School Shooting Newtown CT

[IrishLake]

Who is to say they wouldn't? I don't disagree, but I would trust a teacher/aide/custodian/school bus driver with zero military or law enforcement background if they had the proper concealed carry training (and whatever else the powers that be may deem worthy). If all it takes is a shooter seeing a CCW holder pointing their sidearm at them to make them stop, and "burst their bubble" and kill themselves faster or surrender, then I'm for it. All they have to be willing to do is show their weapon, and slow the shooter down. It's been shown that even just seeing another firearm is enough to stop a shooter, not a single shot even needs to be fired by the CCW holder.

[carnation]

The last school where I taught had several men who had been hunters for years. I would trust them with my life.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights.

I'm going to disagree just a bit with this. The problem doesn't come when "solutions" that aren't really solutions are "suggested." The problem comes when solutions that aren't really solutions are adopted. It's a distinction that matters, I think, because the former is focused on inhibiting the discussion while the latter focuses on effective decision-making.

NPR had what I thought was a good interview with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-WV), who has a A-rating from the NRA, on Wednesday. This part particularly resonated with me:

SIEGEL: Can you go so far as to say there should be a real limit, as there used to be, on how big a magazine you can use?

MANCHIN: What I will say is I want to sit down with the people that want 10 or more rounds. I want to hear. I don't know. I want to hear their reasoning, and I think that's a conversation that we need to have, Robert, and I keep saying that.

SIEGEL: What I hear you saying is it's time to sit down and talk with people on all sides, but I don't hear you saying that you're bringing a strong belief in what could or should be banned right now into those talks.

MANCHIN: Robert, I think if we have people coming with preset notions and basically their minds made up, the wrong people are coming to the table. . . . You know, if you can't have - and I told Senator Feinstein. I said, Dianne, you've been working on this for quite some time. It's very near and dear to you, and I respect that. And I want to learn more and see where you're coming from. On the other hand, I want my friends at the NRA and all of us sitting down so you can hear what they're coming and what they see around this country.

I think he's right. If people come to the table with their minds already made up, whether about what the answers are or what the answers aren't, then the wrong people are at the table.

The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level.

Not quite. The Bill of Rights itself only restricts the powers of the federal government, and courts consistently held that until the end of the 19th Century.

But starting the 1920s, courts have held the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, "incorporates" some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and imposes on state and local governments the same restrictions imposed on the federal government. It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

So the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government. Most, but not all portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to have been incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by carnation

The last school where I taught had several men who had been hunters for years. I would trust them with my life.

Men who have been hunting for years =/= man who has never even picked up a gun in a video game who freaks out over this shooting and decides he needs to carry a gun to his classroom.

In other words I agree with adpimiz. Like anything else, I would assume the concealed carry training "takes" better with some than with others.

[carnation]

Oh, I do too. I was just commenting about people who would be great defenders. Dang, my little brother should be one. He's a high school teacher/former Army sharpshooter/avid hunter. I hope he never has to face a crazy school shooter, though.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Men who have been hunting for years =/= man who has never even picked up a gun in a video game who freaks out over this shooting and decides he needs to carry a gun to his classroom.

In other words I agree with adpimiz. Like anything else, I would assume the concealed carry training "takes" better with some than with others.

Exactly. I'm not sure what training is required to get a concealed carry permit, but I wouldn't want a teacher who has taken one class being armed with a weapon.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

Exactly. I'm not sure what training is required to get a concealed carry permit, but I wouldn't want a teacher who has taken one class being armed with a weapon.

Every state is different. However, any school district can set its requirements (or the state can set them for them) in order to carry ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

If the solution is to arm teachers, shouldn't they be teachers who possess military or police training? I think I said it upthread, but a shooter is an active target. When there are children running around, a shooter running around shooting... That's not an easy target to hit. I don't think that a teacher who's taken one gun class would be able to hit an active shooter who was possibly firing back. I've been shooting with my parents before, and have grown up around guns, but I highly doubt I would be much help in that kind of situation, even if I was armed.

Anyone who carries a firearm has extra responsibility. In Harrold, TX there have been armed personel since 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-all...081017416.html

These shooters tend to be cowards. They choose gun-free zones to commit these attacks. I remember an attack at a church in Ft Worth, TX a few years ago, but when a church was attacked in Colorado there was a volunteer 'security guard' who shot the attacker and stopped the attack. We look at the school shooting in Pearl, MS. The assistant principal had to retrieve his gun from the car which allowed more students to die, but when faced with an armed teacher the student surrendered before he could get to the middle school to continue his shooting. I was living in Austin when there was a shooting at the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX. There was a lady, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, in there with her parents. She watched her parents die because she was a law abiding citizen and left her gun in the car and could do nothing. I have defended myself without having to fire a shot. I saved a girlfriend from an abduction using my gun. I didn't have to shot anyone then either. It was me against 5, but the gun made the difference. A moving target is harder to hit, but they tend to stop moving to shoot and distance is a factor in hit probability. Even if the armed teacher shoots high over the shooters head it will distract them from killing the kids. You don't hear about these guys going in and trying to shoot up police stations, gun shows, gun stores, or schools with armed guards. They want unarmed victims.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

SIEGEL: Can you go so far as to say there should be a real limit, as there used to be, on how big a magazine you can use?

