Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Brad Soliday, Dec 18, 2012.
I kind of hate to wade into this, but I can't help myself. First let me say, I am a gun owner, shooting enthusiast, sometime hunter, etc. I have had a concealed carry permit for almost forty years and I carry quite a lot. But I don't understand why so many of my gun owning aquaintances and friends immediately jump to the idea that someone is going to come and take all their guns as soon as the words "gun control" are uttered.
"Gun control" may mean no sales without using a Federal Firearms dealer to do a sale/transfer. Or it may mean no sales to felons, or drug addicts, or mentally disturbed people. It might mean laws to require people to either have their firearms in their possession and control or locked in a safe (heaven forbid). Or it might mean no sales of fully automatic weapons (as it has in most states for many, many years), or maybe no 30 round magazines. Big deal.
What it does not mean is that someone is going to come take your guns. It isn't going to happen and the NRA needs to quit contantly trying to scare gun owners into donating more and more money to them to perpetuate this kind of thinking. The NRA milks every member as thoroughly as possible to perpetuate their business model by trying to convince people that the next step is confiscation. It's a load of crap. There is room for responsible gun owners to come to the table with Law Enforcement, mental health professionals and other concerned parties and come up with some small steps that just might keep a gun out of the hands of someone that shouldn't have one and still maintain our second amendment rights and the right to carry.
Sorry to get off topic.
As for the OP, I'd at least like to talk about the Guardian Teacher idea, or an officer in all schools, or metal detectors, there are a number of possibilities. But, here's another hot button, it's going to take some tax dollars. I for one am willing to pony up to do something to help keep my kids, your kids and our grandkids safe.
When you don't want to be the soft target, harden the target. There are many ways to affect such a change, and some mentioned here seem to have considerable merit. Safety of our children should NOT be about dollars and cents, it should be about access control and common sense.
BACK ON THE SOAP BOX, AGAIN. There are many of us who have children in schools or family in schools. I substitute now that I am retired and my wife and daughter are full time teachers. I for one am willing to pony up the dollars. I taught in a school with a full time resource officer and he was busy all the time but you and I, so to speak, are not the only voters. I have never voted against a school bond or levy, knowing that my own kids benefited from previous thoughtful voters and that the major judge of a community is its school system. But, there are lots of people out there that refuse to recognize the value of safe and civil schools and since their own children are out, they look at bonds, levies, and taxes as someone else's burden since they have completed their duty.
We are lucky to have a forum like this and moderators that allow us to go off topic because it is current and important. Thanks to them for allowing us to vent on the Newtown incident and other things like Guardian Teachers, Gun Control, Video Games, Police protection, etc., etc. What I would admonish all of you to do is to go into your neighborhood schools for more than a few minutes and take a look around. See what is and is not happening. Get your neighbors to do the same. TAlk with the administrators and ask what you can do to help. It may be as little as slowing down in a school zone or as much as becoming a volunteer to help out a distressed child or overloaded teacher. Once you get the lay of the land, you will have a better idea of what needs to be done.
Thanks to all of you who have expressed your views and suggestions. It's a start and now we have to do better to make a viable change. God bless our children.
A Chomsky reference, might be a first on this board, I like it. Very well stated by the way.
This statement is telling, do we really value our children and schools ? If we did wouldn't we give them the resources they need to help every child flourish.
Here's a link to two interesting op eds from Policeone.com, a popular online resource for the law enforcement community. This is from their special report section on the Newton shooting. Both articles are in the left side bar, "Active Shooters In Schools, Should Teachers Be Trained..." and "Why Minutement Can Protect Against Active Shooters".
