School Shooting Newtown CT

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The problem with the idea of teachers conceal carrying is that the more likely occurence than them saving a room full of children from a lone gunman would be that their gun would be used to accidentally or intentionally injur a child in their care. It happens to the most well meaning gun owners in their own homes, but having this happen in a classroom would start a firestorm that would eclipse anything you've seen before. Also, parents have the right NOT to leave their children in the care of someone with a gun. It's dangerous. Accidents do happen. More often than gunmen break into schools.

The only way for a gun to fire is to pull the trigger. If a gun is in a holster, and nobody touches it, it will not go off. Cops do have accidental discharges, but that is usually in the locker room when they are readying a firearm to go on duty. As in Texas, and probably Israel, the children never see a firearm. In the US we are all in the care of people with guns. The police, so like it or not they are there.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I agree and have no problem if the context is provided. All too often, particularly early on, it isn't though.

Yes, I know what's in the Declaration of Indendence and the Constitution, and I imagine everyone else here does, too. I don't think there's much misunderstanding. It's just that as much as I revere the Declaration of Independence and what it stands for, I don't consider it authoritative when it comes to theology. I'm guessing others may feel the same way.

In the parlance of the late 18th Century,the right to "the pursuit of Happiness" refers not to the ability to do what we like to do, but to security of wellbeing. The Second Amendment in that context arises from the 18th Century experience that (1) firearms can be necessary for defense and for the precurement of food, both of which are part of security of wellbeing, and (2) that security of wellbeing is threatened when the government can deprive people of the ability to defend themselves or to procure food.

Hunting rifles, which is what the post people have responded mentioned, in a 21st Century context do not necessarily fit that understanding.

Right you are. I went back to reread and the comments were directed toward hunting rifles and the Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But it's time to have serious discussions with no sacred cows. If the gun lobby is going to offer nothing more than stupidity like "this is why teachers need to be armed" and is going to fight even the most reasonable restrictions and requirements, then they are part of the problem, pure and simple. (But be clear, not all of the problem by any means.)

I absolutely think that gun control should be discussed. I just can't, for the life of me, think of a law that would have protected those kids. As I said before, even if you suddenly make guns disappear so you can't even get one by killing a cop, how do you stop a knife wielding psycho from stabbing 6 year olds? How do you prevent them from chaining exit doors and firebombing the school with gasoline? What law prevents it? I do not propose to arm all teachers, but it worked in Pearl, MS and has worked in Israel. I cannot prove a deterrent affect in Texas as it is unknown how many teachers are actually armed.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I do not propose to arm all teachers, but it worked in Pearl, MS and has worked in Israel.

In Israel, all teachers have had extensive gun training in their minimum 2 years (for women) or 3 years (for men) of military training.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

In Israel, all teachers have had extensive gun training in their minimum 2 years (for women) or 3 years (for men) of military training.

And in Pearl, the gun the assistant principal used had to be retrieved from his car; it was not the in school.

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I absolutely think that gun control should be discussed. I just can't, for the life of me, think of a law that would have protected those kids. As I said before, even if you suddenly make guns disappear so you can't even get one by killing a cop, how do you stop a knife wielding psycho from stabbing 6 year olds? How do you prevent them from chaining exit doors and firebombing the school with gasoline? What law prevents it?

Like I said, you can't stop these things completely. The "what ifs" can go on forever. What if the assistant principal in Pearl who got his gun out of his car had been the first person the shooter killed?

The problem is that all too often the "what law could possibly work?" line stops the discussion. The answer is "I don't know. Let's put lots of informed heads together and see what we can figure out."

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

In Israel, all teachers have had extensive gun training in their minimum 2 years (for women) or 3 years (for men) of military training.

This. I do think that if the solution is to arm someone in the school, it would need to be someone with extensive training. I am not anti-gun, and I do not think more gun control is the answer to preventing mass shootings. However, I don't know how much it would help to arm teachers. If someone comes into a teacher's classroom with a gun, the teacher would have to be able to react quickly enough to grab his/her gun and pull the trigger, before possibly getting shot themselves. Not only would they have to react quickly, they would also have to hit their target - not an easy feat when children are probably running around, the shooter is firing, and there is just complete chaos. Someone who carries, but has very little experience, may not be able to react effectively in this situation.

Like I said, I am not anti-gun. I don't think gun control laws can prevent shootings like this. But, I'm not sure that arming teachers is the answer. It's a much more complicated theory than it may seem.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

In the US we are all in the care of people with guns. The police, so like it or not they are there.

Who are highly trained and carefully screened, yet there are still incidents with the improper use of firearms by this very select group. Not sure I would want random teachers around children armed honestly. I also feel that while people should have access to firearms if they have a need, most people who carry weapons have no need to do so. Hunting rifles to help feed your family, yes. Handguns so that you can feel like a badass? no. I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination, and I do quite enjoy it. However I think people kind of overstate the "right to bear arms."

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And in Pearl, the gun the assistant principal used had to be retrieved from his car; it was not the in school.

