• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

County schools checking safety plans - The Galveston County Daily News : Local News

October 25, 2014

County schools checking safety plans

No county school district on state’s noncompliance list

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

110 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • sverige1 posted at 10:50 am on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Very true. Boner wasn't in the category of the vile 'republicans' - well, not really. He'll get outsted. Very similar to that Stowe woman from the northeast. She had enough and called it "quits".

    I think Hutchenson was feeling the same way, but didn't want to vocalize it. I was watching an old footage of Bush #1's inaugural. He's another republican from the past who doesn't fit the "venomous" catagory. Heck, even Gingrinch is realizing that the repubs need to back off on the anti-gay thing.

     
  • Margurite posted at 12:52 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    No Lars - they will eat him alive just like the eat the rest of thier young. The fringe is in charge and they will fry anyone in thier way. Look at poor Boehner - the moderates are dead and the fringe killed them.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:35 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Kudos to McChrystal. At least since he shares some of the background of the "call to arms-type" people, so b/c of that maybe the gun nuts will listen to some reason. It's kind of like having an uncle who you've always known to go kinda overboard on the portwine....yet the uncle observes your behavior and tells you that perhaps you drink too much.

    Denial that must be overcome, and the steps to redirect behavior to more fruitful means are difficult things to do.

     
  • Margurite posted at 10:33 am on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    I thought McChrystal was spot on this morining.

    http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/former-gen-mcchrystal-assault-rifles-are-for-battlefields-not-schools/

    I bout fell off the couch this morning. I respect him for his service no matter what his politics but I certainly didn't expect that from him Course there have been many that have surprised me with thier view. I think this nation is ready to do something to protect our children and I don't think getting more guns is it. I'm enlightened by the glimpses of reason that are starting to come through.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 4:27 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    When it comes to most skills, there are usually two things you need to learn--when to use them, and when not to. Sadly, we've heard of too many cases recently where some gun holders only knew one of the two key aspects of the skill.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:51 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, like you say - these cretins don't have any iota of a regular thinking person. It was interesting to read that at 1st, one of the attending officers called to the massacre thought Holmes was in law enfocement b/c of his attire.

    I bet that in Holmes' rotten mind he thought he was curing some of society's ills through his crazy gun action. That's the mentality of his ilk, a la McVeigh and that Arizona Giffords grocery store parking lot shooter. Too bad they couldn't use their brains to do something productive, but instead, making ill use of their time learning enough gun skills to fire them, make elaborate plans, resulting in trashing a lot of lives.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 2:29 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    sverige1, in the weeks leading up to the attack, James Holmes was oscillating between planning for a movie theater massacre or defending against a band of government tyrants. He decided, I guess, that he couldn't battle the tyrants by himself, but he figured that the theatre was right up his alley.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:11 am on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    So, what's been going on lately at the OK Shoot-Em Up Corral? LOL
    Hey, just read that lawyers are planning a preliminary hearing on that Aurora theatre massacre killer and "publicly disclose" the evidence against Holmes. Interesting, that according to HuffPost, the police say that Holmes "had stockpiled weapons, ammunition, explosives and body armor.

    Again, I say - what regular person living in this good 'ol US of A needs all of that ammo?

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:38 am on Tue, Dec 25, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    IHOG, I'd bet that some of the losers doing these kinds of deeds are doing it for the challenge. I think that, for Adam Lanza, getting out of the house meant he passed Level 1. Getting on campus was Level 2. The first classroom was Level 3. I think he would have felt himself more than game to see if he could get on campus either by going through an officer or finding a way around him.

    I think that one of the things that we need to consider with these types of killings is that we're not dealing with conventional thinkers. These guys are essentially guerrilla warriors. They aren't playing by the rules of the Geneva Convention, or any other code of war ethics. They're trying to cheat some game they've manufactured. Surviving the ordeal is not necessarily on their bucket list.

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:50 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    sverige 1

    When you need protection you will get none from anyone with your mind set.
    When responcible honest people are disarmed only criminals will be armed because no law can be written they will obey.
    Calling 911 is good for getting the investigation of your death started early.
    The police don't prevent crimes. They investigate crimes after they were committed.

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:36 am on Mon, Dec 24, 2012.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    If the issue is school safety one change might help.
    Replace those "gun free zone" signs with " employees of this school may be CHL license holders". Thousands of school staff are CHL license holders but are prohibited from protecting the school from killers who don't obey any laws.
    Even if no CHL license holders were present a violent invader wouldn't know that and would likely choose a different target.
    "Gun free zone" signs do nothing but advertize to killers this school is a safe place to do your killing.
    It isn't a gun free zone when a killer arrives with his guns.
    Hiring police is counter productive.
    Police training includes much more than protecting a building. They'll expect to be paid for training that is not needed.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 2:06 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    Think -
    We have armed officers at courthouses and banks all over the country, but not at our schools. This clearly tells me our country cares more for our laws and our money than for our children's safety.
    It has to stop - today.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:02 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Is there an ammo app for that?

    Sure, "thumbs down" for thinking that it's OK to have unlimited choice of weapons and ammo.

    Oftentimes, laws are imposed with the spirit that because we live in a democracy - that there should be a semblance of order and reason. I believe that's why the Greeks invented the whole concept.

    Now, we can wring our hands and say it's OK to have anything we want whenever we want, but since we're on the subjects of safety for schools: Doesn't that send a wrong message? There are "limits" to many things. EX: Stores impose limits on "sale" items b/c there's limited supply. State law "limits" me from buying my fav lite beer at 2:45 A.M. weekdays and Sundays before noon, because of blue laws. I realize it's done out of respect, reason, good law-making.

    I still don't see why the gun-happy people are so hell-bent on not having limits on firearms and it's accessories.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 11:21 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    marguerite and vergi
    [thumbdown]

     
  • Margurite posted at 10:54 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    I read all that - I just wanted to share that article since everyone was hollering arm the teachers. LOL Looks like even that won't be enough.

    Honestly BOI - if you could see my antagonistic side you would be hidin in a prepper hole!! LOL LOL

    I'm not as liberal as you might think - course what ever trips your trigger.......[beam]

     
  • gecroix posted at 10:48 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    The Police and Military are made up of private citizens, not born to uniform. Such a basic fact would seem to be within the grasp of most, although it is convenient sometimes to ignore that. They have no more rights under the Constitution than any of the rest of us, and NO legal responsibility to look out for any individual, try hard as they may. That, too, is self-evident. Unless you have one living in your home, you'd better consider the lag time between need and get.
    That lag time was fatal for those folks in Conn. If some or even one of them had ignored the laws put in place by the very type people posting here pretending to be concerned for their safety yet oddly preventing them from preparing for it, and thus been able to respond immediately, rather than wait, they MIGHT have had a chance to save some.
    That's a better shot at it than what is being offered by the hysterical as 'solving the problem'. If this shooter was rational enough to obey laws, or if any criminals would, we'd have no crime. It's hard to expect rational criminals, though, when so many of the lawmakers' constituents are irrational and blame the hammer when the thumb gets hit.
    Riddle me this: just how do you propose to 'eliminate' the 300 million or so firearms already in public hands LEGALLY in this country? Confiscation?
    That's a good little Komrad. The Pentagon Bomber and his buddy will be proud of you.
    "Never let a crisis go to waste."

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:45 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Another point I'd like to make - our society simply isn't molding boys to become caring individuals. I'll use the "gentleman" concept again. Gone are the days when boys are taught (by woman or man, doesn't matter who) to open doors for people, feel empathy, take turns, etc.

    On top of that, no one taught this boy how to push a broom or a lawnmower. No one taught him how to look someone in the eye and shake his/her hand. Instead, mama emasses a fortune, lives in a multi-level aceraged rural home, homeschools him, and encourages the paranoia of needing to stockpile ammo. It's not unlike David Koresh's compound in Waco. Now, THERE'S a comparison.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:32 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Bred...you're such an antagonist, pointing out a bit of BOI's logic, BG (BigGrin).

    I see a link between some extreme gun owners' families in denial in a similar fashion that alcoholic drunk drivers also have their enablers.