While researching federal funding resources for school security, (one would like to think our gov't would exhaust all avenues before restricting our constitutional freedoms), I found that in 2012 the feds cut funding for school security grants and allowed violence programs to lapse. In 2000 the Newton School District received $125,000 from this program that no longer exists. (Inside the article you'll find bold text, these hyperlinks lead to supporting documents from the budget)
many will remember the stabbing at snohomish high school within the past couple years. since then there has been a cop on duty there. probably none of us really understands the psychology of people who commit these acts, but you have to think that the general knowledge that every school has a cop on duty would deter at least a meaningful fraction of these attacks. whatever legislation is passed in the wake of this event will have a meaningful cost attached to it. i'm not a fan of assault rifles personally, but i don't think they are the fundamental problem. i'm more in favor of combating criminals than regulating a given weapon they might use.
This is getting out of hand. Therefore, this will be my last post on the subject. However, I would like to clarify a couple of points before I sign off.
These mass killings go beyond tragic. Those who have been touched by the past events are suffering far beyond what the rest of us can imagine. To lose an innocent child, the light of your life, in such a manner is just unconscionable. I am at a loss for words, lifetime, never healing scars, forever haunted.... My heart goes out to them.
What gun rights have we given up? Well, even after Heller vs. DC & McDonald vs. Illinois, You are still not allowed to possess a handgun in Chicago, or New York City. You cannot legally carry a handgun, either open or concealed, in California. There are magazine limits in Ca. The "assault weapon" ban is still on the books in Ca. There are still ten states that do not allow concealed carry. Of those not allowing concealed carry, I doubt very much you would be allowed open carry. Most states deny the sale of a handgun to those under the age of 21. You can go to war for your country. But you cannot buy a handgun. These are only the ones which I am familiar. I am sure there are many more.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note the comma midway through this declaration. That comma separates the first part, which is cause for the second part. By itself, the first part is meaningless. The second part, the right of the people,,,,is capable of meaning. Note also, there is nothing establishing authority by either state or federal government to raise a militia or army of any kind. The militia, as defined at the time, consisted of every able bodied male citizen 18 years of age or older. And they were required to arm themselves at their own expense! Keep and bear arms? Keep is to possess, Bear is to carry. Arms remain undefined. Since there is no definition of what constitutes "arms", how can there be any restriction on such? What part of "infringe" do you not understand? The American hunting rifle of the day was superior to the (British) military issue smooth bore musket. It is not about hunting. Nor is it about self defense. It is a check against tyranny! It is not outdated. Nor is it unrealistic! If we are to exclude any arms not yet invented, then we must also exclude any form of free speech not yet invented.
Thank you everyone for your insightful posts. I would like to respond generally to some of the concerns a Guardian Teacher raises among some.
Accidents: extremely unlikely, we have 10s of thousands of police officers who safely manage their fire arms every day... with a round in the chamber... 10s of thousands of CW carriers carry their guns... i'm never heard of a CW carrier's gun accidently going off. A Guardian Teacher/Administrator would not be allowed to keep a round in the chamber... load only after gun reports, or gun revieled.
Student attempts to take gun: 1st, very unlikely. 2nd, Guardian T. or Administrator uses an ankle holster... student would be in a very vulnerable position if they attempt a take'away. 3rd, this is actually a better senerio than a student returning to school with a gun... by trying to take a gun from a armed teacher the student has revealed his intentions. A student who gets a gun off campus only reveals his intentions when the shooting starts. imagine being on a plane and somebody infront of you attacks an air marshal to get their gun... what are you going to do?
School resource officer/security: Great idea... very expensive. my own school has a half time security officer in the high school. no one in the elementary. Guardian T. costs very little ($2,000) a year.
Teachers aren't trained, or ready for this type of fight: What kind of training do you need before your qualified to fight for a child's life? Teachers don't need to be members of Seal Team 6. They need three things: 1) proven gun safety discipline, 2) reasonably accuracy, 3) A gun. That's it... take the gun away... you're nothing more than another target/victim.
Fire fight leads to unintened victims: This could happen... but i'd take those odds any day over a shooter being able to carefully pick their targets as they move through a school/classroom. A fire fight waists shooters ammunition, and gives victims seconds to escape/hide/lock doors.