True, which was why he was not able to stop the killing sooner. At least he got to the shooter before he left for the middle school.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The problem is that all too often the "what law could possibly work?" line stops the discussion. The answer is "I don't know. Let's put lots of informed heads together and see what we can figure out."

I agree.

Originally Posted by adpimiz

This. I do think that if the solution is to arm someone in the school, it would need to be someone with extensive training.

Anyone carrying a firearm in public should be trained. Police officers or deputies would be fine, but they have to be there. The govt run Flight Deck Officer program has been successful arming airline pilots for nearly 10 years. El Al has done this for decades.

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I don't know how much it would help to arm teachers..

Arming private citizens has worked in the past. From Austin, TX in 1966 to Pearl, MS in 1997 to West Virginia law school in 2002.

Originally Posted by adpimiz

If someone comes into a teacher's classroom with a gun, the teacher would have to be able to react quickly enough to grab his/her gun and pull the trigger, before possibly getting shot themselves.

Yes, but that would be if the shooter snuck into the school and went to that teacher first. In this shooting the psycho shot out the window to get into the school. Everyone heard it. When the shooting started it wasn't at people. Columbine was the same way. The teachers were not the first to be shot. To have it not be effective the shooter would have to neutralize all the potential threats before going after the children. Unlikely.

Originally Posted by adpimiz

But, I'm not sure that arming teachers is the answer. It's a much more complicated theory than it may seem.

I am not sure that is the answer either, let alone the only answer. As an aside, I just saw the news and Oklahoma is no looking at legislation to allow qualified teachers to carry at school.

Originally Posted by SigKapSweetie

Just having officers with guns at the door may do a lot to deter those who are looking for a 'soft' target. Nothing says "Attack here, helpless people inside!" like the Gun-Free Zone signs outside of our schools.

It would probably be effective and sadly it may be necessary.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I also feel that while people should have access to firearms if they have a need, most people who carry weapons have no need to do so.

The problem is that we never know when that need will arise. If we did we would never carry and just not go where we knew there was going to be a problem. Just like auto insurance or home owners. I have not had an accident in 35 years and the only home owners claim I had was a roof due to hail about 10 years ago. Had I known that I would have saved thousands of dollars on insurance. With all the vehicles I have now I would save thousands of dollars a year now, but you won't catch me without auto or homeowners insurance. Same with a gun. When I have needed one, I was VERY happy to have been able to put a stop to the violence and never had to fire a shot. But I would have if needed.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Hunting rifles to help feed your family, yes.

We don't need hunting rifles. I rarely shoot a rifle. I don't hunt. You can go to a store if you need food. When I do shoot a rifle it is an MSR, Modern Sporting Rifle. Some call it an assault rifle, even if it isn't. They are popular for hunting. Down in Texas an MSR in .458 SOCOM or .500 Beowolf is the popular choice for hunting deadly wild hogs.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Handguns so that you can feel like a badass? no. I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination, and I do quite enjoy it. However I think people kind of overstate the "right to bear arms."

I don't carry to feel like a badass. I carry to feel safe. I have found myself in bad situations. I grew up differently. I was a target at age five and grew up having to be careful so was trained in firearms use beginning at age six. The right to bear arms is not over stated. There are very specific reasons why the Second Amendment was written and fireamrs like the military uses are actually the specific firearms intended to be protected.
In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

If you don't know what the Militia is you can find it in USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
...
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I don't need hunting rifles. I rarely shoot a rifle. I don't hunt. I can go to a store if I need food. When I do shoot a rifle it is an MSR, Modern Sporting Rifle. Some call it an assault rifle, even if it isn't. They are popular for hunting. Down in Texas an MSR in .458 SOCOM or .500 Beowolf is the popular choice for hunting deadly wild hogs.

FYP. I actually know people who are poor enough that if they want to eat meat, they have to put it on the table themselves. Yes the start-up cost is more, buying the weapon especially, but once you do, it's cheaper on a pound for pound basis to eat game, especially if you do your own butchering. Granted these type of people aren't the norm, and most people who hunt do it purely for sport. But sustenance hunting is not yet completely gone in the US, especially in Rural areas.

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I don't carry to feel like a badass. I carry to feel safe. I have found myself in bad situations. I grew up differently. I was a target at age five and grew up having to be careful so was trained in firearms use beginning at age six.

I do not know your situation so I won't comment on it specifically, but many people who carry a firearm for defense have no substantial chance that they will be in a life or death situation that requires a firearm.

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

The right to bear arms is not over stated. There are very specific reasons why the Second Amendment was written and fireamrs like the military uses are actually the specific firearms intended to be protected.
In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

And here is where things get tricky. First off, the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the power of the federal government, not the state governments. Second it is argueable that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to what is need to maintain a militia. Discussion of the Second Amendment is difficult because a militia in the sense that it existed in the several states before federation does not exist any more. Keeping that in mind, there have been legal opinions issued stating that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to military duties as part of the militia.