    Extreme and massive gun culture runs in the family, in most cases. As does alcoholism, and the ammoral act of drinking and driving. The denial, with both illnesses, is a vicious cycle that even outside people have a hard time trying to break.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:06 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Oops...sorry...THIS is the link I wanted to share -

    http://www.alternet.org/story/10560/school_shootings_and_white_denial

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:01 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Bred - scroll and read below my response on your article link...
    "Feminizing" of elementary schools, LOL. What a bunch of bunk.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:59 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Bred - thanks for sharing with us what is probably the dumbest article ever written on the subject. The problem isn't "feminizing" of our society - it's the exact opposite...macho-ism that goes awry to the point that, mostly white men, don't grow up to be gentlemen. But, instead, they get mad at the world b/c no one bows down to them.

    Can you imagine how Lanza's mama did everything for him, cutting up his steak, chewing his food for him, probably never introduced him to a broom or rake. Daddy wasn't in the picture. Don't get me wrong - this wasn't "feminizing", but instead, not properly emasculating the boy to meet today's modern U.S. society. If you feel inclined, please read my response in the Tue Dec 18 12:42 comment that I made in the article "Funerals Become a Sad Routine in Newtown". It simply states that the white man has no outlet these days, and he feels the world is against him. Result - acting out in grotesque ways. It is NOT b/c of of the feminine influence. So what...if the boy had ex-football male teachers in elem school, those macho guys would have likely cast him aside for not being prowess in the sports arena.

    Also, here's a link to an article written in 2001 - 11 years ago - that covers such a subject, regarding male whit anger. I urge you all to read it...and it's scary that it's as true today as it was 11 yrs ago...yet still nothing is being done to honestly address it -

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/are-too-many-women-to-blame-for-sandy-hook-death-toll-one-national-review-contributor-thinks-so/

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:42 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    And, of course, Kevin comes out always the good guy. Always the diplomat, LOL.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:29 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    ROTFL X2 - Blatant antagonists?!?? If folks like us were truly that, then we wouldn't be here on a forum trying to make sense of all of this, dialoguing with individuals who simply don't want to believe that there's people around who aren't into all of this macho OK corral gun thing.

    It would be so grand to meet a gun person who realizes who ridiculous it is to arm non-military people with ammo that simply is not needed. Y'all are so upset that there indeed exists peace-loving folk who aren't caught up in trying to prove their manhood through toys that the rest of us outgrew when we were 11 years old. Gads, these poor little children were shot by a maniac who had the gun culture ingrained in him. What good did it do him?

    I read yesterday that his mom, since he was about twelve, took him to get a haircut - and the haircutting people said the boy said NOTHING - mommy did all the talking. All of this gun training, but she couldn't teach him how to communicate and function on at least a low-level, socially, in society. THAT'S the gun culture - eliminate real human contact, repeatedly say the world is full of boogey men, stockpile all kinds of arms like a nut....and still say that guns don't kill, people kill. To that boy's mind, he thought of himself AS a gun - and he did a wangdang job of 'offing' quite a few people. When will this madness end??

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:22 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    Of course, that last line should have been militia.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:14 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    I think we're all logically dumbfounded by these kinds of senseless acts. We're all trying to grasp for the simplest answer. Perhaps the cool heads will collect up bits of all these simple answers and integrate them into the complex solution this will require. I don't want to punish honest hobbyists because of the acts of senseless morons. I think its clear that AR-15's are not for everyone, and we need to quit marketing them as such. It's a disservice to the responsible people in the world for them to feel that they need this type of gun because we let irresponsible people have them. Just because someone wants a gun should not be the only reason we sell them one. I don't think the 2nd Amendment was intended to say that irresponsible, malicious, and depraved individuals should have guns. I don't think anyone would consider them for melitia

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 8:26 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    KLang, you seem to be a decent person capable of dialogue, while the margurite and vergie people are blatant antagonists. These two are the exact reason the liberals continually lose to the NRA and America - speak and scream with emotion vice logic and knowledge and reason.
    My uncle is a gunsmith. Has been for over half a century. He also is extremely successful and an avid collector. The problem at hand here is when a device of harm gets into the hands of a mentally ill or unstable person.
    Gun, vehicle, poison, explosives...guns are simply easier to conceal, thats why they are the device of choice I'm assuming.
    It's not, nor has ever been the gun, it's always 100% been the individual, and the liberals refuse to acknowledge that logic.
    If a poisoned bottle of tylenol kills a random person, the liberal screams "ban all tylenol"...it's happened before, remember?
    The NRA is a willing partner in helping to find an answer to this madness of random nurder, but's it's simply not the fault of the gun. And until the likes of margurite and vergie wise up and come to grips with reality, then they are spinning their wheels....

     
  • Margurite posted at 6:42 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    This is how stupid this argument about blaming everything is getting......

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/are-too-many-women-to-blame-for-sandy-hook-death-toll-one-national-review-contributor-thinks-so/

     
  • Margurite posted at 6:36 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    I read today that she was contemplating taking conservetorship of her son and possibly admitting him to inpatient care. She also it appears had been gone for a couple of days to NH at some resort. She returned home Thursday night and didn't make it thru Friday morning as we all know now.

    Seems he could do whatever he felt like except cook - so this 20 yo wasn't competent enough to cook his own meals but was cometent enough to have access to these weapons.

    Great call - I can see your point of most gun owners aren't the problem but then again most of us don't drink and drive - the rules remain the same.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 6:08 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    I imagine that lots of true collectors have guns in their collections for which there is no ammunition available, or the ammunition is of such an odd size as to be in limited supply and fairly expensive. Some of those old guns may be in great show condition, and may actually be in "factory" shooting condition, but that doesn't mean they'd be much use in shooting up a classroom or a movie theater..

    The thing is that in the hands of responsible and respectable people, a cache of artillery arms is about as dangerous as a feather pillow. In the hands of a madman, a couple of six-shooters is pretty dangerous.

    We need to figure out how to keep guns out of the hands of the loons and the goons, and the more dangerous the potential of the gun, the more faith we need to have in the owner.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 5:58 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    I would guess that most sport shooters keep a reasonable supply of ammo to hold them over through the next target sessions or hunting season. People armed for personal protection probably keep a bit less around, as they aren't planning on using much anytime soon. There are a lot of people that are believers in the world-end scenarios and are prepared for that, or truly believe that all guns are going to be banned really soon. However, most of these people wouldn't hurt a fly unless the fly drew first. Nancy Lanza was probably a bit fanatical, but she may have never pulled the trigger in self defense or in offense. Some would probably have thought she was psycho because she had more guns than some thought she'd need. Probably no one would have ever thought her son was the one to worry about. He was just another of the weird kids--weird but probably harmless.

    If Nancy Lanza didn't have those semi-automatic guns, all of those people would be alive today. If she had less powerful rounds, perhaps more would have survived their injuries. If she had less rounds on hand, perhaps he would have run out before killing as many people. If her guns had been locked in a safe, perhaps he would have never been able to use the guns. If she had noticed changes in him and been able to take proper actions, perhaps he wouldn't have been in the house that morning. A lot of ifs, and if we figure out which one would have been the root of this incident, it may not be the same for the next one or the previous one.

    My feeling is that you don't know the character and the tendencies of someone, you might think twice about whether to let them have a gun and what type to let them have. You don't give someone access to the cockpit of a jumbo jet unless you know they're capable and responsible enough to handle it. Same with an automobile or school bus.

    I think that what it may come down to is that the gun lobby is going to have to start backing more thorough background checks and perhaps other gun owner responsibilities, or else the govt is going to force certain types of guns off the market. While responsible gun owners probably aren't at the root of all these problems, they are going to have to accept some inconvenience as part of the solution.

     
  • Margurite posted at 5:02 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    What I believe you are saying is......... you don't have a logical answer.

    Most police don't have 30 rounds - be it in a clip or a magazine. Symantics mean nothing.

    All the guns in Mrs. Lanza's house didn't save her.

    If I need to explain to you the difference between private citizen, the military, and the Police - that right there tells me how delusional you are when it comes to your own weapon competancy.

    Police spend most of thier time mopping up the messes you create.

