Latest School Shooting

[tex1989]

I think the discussion here is very indicative of the wider conversation being had across America today on this subject. Solutions being proposed and then someone else pointing out the fact that in their opinion why it would not work. That in my opinion is the problem with so many issue we face as a nation today. There are no easy solutions, there is no "one" solution that fixes it all. It has to involve the parents, the schools, the administrators, the government, mental health resources, and much more. Yes, as I stated in an earlier post most shooters show up armed and shooting so while the metal detector may go off as they walk through it at that point it is very clear they have a gun because it is in his hand and firing. But it is a deterrent even if minor none the less. Armed school personal while potententially ineffective might give pause to a potential shooter because he might get shot before they do all the damage they want. Mental health screening and closer monitoring of kids might point to the possibility of intervention before a tragic incident. More school resource officers would potentially act as a further deterrent to shooters. Given the current state of society it is probably unrealistic to assume that any action will completely stop the problem and as we move to solution the first steps might be just minimizing the loss of life without the ability to completely stop it. The Parkland students announced a "Summer Tour" yesterday and want to motivate young folks to register to vote and become more active and outspoken on the issues. That's great it can work, it worked to help Obama get elected for his first term, but as we have seen that movement as most can die on the vine pretty quickly. What will happen more than likely is the Parkland movement will gain some traction and elect a few politicians who share their views but after a while the elected officials will become more beholding to some other cause and it will fade like so many causes before it.

I believe this issue is important and needs action but just hope that at some point we all see it for what it is, a problem with our younger generations growing up in a scary and uncertain world and we as the older generations needing to understand and teach them that people do care and when dealing with issues you need to understand the problem and fix the root causes not just jump on someone else's bandwagon.

 

[DopeyDame]

I find the bolded rather sad. You seriously do not think you can trust your childrens' teachers to respond appropriately in an emergency? You do realize that in most school situations, their teacher is the only one they have to respond? Every one else is outside that door.

I feel blessed to know that I could have, at any time, trusted the teachers of my kids. A few, I know for a fact would lay down their lives for their kids.

No need to feel sad for me or my kids. They have wonderful teachers who I am confident would do literally anything to protect them.

In a fire emergency, I absolutely trust them to appropriately respond. But I don't trust my kids' teachers to also simultaneously be responsible to PUT OUT THE FIRE.
Likewise in an active shooter emergency, I trust them to do everything they can to protect my kids. But their job in any emergency is to focus on the kids in their care, not to deal with the cause of the emergency. Asking them to simultaneously evaluate a situation, determine if it's safe to evacuate the class, keep all the kids quiet and as calm as possible, and then also get to a gun, determine who and where the shooter is, and kill the shooter (who is typically another child), is too much to put on anyone. That's why teacher's jobs are to focus on the students in their care - evacuate or hide as possible.

 

[DopeyDame]

Would you be okay if the armed classrooms were segregated by kids of owners and kids of parents that opposed gun ownership, and only the kids in the armed classroom were to be protected by those armed teachers to prevent kids of non gun owners from being accidentally shot? The teachers in the other classroom could grab fire extinguishers or something to defend the classroom with.
Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Sure. Only I wouldn't delineate it by kids of gun owners and kids of people opposed to gun ownership. You see plenty of people who think having guns *in a classroom* is a bat-crazy idea are perfectly OK with people owning guns in general. And probably people who don't own guns who want their kids' teachers to have guns.
So just delineate it by people who want their kids' teachers to have guns and those who think guns around six year olds is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I may be wrong, but I think @Mackenzie Click-Mickelson was referring to how you frequently talk about how getting rid of guns is the answer, but then make comments about people being inherently violent and stupid. That, I think is what several of us on here are trying to say: People are the problem and will commit crimes whether there are guns or not. I'm sure you especially are well aware that getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of the violence, considering London with their gun laws has surpassed NYC on murder rate.

In a nutshell yes

 

[Domo]

In a nutshell yes

All I am trying to say is that mass ownership of guns can only be a bad thing as their prime purpose is to eliminate life. Items such as cars and potatoes are destined for other means and whilst they can be lethal, they are - unlike guns - designed to preserve life.

 

[luvsJack]

No need to feel sad for me or my kids. They have wonderful teachers who I am confident would do literally anything to protect them.

In a fire emergency, I absolutely trust them to appropriately respond. But I don't trust my kids' teachers to also simultaneously be responsible to PUT OUT THE FIRE.
Likewise in an active shooter emergency, I trust them to do everything they can to protect my kids. But their job in any emergency is to focus on the kids in their care, not to deal with the cause of the emergency. Asking them to simultaneously evaluate a situation, determine if it's safe to evacuate the class, keep all the kids quiet and as calm as possible, and then also get to a gun, determine who and where the shooter is, and kill the shooter (who is typically another child), is too much to put on anyone. That's why teacher's jobs are to focus on the students in their care - evacuate or hide as possible.

But do you not see, if the need was there they COULD put out a fire in their classroom. Right now? We are telling them to throw shoes at the shooter or some other equally as ridiculous direction.

I don't think every teacher needs to have a gun. But I do think that there are some, probably some on every campus that could handle it just fine. No one said it "had" to be the 2nd grade teacher with 30 kids to contend with.

