NRA Says Teachers Should Have Guns - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 03-25-2005, 05:05 PM

Interesting solution. More guns in school will solve our problems.

Quote:

All options should be considered to prevent rampages like the Minnesota school shooting that took 10 lives -- including making guns available to teachers, a top National Rifle Association leader said Friday.

"I'm not saying that that means every teacher should have a gun or not, but what I am saying is we need to look at all the options at what will truly protect the students," the NRA's first vice president, Sandra S. Froman, told The Associated Press.

Gun-control restrictions would not have prevented Jeff Weise, 16, from killing nine people and himself Monday at Red Lake High School near Bemidji, Minn., said Froman, an attorney expected next month to be elected president of the NRA, which claims 4 million members.

The presence of an unarmed guard at the school failed to stop the siege, she noted.

"No gun law, no policy that you could implement now or that was already implemented, I think, could possibly prevent someone so intent on destruction," she said. "I think everything's on the table as far as looking at what we need to do to make our schools safe for our students."

Froman said if it is the responsibility of teachers to protect students in a school, "then we as a society, we as a community have to provide a way for the teachers to do that."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

Coppertop · 03-25-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

The presence of an unarmed guard at the school failed to stop the siege, she noted.

I've always wondered what use unarmed security guards were - at schools, work, the airport or anywhere.

ObieX · 03-25-2005, 05:17 PM

Somehow i dont think giving students who may not have a gun to go on a rampage access to the gun of a careless teacher is a good idea. Teacher turns his back for one second and is forced to say "ok, who stole my gun? We're not going anywhere until someone puts the gun on my desk. I'll close my eyes and count to 3 and if its not on my desk when im.. *BANG*"

samcol · 03-25-2005, 05:22 PM

I don't think this is that bad of an idea. Maybe an armed teacher could of prevented this or at least stopped the kid before he could do further damage.

arch13 · 03-25-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I don't think this is that bad of an idea. Maybe an armed teacher could of prevented this or at least stopped the kid before he could do further damage.

And if the student had shot the teacher and gained another gun to use?

CandleInTheDark · 03-25-2005, 05:34 PM

I don't think a student will stop their rampage because they don't have enough guns.

crewsor · 03-25-2005, 05:44 PM

I don't understand the statement that gun restrictions would not have prevented the rampage. How can you know if more difficult access to firearms would not dissuade shootings such as this? I think in some cases it could. I don't know where he got the weapons he used in this case, but I think limited access to firearms would make this type of thing less, rather than more likely.

samcol · 03-25-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewsor

I don't understand the statement that gun restrictions would not have prevented the rampage. How can you know if more difficult access to firearms would not dissuade shootings such as this? I think in some cases it could. I don't know where he got the weapons he used in this case, but I think limited access to firearms would make this type of thing less, rather than more likely.

I believe he got it from his grandfather who was a cop.

ShaniFaye · 03-25-2005, 06:00 PM

Its been reported since the beginning that had his grandfathers service revolver...he also had two shotguns, which are not regulated by "gun laws". Toughter gun laws wouldnt have stopped him from getting the one gun that was regulated because he took it from his grandfather, along with his bullet proof vest and squad car after he killed him.

timalkin · 03-25-2005, 06:20 PM

Anti-gun advocates need to start thinking rationally about teachers carrying firearms in schools. Sure, it "sounds" bad to let somebody bring a firearm into a school, but I'd much prefer a responsible adult who is trained to carry and use a firearm carrying in a school than some punk kid bringing grandaddy's old revolver to school to settle some disputes.

Emotion-based ideas rarely work when implemented in reality.

host · 03-25-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timalkin

Anti-gun advocates need to start thinking rationally about teachers carrying firearms in schools. Sure, it "sounds" bad to let somebody bring a firearm into a school, but I'd much prefer a responsible adult who is trained to carry and use a firearm carrying in a school than some punk kid bringing grandaddy's old revolver to school to settle some disputes.

Emotion-based ideas rarely work when implemented in reality.

Let's see..... using the same reactive thinking, should it have become common practice for fast food counter and kitchen workers to carry sidearms after at least one incident years ago that resulted in a lone shooter killing 21 unarmed victims ?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/07/18/news/top_stories/16_42_237_17_04.txt">http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/07/18/news/top_stories/16_42_237_17_04.txt</a>
Last modified Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:40 PM PDT

<b>20 Years later, San Ysidro McDonald's massacre remembered</b>
By: JESSICA GRESKO - Associated Press

SAN DIEGO -- In the summer of 1984, a celebratory California was in the headlines. In San Francisco, the Democratic National Convention was under way. In Los Angeles, organizers were making last minute preparations for the Olympics.