     
  • gecroix posted at 4:06 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    They are not 'clips'. They are magazines.
    Question, though, since you have repeatedly brought that up:
    Why do the Police 'need' 30 round mags?
    Why do the Police 'need' a weapon that holds more than a half dozen rounds?
    My take is it's because times have changed, and the threat level and type has, too.
    Why do the Police 'need' to be armed better than the honest citizenry?
    Considering that they are not our personal protectors, I question why anyone deems it the sole privelage of the Police to be armed to meet the possible threats of this increasingly crazy world, yet private citizens are questioned as to their motive if they are equally enthusiastic about their personal safety.
    Not all citizens are capable of taking care of themselves. That should not preclude those who are from doing so. Deciding what anyone 'needs' in this matter should be at the discretion of the individual, not people with little or no knowledge of the subject.
    As an aside, considering what's been offered in partial rebuttal so far, any knowledge at all on the subject trumps the extremely silly comments and manufactured scenarios posited.
    It's not against the law to comment on something known little about, but it's a crying shame to try to influence public policy based on ignorance of the policy subject matter.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:03 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Kids can and have choked on coins, so why don't we ban coins? har har har.

    Every 2 months or so, dozens of people have been killed in public places by guns, so why don't we ban guns? hardy har har

    Let's see - the argument also has been referenced to nail clippers, knives, autos. How about Wiley Coyote and his dynamite?

    It might be fun to hang with a gun and ammo collector for a short afternoon. I only hope that there are SOME gun people who don't sound as ridiculous as what I just mentioned in short paragraph 1 and short paragraph 2. I hope.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:52 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Again, bubbles that are hard to find. Look for my response to Kevin after his 3:07 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012 statement.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:50 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    That's why, Kevin, I took interest in reading a couple of articles that said that the guys who did these shootings possessed a sick behavior that simply states that they felt emasculated. That they felt they had no power.

    That is, the old way of thinking that if you're a white male that you're entitled to have power and respect - that has all fallen by the wayside. Payback is "in order" for these folks - but how? Easiest method - to blow away the persons who have "wronged" you. Lanza was jealous that his mama "liked the children at the school" better than him. Keybold and Harris in Colorado (Columbine) - got back at all the kids who made fun of the way they looked, dressed, their hair, their "geeky" behavior.

    It's a lethal combination of sick/dilusional thinking, no outlet to work on the delusion, and extreme anger that bottles up and explodes.

    So, I too think that the issue isn't wholly on how much ammunition is available. I think the key is to "ISOLATE THE SICK" - to find out just who these people are. Take the harmful substances away from them - guns, dangerous machinery, etc. That's the ticket. Perhaps families need to get the cajones to do more interventions on these lost souls.

     
  • Margurite posted at 3:32 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    Gun collectors are the same as coin collectors???? BWaHahahaha

    For real?????? When is the last time a coin blew a 6inch hole in a body or obliterated the face of a child?

    When coins get stolen or sold they do very little harm - apples and oranges.

    You want to compare the collection of legal tender to lethal falderall??? Yeah - go ahead on with that.

    So tell me again why you need 30 round clips in a shooting competition? I don't recall a shooter ever being in a big hurry at a competition. Also - again what's the point of armour piercing ammo?

    Keep what you need for protection but there ain't no elephants stormin your house bro.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:31 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Anyone with 10-20 and more guns has got to be a stockpiler of weaponry and ammunition. That type of person may or may not be normal, a little "off", or crazy as a loon. Either way: Just because there's a gun culture who enjoys hunting, etc - that doesn't mean we need to arm teachers in classrooms, nor protect a "right" for a gun-happy person to ridiculously stockpile guns and ammo b/c they "like" to do so.

    With the subject at hand, most any type of gun can do harm to a person or child. Now, not counting elephants vs squirrels - I would say that hunters in the U.S. (if they have the $, interest, and time) have more than enough resources to comfortably enjoy their sport. What they don't need is the resources to lop off a lot of people. There are those who would say that if you had a rifle where you had to load up 4 or 5 bullets - and you got angry and thought about using it on someone....those few bullets that you have to consciously put in would seemingly allow the angry person to stop and think about his/her contemplated action.

    On the other hand, if this same person had an automatic weapon (or whatever it's termed) where you could put in more than 10 bullets in at one time - then that likely gives less time to think. General principal says that if you do something in a more automatic/systematic/assembly line fashion - you think about its consequences much less.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 3:22 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    1960BOI, I agree. Killing hay bails, paper images, tin cans, and clay discs is a completely different mentality than spraying bullets across a classroom. While the same person could house both mentalities, most people don't have the mental switch that would emotionally allow them to mow down a bunch of people. There are a lot of excellent marksmen that have no interest in hunting at all.

    If we can figure out a way to identify the crazy loons before they're able to get their hands on guns and point the barrels at others, we'll be well on the way to a real solution.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 3:07 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    Yeah, I think they pretty all appeared clean at the time of their acts. I have no idea what kind of exams it might have taken to raise red flags on them. I don't know how exhaustive and intensive of tests it might have taken to flag Adam Lanza as dangerous, but if it would have taken more than half a sheet of questions and a 5-minute interview, most citizens would throw a hissy fit over the "unconstitutional" testing.

    Really, we're going to have to find some sign of movement off of positions to reach any kind of deal on this. Some are adamant that we've got to control the supply of guns, others are adamant that guns are not even part of the problem. Some say we need more stringent licensing, others say the current licensing is already too invasive. Some say that gun owners should do more to keep questionable people away from their guns, others say that's not the gun owner's resposbility--those people should know well enough to keep their hands off.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:00 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    ...or, the crazie could knock a person off of a cliff. But, you can't knock 26 people off at the same time, as you can with a multi-rounded firearm.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 2:51 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    And the ignorant "stockpiling" comment. Gun collectors are the same as coin collectors - they like to collect items that interest them.
    Take a hunter for instance. Their are numerous legal gamebirds of all different sizes, requiring many different size and caliber firearm. So an avid bird hunter, over a lifetime of hunting, could possibly have 10 - 20 different types of guns, with each applying to a specific species of fowl.
    Now take that and apply the same logic to hunting legally labeled game animals. Imagine the size from a squirrel to an elephant. Thats ALOT of room for different styles, types and size firearms.
    Try not to rathole such an enormous issue into a single-wrapped silly argument that demands the focus to be on mental health and the lack of care they are given. I know some crazies that would kill a person with their bare hands....

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 2:46 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    The sport of shooting is not just limited to shooting legally classified game animals, humanoids. Let's try to pry our eyes open a wee bit shall we?
    Sport shooting is world-wide, and is a multi-billion dollar industry. 30 round clips are for sport shooting - NOT hunting. Federal laws legally limit the number of bullets allowed in a firearm during legal hunting seasons.
    3 shells in a shotgun. Game warden finds 4 you can lose everything, including the vehicle you went hunting in. If the plug is out you're going down as well.
    Once again your argument is a one-sided jello shot against people with mental illness committing crimes. That needle in a haystack approach is useless.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:16 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    I'm still trying to piece together the gun proponents' train of logic:
    It's OK that every couple of months 20 or so people get killed in a gun-riddled massacre so that people who want it can stockpile all types of firearms and ammunition - because the 2nd amendment says they can.

    Mass deaths at the hands of a highpowered 100-plus clippythingy gun is "just simply gonna happen" from time to time. After all, only the real criminals will get ahold of them anyway. I think a lot of these white boys who have committed these heinous mass killing crimes had no past criminal history.

    My conclusion is that it's not even the caught criminals that are doing all of this. Maybe we can figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of angry, immature young anglo men. Perhaps gun ownership should be similar to what auto insurance companies do. That is, white males under 25 shouldn't be allowed to have guns b/c (just like in autos), young white males are more at-risk and more of a danger to society.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:32 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, I guess WE'VE been told! ROTFL!

    The logic there is that if you're not a licensed, card-carrying NRA gun guru, then your opinion isn't even squat.

    As it stands, I doubt that even Texas' few blowhards (Perry and that screwball representative woman) - even that ilk probably won't convince the mainstream public that teachers carrying guns is a bad idea. I think districts will think of more reasonable ways to improve safety plans. Here's a HuffPost article that's titled "11 People Who Would Rather Arm Teachers Than Talk About Gun Control" -
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/arming-teachers-guns-school_n_2325121.html

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:32 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    If you think you have all of this knowledge about the subject, and that because of that extra superior knowledge, all that the rest of us can offer is silliness, then maybe it would be good to share some of that knowledge. Come election time, if we're still stuck in silliness and we're the majority, your point gets defeated. Would you prefer that knowlege wins or ignorance? I guess it's your choice.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:08 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    gecroix, I agree that the biggest part of the problem is the small percentage (probably more than 1%, because we have more than that in criminals) of people that are the true dangers. Howver, the gun lobbies vehemently oppose gun registrations, personal licensing and background checks, and just about all other measures that might identify that 1% BEFORE they get a gun and start shooting. The government goes after certain types of guns because there's no political will do identify the potential problem users.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:08 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, I hardly think the dire urgency/importance of the run of the mill citizen who wants top-notch ammo to be able to "line 'em up and shoot 'em" would compare to medical doctors performing life-important surgery procedures. Playing cowboys and indians and showing off to your friends the supped up top notch guns is different than a 1st class medical team.