 

[luvsJack]

Sure. Only I wouldn't delineate it by kids of gun owners and kids of people opposed to gun ownership. You see plenty of people who think having guns *in a classroom* is a bat-crazy idea are perfectly OK with people owning guns in general. And probably people who don't own guns who want their kids' teachers to have guns.
So just delineate it by people who want their kids' teachers to have guns and those who think guns around six year olds is a recipe for disaster.

You do realize the teacher isn't likely to have a gun strapped to her in a holster? Its more likely to be locked away.

I would think that since these teacher are adults and actually intelligent ones, they can say from themselves what they can and cannot handle.


No one is going to force anyone to do anything.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

All I am trying to say is that mass ownership of guns can only be a bad thing as their prime purpose is to eliminate life. Items such as cars and potatoes are destined for other means and whilst they can be lethal, they are - unlike guns - designed to preserve life.

I'm just not sure how else I can convey how I feel. I do understand that for you you do not like guns.

 

[Domo]

I'm just not sure how else I can convey how I feel. I do understand that for you you do not like guns.

I guess we'll always disagree on some base level. There's no shame in that

 

[Domo]

I'm just not sure how else I can convey how I feel. I do understand that for you you do not like guns.

You want to know a dirty little secret? Well not a secret but... I own an air rifle. Not an MP7, but it DOES make me somewhat of a hypocrite...

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

All I am trying to say is that mass ownership of guns can only be a bad thing as their prime purpose is to eliminate life. Items such as cars and potatoes are destined for other means and whilst they can be lethal, they are - unlike guns - designed to preserve life.

Ahh, but how do you define "prime purpose?" If you're going off of original intent of usage for the first one designed, then weren't knives also designed to help the user kill? Yet they have a multitude of purposes now, depending on how the user chooses to use it. The vast majority of guns in the US are not used to kill people, so their purpose becomes what that user uses them for. Purpose is individual. The cigarette lighter in vehicles is often used to plug in electronics, though that may not have been it's original purpose. Bic lighters are often used to open beer bottles, again, not their original purpose, but the purpose that the user gives to them. A gun can do nothing without a person controlling it, deciding what their purpose will be for it. Purpose is entirely individual.

Guns are also quite frequently used to preserve life. They are used as a deterrent much the same that nuclear weapons are now primarily used to deter other countries from attacking. Obviously nuclear weapons were originally designed to take lives, but that's currently not what they are being used for.

It's not possible to completely eradicate the world of guns, just as it's highly unlikely we will ever completely get rid of nuclear weapons. But neither guns nor nukes are going to kill without a person behind them making them do so.

As you've seen with London, getting rid of the guns just brings along the popularity of a new weapon. People are killing in record numbers without the guns. Is it the guns or is the people?

 

[Domo]

Ahh, but how do you define "prime purpose?" If you're going off of original intent of usage for the first one designed, then weren't knives also designed to help the user kill? Yet they have a multitude of purposes now, depending on how the user chooses to use it. The vast majority of guns in the US are not used to kill people, so their purpose becomes what that user uses them for. Purpose is individual. The cigarette lighter in vehicles is often used to plug in electronics, though that may not have been it's original purpose. Bic lighters are often used to open beer bottles, again, not their original purpose, but the purpose that the user gives to them. A gun can do nothing without a person controlling it, deciding what their purpose will be for it. Purpose is entirely individual.

Guns are also quite frequently used to preserve life. They are used as a deterrent much the same that nuclear weapons are now primarily used to deter other countries from attacking. Obviously nuclear weapons were originally designed to take lives, but that's currently not what they are being used for.

It's not possible to completely eradicate the world of guns, just as it's highly unlikely we will ever completely get rid of nuclear weapons. But neither guns nor nukes are going to kill without a person behind them making them do so.

As you've seen with London, getting rid of the guns just brings along the popularity of a new weapon. People are killing in record numbers without the guns. Is it the guns or is the people?

Definitely guns. Well, not all guns. Match air rifles couldn't do much damage unless you swallowed them. However, a Steyr Aug would obliterate a target, shredding anything in it's path.

Knives are interesting. I guess you can also quantify those too, but with greater difficulty. A paper knife is fairly innocuous whereas a "zombie knife" was designed with killing in mind.

Everything can kill. Including a daisy or patch of forget-me-nots. However, some things are significantly more lethal than others.

 

[Domo]

To my mind, a perfect world is one with no non-match or hunting weapons, no bombs, limited knives and safety envisaged cars. A way of minimising damage while preserving ulterior motives.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

Definitely guns. Well, not all guns. Match air rifles couldn't do much damage unless you swallowed them. However, a Steyr Aug would obliterate a target, shredding anything in it's path.

Knives are interesting. I guess you can also quantify those too, but with greater difficulty. A paper knife is fairly innocuous whereas a "zombie knife" was designed with killing in mind.

Everything can kill. Including a daisy or patch of forget-me-nots. However, some things are significantly more lethal than others.

I guess my point is: Do you really think if we got rid of all guns that there would be less killing? Or would people just find another weapon, LIKE KNIVES, as London has done?