Then on the afternoon of July 18, the small San Diego community of San Ysidro grabbed the spotlight for a very different reason.

On that day 20 years ago, an unemployed security guard, James Oliver Huberty, walked into a McDonald's in San Ysidro, just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, and began shooting. Armed with three guns, he killed 21 people, including five children and six teenagers, and wounded 19 before he was shot and killed by a police sniper.

At the time, his 77-minute rampage was the largest single-day, single-gunman massacre in U.S. history.

The shooting left gaps in families and shocked a nation that hadn't seen such violence on a large scale. The day changed how police respond to tragedy and awakened officers to the possibility of mass murder.

"It was new then, as flying an airplane into the World Trade Center was new in 2001," said Chuck Foster, the police sniper who ultimately ended the rampage. "All of the responders -- the police officers, the firefighters, the paramedics -- weren't foreseeing the scope of this killing spree."

It had been almost two decades since the nation had seen anything comparable -- the 1966 shooting spree from atop a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, when architecture student Charles Joseph Whitman killed 14 and wounded 31.

Huberty's rampage at San Ysidro convulsed the country. Politicians used the incident to lobby for stricter gun laws. Mental health experts and citizens wanted to know why Huberty's call to a nearby clinic wasn't returned. Others asked why his wife Etna did nothing when her husband left the house saying he was going "hunting humans."

Etna Huberty, who died last year, said such outbursts were not unusual and blamed her husband's violent streak on a troubled childhood.

The massacre also led to changes in police tactics, with officers reconsidering training practices that had them use force only as a last resort. New practices of providing mental health response teams evolved.

Did the USPS react to multiple shooting incidents by providing postal workers with sidearms ?

Quote:

<a href="http://hematite.com/dragon/usps.html">http://hematite.com/dragon/usps.html</a>
Should U.S. Postal Employees Have Guns?

What is going on in the United States Postal Service? What drives people to such anger and rage that they will walk in and start shooting people? If this was a large corporation, such as UPS, Microsoft or K-Mart that had 41 dead employees over 12 years, you can be sure that the Government would be interrogating their management practices to find out why these incidents were occuring. Actually, that number may actually be higher, I stopped counting when I had enough data to make my point here.

Armed teachers will require adequate training and will run the risk of deciding
when, where, and who to shoot. I doubt that many school systems will want the added liability risk that armed school personnel will bring. I believe that arming teachers in school with firearms is an ill conceived over reaction.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.fullcombat.com/Articles/selfdefense/gunsandselfdefense.html#_ftnref3">http://www.fullcombat.com/Articles/selfdefense/gunsandselfdefense.html#_ftnref3</a>

Myth 3: “I carry a gun every day, so I have nothing to fear from knives”

Fact: Under 21 feet a knife will win every time against an untrained shooter. Many people refuse to believe this until they see an actual demonstration. Time after time, Many instructors in the law enforcement community demonstrate the “Tueller” drill and watch as the faces of our officers show concern and fear because their myth of “a gun as a superior weapon” was demolished by this simple demonstration where a knife wielding attacker covers the 21 feet and cut the officers throat with a training blade while they fumble with their weapon. Knives are actually one of the biggest threats to officers. Knives are a dangerous weapon that can be employed at point of contact, creating massive permanent wound cavities, causing mechanical and biological trauma with excessive blood loss leading to shock and death. 10% of all officers who are shot in the line of duty die whereas 30% of all officers attacked with a bladed weapon die[3]. These facts become truly terrifying when we also consider that the majority of all self-defense shootings occur under 10 feet, which is well within the kill zone range of bladed weapons. Dealing with bladed weapons is actually an extremely important training aspect for Law Enforcement Instructors and we must constantly be training ourselves and our officers on the latest techniques and procedures so we can defeat the knife-wielding suspect while on duty, especially since most knife attacks against officers occur either during the interview process within the personal space or during an attempt at arrest.

The essence of self-defense is the ability to defend oneself against an attacker using any and all necessary violence of action to end the threat against ones life. Any weapon is just a tool that we use in defending ourselves. Whether one uses their own body, a knife or gun to defend them-selves, the principle remains the same that to survive an attack on your life, one must realistically train and be honest with oneself about their self-defense skills.