    One thing I do know is that if an incompetent medical person fouls up on an operation (and it's determined that this medical person was messed up in the head), that kills only unfortunate patient. A messed up in the head, gun-crazed individual (like Lanza) could/and has obliterated 20-plus lives all at once.

     
  • gecroix posted at 1:04 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Time wasted posting such sillines would be better spent at least learning a little about what you so vehemently oppose, so you could comment above the level of near totally unknowledgeable on the subject at hand.
    Until then, good day.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:56 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    And we should keep alcoholics away from cars, and we should keep criminals and the mentally ill away from guns. We haven't figured out any foolproof ways to accomplish the former. Any ideas on how to accomplish the latter?

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:52 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    gecroix, it appears that someone did hold Adam Lanza accountable for his actions. Unfortunately, most of these accountability exercises are carried out AFTER the deed is done. The accountability and identification needs to start happening BEFORE they can start to do the things they'll be sorry for later.

     
  • gecroix posted at 12:49 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    One doesn't have to be 'specially trained (sic)' to shoot a semi-automatic weapon.
    It's simple. Almost anybody could grasp the mechanics and do well.
    If it was all a matter of 'need' based on the number of times one actually fires in defense of their lives, even all but a very few Police would still be toting S&W revolvers and 158gr round nose lead ammo. I see no reason to choose second rate gear for my own families personal, immediate protection. If it's good enough for Law Enforcement, it's good enough for me. You'd be better to ask yourself why you are so afraid of the 99.99% of the citizenry who are honest, decent people, and would not shoot up a school.
    Maybe they should be looking at who they go to for help or treatment of all kinds. I'd hate to be dependent on anyone who badly overreacts. It could be indicative of non-competency in other areas.
    Imagine if all of the 'medical people' were punished and denigrated over the malpractice of one.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 12:49 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    I'm not in favor of singling out any types of guns outright. It seems that the potentially better approach is certifying the gun owners and anyone that might share the guns. Howver, the process of certifying everyone, and then getting them to volunarily part with any guns they might not be certified to use could be pretty onerous.

    For motor vehicles, we have different license classes and corresponding certifications. Same thing for aircraft. But, do we have the will, the way, and the money to determine the different licensing requirements for gun use and ownership? Even if we did, would we get all of the current gun holders and users to get their certifications? Would we be able to get all of the dealers to verify the license classes?

    I think that logistically, it might be easier to take certain types of guns out of circulation. However, it may be more proper to hold owners of certain types of guns to higher standards pertaining to their use and who can access them.

    Is there a level of inconvenience that current gun owners and users in good standing would be willing to go through in order to make sure that people like Adam Lanza could be identified and hopefully prevented from acquiring guns, ammo, or other accessories that make these types of attacks possible? Perhaps the NRA will have some valuable suggestions in their statement on Friday.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 12:48 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, I like the " the most important right for the guarantee of freedom in the Constitution" in the 8:29 AM Wed, Dec 19 post! OMG - as if we are in such dire need to have 200 plus-round magazine (or whatever mumbo jumbo it's called) clip military guns to defend god and country.

    I still say the blue-wigged leaders of the 1700s had no intention that the 2nd amendment go so far as to let unnecessary whammo guns obliterate humanity.

     
  • Margurite posted at 12:26 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    Why would anyone need a 30 shot clip? Why would anyone need para military weapons?

    The goverment hasn't come after anyone - so who are these gun owners afraid of?

    The goverment is armed with drones and much harder weaponry so again - why all the firepower? What army ya plan of fighting? Has our military ever turned on anyone other than the American Indian nation, the African American or the undocumented immigrant???? Why is it all the european decent folks are so paranoid??? Just seems silly to me. Fear mongering NRA doomsday preppers is what I see. No one is taking your 2nd ammendment from you but your fear sure is taking life from the rest of us. We are tired of the killing. We demand better.

    Who needs armor piercing bullets? Why would you need them? To kill LEO???
    We know what the self protection needs are - 30 - 100 shot mags, armor piercing bullets, human killing military grade weapons are not for hunting or home protection, skipping the skimpy background checks - ALL these things need to be addressed - we don't need more guns - we have enough damn guns.

    It amazes me that LEO candidates can be turned away for very small infractions that are non violent or non threatening - and a month later these same people can obtain a miltary grade gun with little to no background and obtain a CHL and kid themselves and lie to everyone else that they somehow are specialty trained. What a crock.
    I'm so tired of this cowboy mentality.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:34 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Upon further thought, it would be interesting if a group of clinical psychiatrists conducted a study on the infared brain compositions of self-proclaimed gun advocates who regularly use firearms and are NRA members. And compare their brain compositions to regular folks who are non-NRA members and don't own firearms.

    I would imagine that there consists of either a marked "red" area of the NRA pistol packers in certain brain areas that don't exist in the non-gun population. Either that, or an integral gray matter exists much more in the non-NRA group, while the important gray matter is absent in the NRA group. Medical science could make a wonderous discovery in this!

     
  • sverige1 posted at 10:34 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Give me the psych test, and I'll take it. Truth is, people like you've been reading here on these posts - folks like us who have a voice of reason are not going away. And, thank goodness - the idea of having teachers packin' pistols is almost as ridiculous as having folks board a plane with guns to prevent hijackers from doing their deed.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 9:59 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    Some in here should be required to have a "psych" eval before being allowed to comment.
    guns dont kill - people kill.
    cars dont drive - people drive.
    alcohol doesnt intoxicate - people intoxicate.
    Get a grip on reality people.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 9:51 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    They're kinda fun to watch. I had a fat Eng. teacher who explained to her captive student class that one night she "fell asleep in her chair, while eating peanut butter, with a spoon in her hand." The lady was a riot - but I would NEVER trust her with a gun, nor would I trust most any teacher with one.

     
  • gecroix posted at 9:31 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    The last 'assault wepaons ban', having nothing to do whatsoever with actual assault weapons, and having been an utterly useless and expensive exercise in the fallacy of punishing all of the kids because one or two stole cookies, we stand poised to repeat the same thing, or worse, hoping for a different outcome.
    We do so based on the impassioned pleas of the same genre of folks who sold us that last bill of goods. Folks more interested in fighting the symptoms than curing the disease.
    Actions have consequences. It's a shame that, predictably, the consequences of this latest travesty are more likley to harm the innocent than the guilty, and be guided by people uncomfortable with the notion of personal responsibility.
    One armed teacher at that school could have been able to do more to resolve such an issue than all the baseless rhetoric and misapplied indignation already posited and certainly yet to come.
    But, we have become a nation where the lowest common denominator hold's sway, and we give great credibility to pundits with only an active imagination as background for their learned opinions and resolutions.
    Blaming people for their own actions, holding them personally accountable, is just not how we do things these days. Maybe there should be a 'test' to find out who's predisposed to that, as they are doing yeoman's work to screw up the nation, and 'something needs to be done' about them.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:39 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    And, I'll gladly take a psych exam before renewing my driver's license. I think everyone else should too. That would take quite a few loo loos off of the road, folks who have no business being behind the wheel. Count me in on that advocacy item too.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:37 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Automatic hundreds of rounds rifles, machine guns - whatever they're called, the non military public does not need them.