There have been many thoughtful responses to my original idea, many i would whole heartedly support. But, no one has offered a solution that would be as cost effective (teacher would absorb most of the costs.. i'm willing to), or immidiate as a teacher(s) who can respond withint seconds to a mass murderer. None of them can stop or interupt a shooter better than an armed protector. Let qualified, carefully selected teachers and administrators carry guns... have a layered approach to security... not a one fire wall system.
Doesn't matter any way man. Obama was just on the news live. Biden is writing the new gun ban law as we speak and Obama is going to fast track it. If obama care is any indication... Bottom line the "american people" voted for socialism, their decision has been made. This is what socialism tastes like.
I would not have trusted a single teacher I've had in my life to carry in a classroom. They all snap sooner or later. Regardless they wouldn't have time to teach students properly if they recieved the proper training to handle a situation that requires an armed response anyway.
"What kind of training do you need before your qualified to fight for a child's life?" at minimum 6 months of training at around 40 - 50 hours per week and an additional 10 - 20 hpw to maintain that skillset. Leave the killing to the Pros man. They're good at what they do. All an untrained teacher is going to do is get more kids that happen to be downrange killed. One former recon or 11B could handle more with less collateral damage than an entire staff of armed teachers. For the record, they're used to being paid jack shit.
Stop it Be. Obama is no more a socialist than Bush was a fascist. And talking like that is not helpful to fixing what ails us.
Both are D'bags of the grandest scale. I'm simply stating gun controll is going to happen regardless so it's pointless arguing about it. I forgot to strap on my "don't be an asshole while posting filter" this morning. I apoligize if I offended anyone.
No problem Rush! Just kidding...
What we need are people taking an active role in their communities. How about forming a father/mother/retiree club who helps watch school grounds? We have enough guns and laws.
WOW, really all this banter about rights for gun owners and rights for game players? How about the rights for the innocent???
Should we not be thinking about how to best work toward less brutality as an overall goal and not one that points fingers?
Amazing first we have a kid that thanks Karate can stop a gun, then we have a kid that thinks a gun can stop a gun.
In the wrong hands it really doesn't matter which game one plays. When it intrudes on the here and now it's a problem either way.
No I don't have a solution. I'm open to a discussion though.
I don't really care if your a gun lover or a gun hater, I'd just like us to help the kids.
Brad, I have a different concern with the Guardian Teacher approach. Reports vary for how long it took the shooter in CT to kill the 25 or so kids and adults at the school, but they range up to about 2 minutes. Assuming that the Guardian Teacher is somewhere in the school teaching, or on break, or maybe is a staff member working in a back office somewhere, most, if not all of the carnage will be over by the time the shooter is confronted by the Guardian, except in the odd chance that the shooter goes where the Guardian already is to open fire.
I prefer Lugan's suggestion that a LEO is stationed at the school. A school could/should have (and do in the few cases that I'm familiar with) a single point of entry for visitors (all other entrances should be locked and only staff have keys). With the trained LEO stationed at the point of entry, deterrence would be increased and response time decreased.
One drawback to the LEO scenario is simply the tremendous cost of having a paid professional in every school (there are a LOT of schools in this country), who would spend virtually all of their time with little active enforcement to perform (I'm an opponent of having LEOs in schools to police minor violations by juveniles). Perhaps a hybrid staff position could be co-funded by the police and school district; one with bona fide LEO training, but also with training in some aspect of school admin or communications, and who would be positioned at the point of entry, where he/she could be on call at a moment's notice to respond.
A $40K per year + standard benifits full time position for an armed guard in an elementry school with 600 students works out to under $70.00 per year per student. Show me a parent who can not afford $5.83 per month to provide security for their kids and I'll show you someone who has no busisness having kids in the first place. Not to mention we're paying companies like Blackwater billions of dollars to guard schools in Iraq, Lybia, Israel, and asscrackastan.
Time to straighten out some priorities. Cost is not an issue here. Professional preventative security is not expensive, or intrusive.
If mass murderers are such intricate planners, I think taking out the school's security officer would be somewhere near step 1 in the shooter's plan.