[3] Laur, Darren: Pat, Wrap and Attack Edged Weapon Tactics and Counter Tactics, Integrated Street Combatives, Victoria BC Canada, January 2004.

The_Dunedan · 03-25-2005, 08:10 PM

Hey, it works for the Israelis. They havn't had a terrorist attack or school-shooting since the mid-seventies, when they made the decision to arm their teachers. Not a single one.

Also, schools are a classic example of a "Disarmed Victim Zone." Psychopaths like this little twit know that their victims are unarmed and unable to effectively resist. Ever notice how you never hear about this kind of thing on military bases, shooting ranges, at gunshows, or police stations? Criminals and psychopaths are generally crazy and anti-social; they're not stupid. They're not going to take their rampage to a place where they can be resisted.

Lastly, the great "nail in the coffin" of Victim Disarmament; criminals and psychopaths like this kid are going to get weapons, of some type, regardless of the laws that are put in their way. The Columbine shooters broke over 20 State and Federal-level laws before they ever pulled the trigger. Disarming the innocent does nothing to deter the guilty; it only served to make the lives of criminals easier.

Sweetpea · 03-25-2005, 08:38 PM

If the teacher is properly trained and can excecute use of said firearm . . . that would be similar to the idea of having an 'air marshal' on board a plane.

Perhaps teachers should be taught how to 'neutralize' a target? I see how it could lead to the protection of both the teacher carrying the firearm and the students they protect. A teacher who is trained and practiced in firearm safety and use could be benificial to protecting the innocent lives, in addition the idea and knowledge that there are armed teachers might change the fact that these young shooters find their schools an easy mark . . .

Currently, how are these teachers supposed to protect themselves? When the students they teach carry knives, firearms etc. Should teachers not be given the right to protect themselves? I think they should.

however, if they are going to go this far . . . Why not just put a police officer in every classroom??

I am pro-firearm, i believe ppl should be allowed to protect their lives . . . but arming teachers and having guns in classrooms won't stop these shootings, guns in classrooms won't bring peace to our schools . . . the change has to come from society itself so we stop creating these monster children who are so full of hate and rage that they need to manifest those feelings in violence.

Thanks,
Sweetpea

Sweetpea · 03-25-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

And if the student had shot the teacher and gained another gun to use?

It is a common misconception and a bit of an urban myth that someone can easily shoot you and take your firearm from you and use it against you and others . . . it's just not true if someone is properly prepared and trained in firearms.

If the teacher is properly trained, she/he would have the skills to neutralize a shooting student and keep their own gun . . .

thanks,

Sweetpea

The_Dunedan · 03-25-2005, 08:47 PM

Sweetpea;
Emphatically agreed re. the "top-down change" you mentioned. It's looking like there may be a very, VERY strong corrolation ( ie nearly 100% ) of school-shootings to Prozac; IIRC, every last one of these little monsters has been on this particular drug.

However, until the proper sociological changes take place to prevent this from happening again, I think that the only workable solution is to allow teachers to arm themselves. Without the ability to defend themselves effectively, teachers and their students are nothing but moving targets.

Sweetpea · 03-25-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewsor

I don't understand the statement that gun restrictions would not have prevented the rampage. How can you know if more difficult access to firearms would not dissuade shootings such as this? I think in some cases it could. I don't know where he got the weapons he used in this case, but I think limited access to firearms would make this type of thing less, rather than more likely.

"if we outlaw firearms, the only ones who will have firearms will be the outlaws." this is so true.

Criminals and determined youth have no problem finding guns that are restricted, there is a large underground of firearm dealing and always has been and probably always will be, the business of protecting oneself is booming and this will always be so . . .

Gun restrictions of any kind, only really make it difficult for law abiding citizens to get the firearms needed to protect the innocent lives of themselves and their families.

Thanks,

Sweetpea

The_Dunedan · 03-25-2005, 08:50 PM

arch13;
Sweetpea's right. Civillians are almost never divested of their weapon by a criminal; it happens in less than .5% of all DGUs in this country. The vast majority of such cases come from criminals who make a grab for a cop's gun during an arrest; the gun is easily accessible, in the open, and in close proximity to the perp. All good defensive-shooting schools ( Thunder Ranch, LFI, Gunsite ) and a goodly number of CCW classes include weapon-retention training, as well.