     
  • cougargator posted at 8:34 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    cougargator Posts: 198

    I guess you have problems with "overweight English teachers"

     
  • gecroix posted at 8:29 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    You're about 74 years late on that 'outlaw machine guns' wish. It's been in effect since around 1938.
    It's counterproductive when passion replaces knowledge and logic. When do ya'll plan to take your own psych exam(s) before climbing behind the wheel of a 3000 pound bullet? After all, everybody you know, and all of the rest of us, are trusting YOUR judgement(s) about your own 'capacity'.
    No, thanks. Reading something twice doesn't change the content.
    I see this morning that Joe Biden is the President's appointed front man for 'new White House gun policy'. How comforting to have a man who doesn't even know where he is half the time in charge of defense of the most important right for the guarantee of freedom in the Constitution.
    'Never let a crisis go to waste'.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:00 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    To continue my scenario: Mrs. Simpson, the science teacher with the cane, almost makes it to the front office to try to report the crazy woman running through the hallway (who has no sign-in badge). Then, an administrator with a radio hears a ruckus in the boys' locker room. He goes up and sees a crazy woman with a gun and a couple of teenagers also with a gun. In fear, one of the guns (you take your pick which one - after all this is only a scenario) goes off. Tragedy ensues. The least of the worries at this point are the students in the building who have just lost an instructional day.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:30 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    I think all gun owners should take a psych test if they want to keep their guns. If it means that much to them to have a gun, then they need to prove their well mental state.

    If Obama had the fortitude to do so, he should propose the following: Gun laws to be amended to make it like alcohol laws - 21 or over only - whether it be rifle, shotgun. In other words - don't deliniate the type....ANY firearm to be 21 or over. And - Of course, outlaw machine guns to all non-military citizens. Those under 21 (like Lanza was) would be considered in violation. Their wards (mom, dad) to be fined for allowing a minor to possess. Since his parents were wealthy, and mom lived practically in a million dollar home - they would have had no problem paying thousands of dollars in fines. That, perhaps, would have prompted them even sooner to place the sick boy into a mental institution.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:42 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Mainly to Gecroix and Kevin (and others) -
    Read my response way down the line after Kevin's 9:29 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012 post.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:39 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, Kevin - I think if our country as a whole "okayed" schoolteachers packing guns, and it is indeed practiced from here on out - there might be one or two instances within the next 10 years of a teacher being able to ward off a gunman or to shoot him/her dead on the spot. Maybe ONE or TWO.

    The other hundred or so instances would be, as I've mentioned, accidental shoot-offs, or students obtaining the weapon(s) and causing mayhem to the tune of having to evacuate the buildings, etc. "School" in our country would be a constant merry-go-round of false alarms, fire/gun escape drills due to suspicion that one of the teacher's guns "has disappeared". The instructional days would be "shot", so to speak. Disruptive conversations among students over which teacher has a gun and knows how to use it. Let's see - 2 or more rogue students swipe the gun from Mr. Marshall's book bag where he keeps his graded papers. The students take the gun to the boy's dressing room, play with it, make silly references regarding it. Another sensible student has to decide how he goes about reporting it to the nearest adult. Or, let's say the responsible student doesn't really know what to do, so he calls his MOM on the cellphone - and that's all the boys does for now.

    Mom comes to the school in a frantic b/c "OMG, someone has a gun in the boy's locker room!" She comes to school with her OWN gun b/c she's scared and heard that one of the boys who stole the gun is that ill-bred youngster named "Buddy Hinkel". She bypasses the check-in visitors' badge area and goes directly to the boy's locker room to confront the situation.

    Then, Mrs. Simpson sees this crazed mom running in the hall w/o a badge, but Mrs. Simpson walks with a cane and has no radio (the halls are clear of other students/teachers), so it takes her 4 minutes to walk way to the other end of the school. So....do we want these types of scenarios to play out in our great nation b/c MAYBE once or twice another teacher somewhere warded off a gunman...and to trade that with hundreds of other drama-ed incidents such as this one?

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:25 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    "Better to concentrate on what led this evil being to do what he did.." - Gecroix - I think we're in agreement with that statement. But, I for one, would hasten to say that taking automatic weapons away from non-military citizens in no way tramples on the 2nd amendment right argument.

    Quite simply, I don't think they HAD automatic weapons when some of our forefathers penned that amendment. I would think that even those blue-wigged men would, today, reconsider and regroup regarding the concept.

    As it is, it looks like Obama might after all have the fortitude to at least push for a ban on these automatic hundreds-of-rounds weapons.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:16 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    The problem is that the mentally ill are not fully capable of accountability. So, it's up to us that are fully cognizant to keep guns out of their hands. However, those closest to them may be the worst judges of their capacity, especially for people with only mild levels of mental illness. We tend to want them to be well, and we probably tend to think they're better than they are. So, maybe we should require independent background and mental health checks on anyone that might use a gun. Possibly invasive? Perhaps. But, is it worse to just trust their own judgement about their capacity?

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 9:48 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    Americans will speak again.....and the 2nd amendment will win, again. And the liberals will whine, again. And mentally ill people will kill, again.
    The insane cycle will never stop until the absolute cause is addressed.
    Individual accountability.
    The next news report or police report that you read where the dude is on his 4th DWI arrest....or burglary, or family violence.....then you'll have the answer to whats wrong.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:29 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    gecroix, my apology for typing gelecroix above. My years of extensive training still allowed my mind to see a non-existent syllable.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 9:25 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    Isn't the best outcome the one where everybody lives? Of course, we know that's not always possible, but shouldn't we also expend some mental energy on seeing what more we can do to prevent the next Adam Lanza from having legal access to guns? Perhaps more exhaustive background checks could have at least instructed Mrs. Lanza to keep her son away from the guns. Just like we'd probably agree that a Lamborghini is probably not the wisest choice for a teen's first car, perhaps a Bushmaster isn't the best gun to sell to just anyone.

    Putting guns in everyone's hands is probably just as knee-jerk as taking them all away. When you look at how some people handle their pets, kids, and cell phones, few of us would ever have to buy a gun.

    Apparently, you have doubts about the persuasiveness of your argument. You seem to like making pointed inferences to our lack of education merely because we happen to question your one-size fits all solution. You'd impress more of us if you pointed to proof that everyone that completes CHL training reacts perfectly the first and every time they're faced with a real world threatening situation. No one can predict with 100% accuracy how someone will react when simulation turns to stark reality. Not everyone is able to tango as well to a song played at 45 when they've practiced it at 33. Look at how many superstar college quarterbacks fail at the NFL level.

    So, yes, let's look more into allowing teachers to carry guns. However, let's see what more we can do to make it more unlikely that they'd ever need their guns. Because, once the offensive weapon has been drawn in that classroom, our society has already lost another round. We don't get to toast victory because the teacher shot first. There's still someone dead that should have never had a gun.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 7:10 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    gelecroix, the teachers are human beings. As such, no one knows how they'll react under pressure of life and death. Police officers, soldiers, firefighters, and other first responders can freeze up or react erratically. And, I'm sure they get much more specialized training than the teachers will get. Evidently, you've ignored my statements that it's worth a try. I just don't think it's the magic pill. It may save lives in some instances, result in more deaths sometimes, and in other instances have no impact either way.

    I think we all agree it's primarily a people problem, but, like a shot of whisky may make someone feel more courageous, I presume some of these people might be less willing to attack a crowd if they couldn't fire lots of rounds really fast.

    Overall, until we figure out some better ways to identify the Adam Lanza's of the world, and keep them from guns, this type of event will keep replaying. And political correctness has absolutely nothing to do with this. PC is not at odds with dealing with problems.

     
  • gecroix posted at 7:09 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Yet, those places are exactly WHERE these type shootings occur. Places where the occupants are least likley to be capable of self-defense. Stevie Wonder can see that. A person might reasonably conclude that those places are MORE hazardous and subject to actions like this latest actor perpetrated, but that would require reasonable people to do the thinking.
    Following the flow of opposition logic here, a death due to a drunk driver is the cars' fault. Piling such absurdities on top of real problems solves nothing.
    Nobody can reason with a bereaved person, and that is perfectly understandable. Grief makes a poor catalyst for rational discourse. That excuse, though, is not available in these responses.
    The fact remains that taking a 30 round mag away from a guy in Colorado or driving Armalite out of business has nothing at all to do with the problem presented
    us by this latest killer. It's a knee jerk reaction at best, and a cynical use of murder to advance an anti-gun agenda at worst.
    That's shameful. .
    Better to concentrate on what led this evil being to do what he did, and also on how to make it possible for future intended victims to fight back, NOW, in real time, rather than wait for help. That would actually be doing something positive.
    And would not be based on dreamed up scenarios or assumptions of inability to fight for one's own life
    You can't win when you've already given up before the playing even starts. You can't stop bad actors with laws alone. You can't stop a criminal by removing the ability for an honest citizen to fight against crime.
    Stevie Wonder could see that, too.
    It's a mistake to assume that other people are no better at doing something than that which we ourselves are unable or unwilling to do. We need to live by the highest potential good outcome, not the lowest common denominator for failure.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 6:24 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    We don't have a gun problem in America? I'd love for you to tell that to the community at large of Newtown, CT.

