically attacks you first.
Arming more people is not necessarily the answer
To the overall problem of shooters? No, it isn't...
But the idea is to make the location an unattractive target so they don't try.
If they know that 5 to 10 teachers are armed, they may not get very far. Thus they might not try.
I do NOT want a shootout at school, I have kids in school, that isn't a good idea either. The idea is to make them think twice.
A gun in a desk drawer is useless, it is either on you, or it is useless.
The Texas Concealed Handgun Law was passed because of a shooting at a restaurant. The woman who was there had a gun, 50 feet away in the glovebox in her truck. She watched both her parents executed by the gunman who then passed her by and shot others.
A gun is not useful if you're not wearing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
It doesn't matter where you put guns, detectors, or anything else. All you can do is move the problem around.
Actually, I do agree with you, either arming teachers or putting police at schools might well move the shooters somewhere else, but you're right, it doesn't solve the problem.
Other than to stop school shootings. :) That was my point, was to make it an unattractive target. Actually fixing the core issue was the mental health park.
People who seek mental health treatment are still stigmatized for doing so
This is a wise point, no one looks down on you if you get cancer and need treatment, you get cards and flowers and balloons and everyone "understands".
If you need to talk to someone about your feelings, then you're just crazy and no one understands.
Which is why we have this problem. It needs to be ok to say, "Doc, I'm feeling all depressed and wound up, sometimes I have crazy thoughts, can we talk about it?" and not have it be an issue.
I think sometimes people just want someone to listen, these shooters are often loners who didn't have friends, or many friends, they didn't feel understood, and were bullied and treated like crap by others.
That ALSO shouldn't be acceptable, and it needs to start with the cool kids. The cheerleaders and jocks and whoever else is popular these days need to step up and take some leadership responsibility to put out the message that bullies will not be tolerated and that everyone is deserving of human decency and respect.
When I went to school, it was a large district, my high school had over 3,000 kids in a three grade school (about 1,100 kids per grade).
We had a off-duty police officer at the school, he even had his own office and he was armed. We had a gang problem in school and fights were not that uncommon. After school on a Friday, just before the football game, it came to blows in the parking lot, one rival gang drove through the parking lot and gunned down another with shotguns. But that was at 6pm well after school hours, and it wasn't inside the school.
While we had petty crime, even drugs being sold between classes, no one shot anyone. The cop was already there. I suspect that he already knew who to keep an eye on and was focused more on serious crimes than petty stuff like pot, but I was 17, what did I know. :)
Yep, when is the last time the police actually confronted and stopped the shooter?
Yea, it happens... but just as often, if not more often, some teacher tackles the kid, or as you say, he runs out of bullets, or he shoots himself so he doesn't have to live with what he just did...
Something worth considering... When is the last time a school shooter was a girl? Why is that? No one wants to talk about gender roles anymore, we're all the "same".
That is silly, we CLEARLY aren't the same, yet we keep saying, "no, no, everyone can do everything and both genders are equal".