Sweetpea · 03-25-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Sweetpea;
Emphatically agreed re. the "top-down change" you mentioned. It's looking like there may be a very, VERY strong corrolation ( ie nearly 100% ) of school-shootings to Prozac; IIRC, every last one of these little monsters has been on this particular drug.

However, until the proper sociological changes take place to prevent this from happening again, I think that the only workable solution is to allow teachers to arm themselves. Without the ability to defend themselves effectively, teachers and their students are nothing but moving targets.

Dunedan,

Very true . . . there should be a tandem approach . . . arm teachers, giving them the right and knowledge to protect themselves and their students
And at the same time, also work on adressing the main societal issue of disaffected, depressed and rage filled young individuals . . .

thanks and good points made Dunedan,

Sweetpea

Lebell · 03-25-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Let's see..... using the same reactive thinking, should it have become common practice for fast food counter and kitchen workers to carry sidearms after at least one incident years ago that resulted in a lone shooter killing 21 unarmed victims ?

No.

Apparently, they also think it's better for people to be unarmed victims.

Quote:

Texas: McDonald's Employee May Lose Job After Shooting

Posted on Friday, June 30, 2000 at 11:35 AM by msolomon

Found on California NRA Website: This June 29, 2000, houston.com article reports, "Teroy Vance, owner of a McDonald's that was almost robbed Wednesday night, praised his employee for shooting two armed robbers. Thursday, Vance is faced with having to fire him. Willis Lee, a janitor at the McDonald's at 5301 East Freeway, shot the suspects as they were holding up a cashier. It is against McDonald's policy for employees to carry weapons. Vance said he was glad that Lee used his gun against the thieves. Police identified two of the three suspects as Clarence Davis Winslow and Timothy Lee Martin. The third suspect is still on the loose. Because of their gunshot wounds, Winslow and Martin ran to a nearby apartment complex and called for an ambulance. They are in fair condition at area hospitals. Vance told News2Houston that he was just leaving around 11 p.m. when he heard gunshots coming from inside his McDonald's. Vance and the other employees are calling Lee a hero. "

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/1851

Edit to add:

Of course, it's too bad that Suzanna Gratia Hupp was forced by law to leave her legally owned and carried pistol in her car outside Lubys October of 1991.

Or maybe the gunman that killed 21 people that day would have simply taken it away from her and killed twice as many people.

Yeah, right.

liquidlight · 03-25-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crewsor

I don't understand the statement that gun restrictions would not have prevented the rampage. How can you know if more difficult access to firearms would not dissuade shootings such as this? I think in some cases it could. I don't know where he got the weapons he used in this case, but I think limited access to firearms would make this type of thing less, rather than more likely.

The statement about restrictions is valid. The gun that he used belonged to his grandfather, who was a police officer. And this just continues to demonstrate the fact that regardless of the limitations put on law abiding citizens, a person that wants a gun is either going to obtain it illegally, or is going to hurt someone else to get it if their desire is that great. And once they have the guns, then what? How are the rest of us that gave up our rights under the control legislations supposed to protect ourselves from them. Give the teachers the guns, but also give them the education on the guns so that they have the necessary respect and skill to use them appropriately.

Host has some very valid concerns about placing guns into these situations as a reactionary measure, but I don't think that reaction is the right word, if this were a single instance that possibly, but the developing trend here requires a response, and the measures employed thus far are continually proving woefully ineffective.

I'll leave it there, because I don't think I could say anything else right now that SweetPea hasn't already said better.

Gilda · 03-25-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coppertop

I've always wondered what use unarmed security guards were - at schools, work, the airport or anywhere.

We have two security guards at the middle school where I work, both unarmed. I've had to call secuirty to have a disruptive student who refuesed to leave removed from the classroom, something which would have put me at a much greater risk than it did the guard.

The vast majority of assaults that occur in schools don't involve a firearm or weapon of any kind, and so don't require the guard intervening to have a firearm.

In addition, the mere presense of a guard in uniform in the parking lot between classes and in the maid quad between classes and durin lunch is a major deterrent to violence and vandalism. Remember that the purpose of security is to prevent crime and disruption; intervention is secondary.

Sure we should look at the possibility of arming teachers, but we should look at all aspects of what this means. Perhaps armed security guards at checkpoints would be more effective.