    Well, we all ask, including you gecroix, "Who are our teachers?" They are regular people just like you and me who (with a few sparse exceptions) not the BEST people to guard against harm. We're in a supposedly advanced society where training and professionalism are accomplished through countless courses and rigorous tests - to be LEO's, or to be teachers, or to be engineers who (let's say) build bridges. I doubt if I want a music teacher to be responsible for building a bridge that has safety codes that must be adhered to....unless the music teacher is also a certified bridge building engineer or architect.

    This isn't 1850 where Mr. Sam Drucker is the town's storekeeper, postal guy, sheriff, and notary public. And, no, I don't want an overweight woman who was trained to be an English teacher be responsible for packing a gun in her purse, and when she comes back from lunch from the teacher's lounge, she has her purse on her side - she sits down in a classroom full of 25 students, and she sits on the gun and it goes off. That's what security guards are for.

    If we had teachers packing guns, think of all of the sporadic killings and injuries we would have at our nation's public schools - accidental gunfire, or a student somehow obtains the gun when the overweight English teacher leaves it in her purse as she goes out a few minutes to talk to the attendance lady in the hallway. Or, how about when an upset parent (who knows that Mrs. Smith packs a gun in her purse)...what if that crazy parent is very angry at another teacher during a conference, and he runs over to Mrs. Smith's classroom, grabs the gun from her purse (as she's sitting there putting on her eyeliner as the students are doing their worksheet)....then, the angry parent goes down the hall and shoots whoever?

    That's why, as Bred said, public and federal buildings are "no gun" zones. The potential for violence, even from within, is great.

     
  • gecroix posted at 5:49 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Compare teaching and law enforcement all you want, but such comparison of job descriptions has NO bearing on the issue. Nor should they. It's just a smokescreen.
    Focusing on the problem, that problem is not a lack of Law Enforcement. The place was crawling with them within minutes.
    The problem was a lack of immediate response to the shooter. The kids and teachers were ALREADY shot by the time the authorities arrived. The old 'The Police are just minutes away when seconds count'.
    Who ARE these teachers (and others?) that you folks know who are so lacking in common sense as to be frozen into immobility if confronted as per this case? Are they really so physically weak that they can't handle a two pound object? Why are they so incapable of being trained or of caring for themselves, yet are paid to train and care for others? That sounds absurd, because it is. The exception does not prove the rule. If such teachers WERE the rule, why would they be allowed to be in charge of our kids!!!
    The answer is this is just another specious argument rather than face the actual problem. As absurd as the notion that a fat woman sitting on a gun will make it fire. Such silliness poisons honest discourse.
    We do not have a gun problem in America. We have America precisely because we DO have the Second Amendment, without which all other Constitutional rights are subject to being taken away. We have a NUT problem, and a lack of respect problem, and a lack of common human decency problem, and cbertainly a lack of plain old common sense. And overriding even those is the problem of political correctness, codependency, and excuse making or apples to oranges comparisons, rather than facing the real issue(s) problem.
    There should NEVER be any argument over the basic right to not be killed by a crazy like in Connecticut, or with having the means to fight back. That there IS such an argument says a whole lot about the level of synicism toward honest citizens, of dependency on others too much, and on hiding behind platitudes and theory that our society as a whole has devolved to in this country.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 5:11 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    I would also say, in an even more direct response to your above opinion, that there's many teachers who would not want to be part of the pressure that could be put on them to "make the call" to arm themselves.

    I can see it now: the principal, in a faculty meeting, asking the teachers hands to go up for volunteers who are willing to pack a gun. Foolish pride, pressure, commitment, and the need to not feel embarrassed - I would imagine that virtually every staff member at that meeting would raise his/her hand up, whether they are physically able to do such a thing (shoot at an armed gunman) or not.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:42 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, Kay - I truly am glad that back then, and now, you have and had the physical and mental capacity to possibly blow the head off of a violent and disturbed gunman. In reality, I hope I could do it - now and then.

    All I know is that just 20 minutes ago, I drove by, on this beautiful day, one of our local school parking lots. I saw a nice looking 'a little bit past middle-aged' African American woman walking to her car with a cane. She did not look like the type of person who would be able to put away a monster like Adam what's his name. And, we and she shouldn't expect her to have to be. Maybe someone who teaches on that campus might be able to, but I'd rather have an able-bodied law enforcement person do the job. The children and the other occupants of the building would have a much better shake at getting out alive.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:35 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Gecroix - the stance I mainly want to make is that for every three able-bodied persons there is one who cannot defend himself/herself or others. That isn't even taking into account the "mental" capacity to do so in the true event of trauma/violence - or whatever we want to call the event.

    I think most of us prefer to live in the here and now as opposed to the "wild west". So, keep me on the side that, yes, we've gone beyond the shoot 'em and waste 'em time period. Sure, if you can protect yourself and your family with your legal handgun in your home (or even in the shopping mall parking lot) - that's great. But, we simply can't expect teaching professionals to play "security guard".

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:31 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, Kev..you always have a way of summing it up better than I ever could.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 4:08 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    Let's compare LEOs and Teachers. LEOs handle crime on a daily basis. They undergo periodic training on dealing with violence. There entire job is focused on keeping the peace. Teachers start out heavily distracted in trying to keep 30 snot-nosed brats attention on the subject matter, hopefully learning, and really hoping they're at least behaving themselves. The snap judgements that teachers have to make all concern the education and order of their classroom. Should we also be asking them to protect a gun from unauthorized access? In the turmoil of an event like Newtown, how many teachers might have been physically equipped to act, and how many would have been mentally able to respond. What are the relative likelihoods that their actions might have improved the outcome?

    Certainly, the option is worth discussing. However, I'd tend to think that if teachers felt they needed to be armed in order to feel safe, many would choose to leave the profession instead. The job has enough stress already without having to worry about some madman barging in with an assault rifle to kill you and your students. Add in the fact that the job doesn't pay particularly well, and it would take extremely special individuals to put up with that.

     
  • gecroix posted at 4:08 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    It's obvious that understanding the issue has to begin with understanding the difference between being asked to enforce the law, and with having the OPTION to protect your own life and those of people around you. An option is no guarantee that anyone will want to participate. They should at least have the right to make such a call. Hoping for the best, or relying on a law, is a poor way to plan for safety.
    Existing bad laws can be changed to allow this in places now prohibited. It's not a coincidence that those are precisely the places sought out by crackpots like the latest one to do their evil deeds.
    Actually, it's a false sense of security to depend on laws and the police for your personal safety. And the notion of a 'wild west show' has been utterly debunked in the 36 states that already have citizen right to carry laws. It's not against the law to keep parrotting misinformation to the contrary, but it removes any credibility from the parrot.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:50 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    chubby, roly-poly macho guys

     
  • Kay_Fritz posted at 3:50 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    Kay_Fritz Posts: 3

    I am a teacher that retired a few years ago. I grew up with guns and I have taken two gun classes in the past, but I do not have a CHL. I would have gladly taken out that so and so with my 380 or sprayed him the face with wasp spray, yelled, cussed, throwing phones, notebooks, anything within reach. How dare him hurt my babies even if they are 15. I say allow teachers to carry with continuing education classes on guns. Could you imagine even thinking about confronting a kindergarten teacher with a gun!

     
  • Margurite posted at 3:47 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    My guess is it's those who feel teachers and medical personell should be the enforcers are the same ones who will be hollering the loudest when they realize no one wants to carry.

    It's a false sense of security. Actually right now it is against the law for anyone to carry weapons inside a federal building and most state buildings - Schools recieve funds from many sources - Perry might want teachrs to be the enforcers but the folks who have the purse strings might feel much differently about thier money going to the wild west show.

    So with all that in mind - you will never know if anyone is packing or not - there isn't any force about it - it's concealed carry - even IF it's OK to do it - you wouldn't know either way. Then if anythig happens the question will be....... what NO ONE had a gun???