I don't see magazine capacity as being an issue. The Browning HP (P-35) has been equiped with a standard 13 round magazine since its introduction in 1935. The S&W mod 59 had a 15 round magazine in 1970. In rifles the M14 went into service in 1959 and the BAR in 1919, with 20 round magazines. How can it be that nearly 100 years later it is a problem? The previous magazine ban sunsetted in 2004. A report was prepared by the Attorney General Office that found that the law had no effect on crime at all and isn't crime what we are trying to effect? Sadly that is not the case for many people. They want guns gone regardless of the effect on crime.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think he's right. If people come to the table with their minds already made up, whether about what the answers are or what the answers aren't, then the wrong people are at the table.

Open minds are important. The other thing to realize is that large population centers on the east and west coast is where you see the anti-gun sentiment. Here in Oklahoma not one county voted for Obama and I know that in Oklahoma and Texas it is not appreciated when the government passes legislation that pleases the coasts. It doesn't always go over here in the middle of the country.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not quite. The Bill of Rights itself only restricts the powers of the federal government, and courts consistently held that until the end of the 19th Century. But starting the 1920s, courts have held the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, "incorporates" some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and imposes on state and local governments the same restrictions imposed on the federal government.

The 14th was passed in 1868 and was the result of some of the enumerated rights be stepped on. IMO the states could not void rights under the Constitution, but it took the 14th Amendment to make it official. I think that the 10th Amendment should have been recognized to identify the rights of 'the people', and the rest were for the states. The 14th was a restatement.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

About time too.

[AGDee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2116162.html

That guy shot up a police precinct in Detroit. I don't know why you think it only happens in gun free zones.

[IrishLake]

That situation sounds like suicide by cop.

[adpimiz]

What bothers me is that people refuse to look at mental illness. I think we can all agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's time we look at the people behind the guns. Why are mass shootings becoming so frequent? What has happened in society that these things happen now, but not thirty years ago? (besides the very rare isolated incident)

[IrishLake]

Media. Fame. Immortality. Coddling. The closing of mental health institutions. Violence in video games and movies. The sense of entitlement we see during recruitment. On and on and on.

[adpimiz]

I know, but I wish people would realize that's what the issue is, not a gun. Because someone who is determined to kill will find a way. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing. Mass casualties without a gun. Getting rid of guns isn't the answer, because a killer will find a way if he or she is determined to do so.

[Jeff OTMG]

As I have said before, with the exception of the attacks on 9/11 and the truck bomb in OKC, the biggest mass killing was when 87 people were killed in a Bronx nightclub fire using 5 gallons of gasoline.

One thing that REALLY irks me is that the media promotes their own agenda. Journalism is non-existent today. It is all about sensationalizing events for ratings at the expense of the victims. I always wondered why the shooter at the mall in Portland only managed to kill two people in a gun free zone before taking his own life. Here it is a week and a half later and I get my answer. I hear about Nick Meli. A 22 year old concealed permit holder who ignored the no gun signs. He took cover and drew his weapon. The shooter had a malfunction and saw Meli with a gun. The shooter retreated into a store. The next shot the shooter fired was when he took his own life.
http://www.examiner.com/article/medi...-armed-citizen

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 Parker middle school dance shooting ended when James Strand apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. Police arrived 11 minutes later.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students, after retrieving firearms from their cars, confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

Why argue against something that has proven effective and still argue for something that, from 1994 to 2004, proved ineffective?

[AGDee]

Jeff, you can find just as many anecdotal incidents for the opposite argument. You can also find many more instances of people being accidentally injured or killed or robbed of their own guns. It is extremely easy for people who want to carry weapons to carry them, if they can pass a background check. I know some extremely hotheaded people with no common sense at all who have CCWs. That scares the hell out of me.

If you force all teachers to be armed, what happens when a teacher is like me and KNOWS that no matter what, they could not pull that trigger and take another human life? What do you do when a teenage boy physically overtakes a teacher and steals her gun and then uses it on her and the other kids in her classroom?

The frequency of mass shootings has dropped adipimiz. You may find this article interesting. http://news.discovery.com/history/ma...ry-121220.html
I think they seem more frequent because we have all these 24 hour news coverage sources and the world in general is smaller as a result.

Everybody carrying a gun everywhere they go isn't the answer. Nobody having guns ever isn't the answer. There is no answer. The world is imperfect. These kinds of things are going to happen. It is sad, it is awful. Some stuff in this world is sad and awful.

Our mental health system does stink. Nobody wants to pay for mental health treatment. If it was better, these things could still happen.