    I just think it would be easier to curb the issue with a better solid plan than - maybe some teacher will carry for the safety of my child.......... in my opinion - YOUR child deserves better than that plan.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:43 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Bred - surely you jest in not wanting to let a military vet who happens to be a loon carry a gun. LOL

    There's sooooooooo many professions (teachers, doctors, pharmacists, railroad operators, bus drivers) who don't want to or need to carry a gun on the job.

    I think that some of the mindset of the folks who now advocate teachers packin' pistols envision teachers as being like the coaches - macho guys who smack gum and "drill sergeant" their football team players into adhering to the scrimmage plan during ballgames and practice. Folks, the coach type is a very small percentage of educating staff.

    I can assure you that most teachers are not equipped to be 'gun' people.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 3:38 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    On the other hand, it might just somehow spark a newer version of Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher" hit !!! Now that would be a positive outcome...

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:36 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Yep, you'd think at least ONE of this whackadoodle's acquaintances could have found a way to lead the professionals to help this guy. Good point - regarding the weekly stories about teachers getting it on with their students or being high on drugs.

    We simply can't expect teachers to be too keen on protecting themselves, much less their students. Unless - it's like what we heard of in Connecticut. And, that's what most non-law enforcement people do - they lock their children in the room, stay quiet, and use their maternal/paternal instinct to protect them the best way they know how. That does NOT include being pistol packin' mamas nor gun totin' John Wayne.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 3:31 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, I can say that there's some pretty sloppy teachers out there, just as there are in other professions. Here's a thought - sometimes an armed and trained POLICE OFFICER is proven to be unfit to wear the badge, and he/she is stripped of duty and eventually might find another career path.

    With teachers, the vast majority of them in no way shape or form have considered packing a gun and being in a law-enforcement situation. In fact, many teachers/instructors are the total opposite - they tend to be on the egg-head side, lacking in the innate ability to hold, aim, and shoot a gun. My lands, that's partly why they chose the teaching profession, not the law-enforcement profession.

    We wouldn't expect travel agents or cruise directors to be CHL (or whatever they call it) certified. It's not in most teachers' blood to be security guards or gun-totin' lawmen/women. Even Laura Ingalls didn't pack a gun. She let her paw-paw face up to the outlaws.

     
  • gecroix posted at 3:05 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    It's not a matter of FORCING anyone to be armed, it's a matter of ALLOWING any honest citizen, including teachers, with the desire to do so, to be so.
    Law Enforcement is there to come clean up and investigate AFTER crime has been committed, except for the few times they are ahead of the situation. It's NOT their job to protect any individual citizen, though they try their best. Anyone choosing to be the subject of their post-event investigating is free to do so, but not everyone wants to be a helpless victim. As a responsible parent who doesn't believe in the utopian concept of just ignore the problem and maybe it will go away or bother someone else, I'd prefer for any school age child of mine to be where calling 911 wasn't the only course of action to be taken should such a terrible incident befall local schools. That would include teachers, 'medical people', or anybody else who realize that their employment contract does not, or should not, preclude their right to self defense. The notion that by virtue of carrying a weapon the honest citizen carrier is thus more dangerous to society is novel in it's simplistic absurdity. If just ONE of the teachers at that school could have done more than wait for help, there's an excellent chance that fewer people would have died. Certainly no more would have.
    I know a few teachers. None of them 'gravitated' to their profession with a desire to end up dead in a classroom after being shot by a crazy person, being unable to return fire themselves. The few doctors I know feel the same.
    We can't all know everybody.
    Some we personally do not want to know. My own list of those grows daily.

     
  • Margurite posted at 2:54 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    I did forget to mention that parents as well may not be comfortable with thier children being around a 22or 24 yo fresh out of college still wet behind the ears when it comes to life packing a gun when they often have trouble being responsible adults on the weekends....... just another thought.

    I know most teachers are responsible and I have great respect for them but you just can't take for granted there are morons in every profession - including teaching.

     
  • Margurite posted at 2:28 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    Margurite Posts: 680

    The biggest knee jerk here is to request that the same teachers you underpay and sell out in a heartbeat for budget issues would even want to carry a gun.

    These are educators - it's like asking the medical staff to protect the ER. Honestly - some folks (especially Rick Perry) shouldn't be allowed to speak before they get a second opinion.

    People gravitate to a profession for a reason - I can pretty much sumise that the folks advocating this - are not educators.

    As a medical person - I sure as hell don't want to work with someone (and we have many nutcases in medicine) packing a gun. That's what LEO is for. They are trained and I don't want my life to be dependent on some CHL holder that hasn't seen a gun range since the class 15 years ago cause they feel they ARE the most trained carriers that exhist in Texas........ good grief.

    What is so hard about just addressing the issues??? Like NO mental health resources, responsible gun ownership (which I sumbit his mother failed at - may she RIP), smaller clips, no loopholes for gun shows and other non threatening measures we should of taken years ago. Reinstating the assault weapon ban is a good start. High powered weaponry belongs to the military or LEO - not ordinary citizens. Oh and BTW - if you are a vet and you are nuts like many of them - you don't deserve a damn gun. You are sick - the threat you need to worry about is no mental health care........not how many guns you can get.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 2:25 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    Arming the teachers/staff isn't the answer either. How many times a week are teachers, administrators and school officials in the news for having sex with their students, smoking weed/snorting coke in the parking lot, DWI's etc.? Come on, widgets - THINK.
    It's mind-boggling the number of interviews have surfaced within mere hours from friends/family that "knew" the boy wasn't right all along. Now let them tell that to the parents of the 20 dead innocent kids. They knew, but did what? Nothing.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 2:20 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    Weapons of any type are not the problem. The problem is mentally disturbed humans.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 2:17 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Geocroix - On Sunday's "Meet the Press", New York mayor Bloomberg illustrated that New York City, which has the strictest gun laws, has much less per-capita murder rate than any other major city in the country.

    Sure, it's worth pondering if teachers can be armed. However, I don't think that can be pulled off, as maybe it could in other professions. For example, most engineers and architects are male - males typically are more comfortable toting guns and learning how to do so. Engineers, especially mechanical engineers, have an innate ability to be curious about how things work, but more likely can use them.

    Teachers, on the other hand, b/c they're still overwhelmingly female - I think they'd have a tough time trying to get coalitions of steady gun skill-buildling, much less, to adeptly use it. It would almost be as absurd as having a quilting or a bridge club try to make it as a unit of defending the building. It's just possible. Now, MAYBE high schools have a more fair shake. The personnel is more male, and the students in high school could be a lot less "curious" - and thus, the danger of accidental shoot-off is less. But, let's face it - there's some pretty loopy 15 to 16 year-olds out there too. I just think it's gonna take a lot of convincing to the public to accept schoolteachers arming themselves with firearms.

     
  • gecroix posted at 1:57 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    gecroix Posts: 3000

    Jbgood is exactly right. As are the participants described in this article below:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/stop-school-shootings-by-letting-teachers-fire-back-say-texas-officials/

    The notion that teachers might be too weak to aim and fire a weapon is absurd. The thought process associated with a comment like that is, unfortunately, all too common. Hence the extreme knee jerking in the afternath of this latest horror perpetrated by a crazy person. The guns didn't walk over and start shooting themselves. If restrictive gun laws would prevent needless deaths, then Chicago and Washington DC would be the safest places in America. Are they?
    Self-defense or protection of those in your charge does not require law enforcement certification. It requires skill with your weapon of choice, and a mindset that enables you to use that skill, and associated judgement, effectively.
    By the time the police arrive, bad things are already in progress or already happened. It's minimizing the extent of those bad things that is needed immediately.
    It's a myth that wearing a uniform and a badge makes one automatically more capable of handling firearms or shooting accurately than a private citizen.
    Too much TV is bad for rational thought. As is inate irrationality.
    "Never let a crisis go to waste".
    Ring a bell? Odd that the White House can stall for 4 months about the Lybian terrorist attack and deaths of our citizens due to 'ongoing investigations', yet immediately jumps on the bandwagon on this before the investigations are even hardly begun.
    Then again, knowing the history of the loudest voices raised, not so odd at all.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:44 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    I dunno...all this arming teachers with pepperspray, or mace, or a gun...You know what this makes me think of? Long ago they had an "All in the Family" episode where Archie decided to counterpoint someone's anti-gun opinion (I think it was a newscaster's opinion).

    Archie gets on the TV and says that on every plane flight that every passenger is to be armed with a gun - in case a highjacker boards that plane with a gun. OK, can you imagine EVERY passenger with a gun? All it takes is one passenger, who is a klutz, who fumbles with the gun, or a wide-behind woman who sits her rear down on the plane. And, her purse is right by her derriere. Gun is in the purse, she sits down - KABOOM!! Gun goes off and the plane is in mayhem b/c the other passengers think SHE'S a terrorist. Kinda sounds dumb now, doesn't it? To try to arm all 90 teachers in a high school building with a gun.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:35 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Er, not so much in agreement on this one. I respectfully debate that the more school personel you have packing a gun, concealed or not - the more possibility a child has to get his/her hands on it. Any time a building has more than just one or two persons designated to safeguard something, then the chances of a leak or breech in security increases greatly.

    I'll give y'all an example. If there's confidential material that is to be stored in a building, common practice is to have just one or two personel members have the key. If anyone else has a key, one or more keys would likely get lost. Same logic here - the more guns on people, the more chances one will either go off or end up in the hands of a stickyfingered child.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:29 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    You are ever so right, IHOG. I wish the media would tell us more about their family history. I'm so tired of hearing about vigils and prayer get-togethers. That doesn't help get to the root of this evil.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:22 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    kevjlang Posts: 3010

    I think many lines and means of defense would be best. You can prepare for pepper spray and return fire. But, how many other potential counter-measures can one killer or group of killers be prepared for and still be able to perform your mission? If he has goggles, hit him with paintballs. Throw out boxes of marbles. Have a variety of options for making his life miserable.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 1:21 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, JBG - from the many principals, counselors, and teachers I've been able to meet...very very few, I believe, could pack a gun. They're not lifeguards nor firefighters. Many teaching staff (as are businesspersons, restaurant managers, realtors, travel agents, etc.)....many of these folks are simply not physically able to use a gun. I think back at all the flabby, cane-walking schoolteachers I remember from the past. LOL...for them to play Cagney and Lacey and aim/shoot a gun??

    Also, do we really want guns in the hands of non-police at a school? With the great possibility that a child can get ahold of it? You mention how we might not be able to afford police on every school. Well, we practically do that already. And, if Perry can (and did) refuse federal $ b/c of his "pride" in us not spending it according to the FED's wishes - well, somehow I think we can managed paying armed officers in each school. As long as we stop thinking all kids are going to get iPADS, trim the fat, so to speak.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 1:08 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    I still say what rick Perry is advocating makes since,... even if every teacher was not armed, whatever percentage which is, increases the survival rate of students and other school personnel there,..if a fool out of his mind decides he want to kill everybody in an elementary school again. I did not say anything about a teacher asking for a raise. I just said I agree with Rick Perry and if I was a teacher, you can [censored] well believe that I would be one of those with a weapon and not only that I'd be qualified to hit center mast on any fool who comes in wanting to kill my students! I'd want him to come through me first,...in fact I'd love that!

    The alternative is,.. any fool or terrorist who wants to can, hit our elementary schools any time they want, and score large numbers of kills with little or no trouble! Bottom line you cannot have police officers at every elementary, junior high, and high school in every city! That is not only fact,..it is also the truth!

     
  • IHOG posted at 12:36 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    The CT shooter might have been mentally impaired. His mother might also have been.
    She apparently was a "doomsday prepper". Stocking up on guns, ammo, food and water for something she was afraid of.
    What she should have been afraid of was her son instead of taking him to gun ranges for shooting instruction.

     
  • IHOG posted at 12:26 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Every teacher should be armed.
    Not with a gun but bear quality pepper spray kept in full view on the desk. The bear quality pepper spray is non lethal but can stop a bear at 30 ft. Effects wear off within 15 or 20 minutes. Plenty of time for police to secure the situation.
    There are some students who might try to use it on their teacher. They should be used as demonstration subjects.
    In the CT shooting no kids were killed in classroms where teachers locked their doors.
    Blaminmg "assault weapons" is riduculus. The shooter had a Bushmaster AR15 in his car. A semi automatic civialian look alike of an assault weapon. It wasn't used but he had some ammo for it in his pocket.
    Thousands of school employees have passed FBI background checks and completed gun training programs to get a CHL license. Schools should ask these employees to carry their conceled weapon to school.
    CONCELED means no one knows they are armed until they use the gun to protect their students.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:58 am on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    1960BOI - that's one thing I think I agree with you on. The families are definitely a problem in regard to the young people turning violent issue. I have no doubt in my mind that that Adam's family was a dysfunctional lot consisting of lack of cohesion and neuroses.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 11:53 am on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    Well, JBG - In my view, it takes a certain type of person to be a police officer or firefighter. For the most part (in the beginning of their career) those folks are physically and mentally trained to deal with the demands that it takes to, quite frankly, use brute force to overpower danger.

    Teachers, by and large, are different types of people. Many of them are not physically inclined to do what cops and firefighters do. Sure, the teachers have a maternal (or paternal) instinct to protect the children in case of danger, but they're not the type to run to nor fight burning flames or climb high ladders, etc. Teachers' job adversities are of a different type. Mainly, the adversity is getting children to learn how to think, master concepts. With the exception of P.E. - it's much more the mind than the body.

    Teachers asking for raises? Why not? It also takes a certain type of person to teach. It's a hard job that requires training - and many of them are 'babysitting' 25 or more children when so many other people wouldn't last a week doing that. I simply don't think that by and large teachers are "cut out" to arm themselves and play Walker Texas Ranger.

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 11:27 am on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    Oh I left out that they will inevitably blame the gun too, or slingshot, or butter knife, toenail clipper, etc...

     
  • 1960BOI posted at 11:20 am on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    1960BOI Posts: 224

    Great job county schools. Do the best you can to be prepared, but God knows there are many who will blame the school or the staff.
    The blame for these failures falls 100% on the homes. The parents. The households. Our society is littered with the left-overs of failed marriages, no marriages and ignorant adults capable of creating life. These children are born innocent, and taught first-hand, in their homes, that noone in that home cares for them. If there even is a home.
    How can a school security system fix that? It can't. Fix the families. That will in turn fix the problem.

     
  • Jbgood posted at 9:43 am on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    Jbgood Posts: 1955

    Here is what bothers me, some schools can't, or are not inclined to protect their students from BULLIES from the inside, so, how are they expected to protect those same students from "KILLERS" who want to do their thing coming at those same students from the outside? If you are unfaithful to do little,...you will be unfaithful to do much!

    Now I'm not a big fan of Rick Perry, let me be clear about that, but so far Rick Perry has presented the best solution yet to the problem in my opinion. Even if a teacher who is allowed under Rick's plan to be armed, goes berserk, and start something, any other teacher in the same area of the school, would have the ability to take that rogue teacher or any other fool threatening lives OUT,.. before he/she could do what that fool did upstate!

    You can't put a police officer in every district's schools, it would not be cost worthy nor practical. Had the Principal and Counselor been armed, the damage the shooter did in that school upstate probably would not have been as devastating as it was.

    I love what some of the teachers were said to have done pertaining to that incident
    upstate. A couple of them ran toward the danger trying to protect those kids, and by doing so put themselves in danger as first responders. Let us not forget, that our POLICE OFFICERS and FIREMEN along with others like them, do this everyday!

    When there is a fire, and everyone is running away, our firemen are running to and into those burning flames. When there are bullets flying everywhere, and people are screaming and running, our POLICE OFFICERS racing in there to get all over that [censored]!!!

    I say that because it would be a good thing to remember that next time they ask for a raise, or a new building, or new equipment. Sometimes is is just nice, to be nice, and appreciative.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 8:12 am on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.

    sverige1 Posts: 3623

    I'm beginning to now wonder about the long-running practice of having students serve as "office assistants", especially if they are working in the sign-in areas - where the public first walks up to the school.

    I would imagine that there's a lot of drama to be seen in those front areas. But, worse than that - perhaps a security issue and the plain fact that most young minds aren't equipped to encounter such volitile occurrences. I would think that would be better left up to the campus police/guard or front area secretary/receptionist.

    As I've said in other threads, I really think schools in our country need to come to the grips that their front sign-in areas should be secured, and maybe armed - as are banks.