I think people on both sides need to get away from the idea that everyone is like them. I don't particularly like guns, and would be a very poor candidate for carrying a gun if it came to arming teachers. I'm not much good in a physical confrontation, and it would be easy to take a gun from me if I were armed. Arming me would be foolish, and the same is true of many other teachers. I don't, however, assume that the same is true of everyone. I don't doubt that there would be those who would be quite responsible with a gun, and would just as difficult to disarm in a crisis situation as I would be easy to disarm. To assume that anyone would be as responsible with a gun as the people posting to this thread apparently are with theirs is as foolish as it would be to assume that everyone would be as intimidated and easily spooked as I.

I think a better solution would be armed security guards, trained in weapon use and retention, combined with a closed campus and security checkpoints.

We also need to keep in mind that despite the massive coverage that school shootings get, in school is one of the safest places a child can be in this country, certainly safer than at home, where they are more likely to be injured or the victim of a violent crime.

Seanland · 03-25-2005, 11:07 PM

to solve a gun issue, bring more guns into the situation..... yea, bright one......

The_Dunedan · 03-25-2005, 11:23 PM

Seanland;
It's worked for the Israelis..for Kenneshaw, GA...for every state that has adopted shall-issue CCW. Meanwhile, rates of violent crime in Victim Disarmament Zones like London, Washington DC, Moscow, and Chicago continue their climb.

Paq · 03-26-2005, 12:01 AM

i'l admit that i only read half of this thread so far....but i just gotta ask.

what type of teachers are in your area??? Most of the teachers i know and have had were 65 yr old ladies who had been teaching all their lives..

now, putting a gun in these hands, requiring theseteachers to go through training and expecting them to be able to fend off a very fast, very motivated,angry teenager who has intent to do harm just seems a bit farfetched.

I am not saying this is the case with every teacher, but i;m just saying that putting in a requirement for all teachers to be highly trained with firearms and self defense/crisis control with armed assailants is probably not a feasible thing to do.

Having armed guards in the schools makes much more sense, but expecting teachers from all sorts of backgrounds to make for efficient blocks against this sort of violence is just not going to work. it *may* cause some of the sociopathic to rethink a strategy or two, but the dedicated would still find ways of doing the same thing. The presence of an armed guard could seriously curtail that threat much more effectively than arming typical teachers would.

Tarl Cabot · 03-26-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seanland

to solve a gun issue, bring more guns into the situation..... yea, bright one......

Perhaps you would like to name a municipality in which gun restrictions have led to a decrease in crime.

Pacifier · 03-26-2005, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

"if we outlaw firearms, the only ones who will have firearms will be the outlaws." this is so true.

Criminals and determined youth have no problem finding guns that are restricted, there is a large underground of firearm dealing and always has been and probably always will be, the business of protecting oneself is booming and this will always be so . . .

Where are the illegal firearms coming from? Are they already manufactured illegal? Or are they bought as legal weapons and than are stolen or sold illegaly?

Somewhere the "life" of a gun has to start and it starts as a legal gun. So outlawing guns would dry out one of the supplies of illegal guns.

My problem with the possetion of guns is that the american soceity is obviously obsessed with violence (see crime stats) and I think someone who violently insane shouldn't be armed to the teeth, so why should the american soceity be armed?
But I also think that guns are not the problem, the reason for the violence.

As for the teachers, I don't think it would be a good idea to arm them.
First the chance that the guns are stolen.
Second the teacher would be in higher danger of being shot. I would shoot a teacher first if I knew he is armed. Without letting him get out his gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Meanwhile, rates of violent crime in Victim Disarmament Zones like London, Washington DC, Moscow, and Chicago continue their climb.

source?

host · 03-26-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot

Perhaps you would like to name a municipality in which gun restrictions have led to a decrease in crime.

One breakthrough that helped New York City to deter illegal firearms posession and to enforce the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., resulting in less crminal shooting incidents, was:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/23/national/23LIVE.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/23/national/23LIVE.html</a>
or.....<a href="http://www.policetalk.com/ginsburg.html">http://www.policetalk.com/ginsburg.html</a>
December 23, 2000
Public Lives: The Woman Who Changed the Illegal-Gun Landscape
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

Paul Hosefros/ The New York Times
Susan Ginsburg, a groundbreaking firearms enforcement adviser at the Treasury.

WASHINGTON -- There are packing boxes now in her spacious Treasury Department office overlooking the White House, and there will soon be a new treasury secretary overseeing gun issues and, with a new administration, probably a new gun-control policy.

But as she gets ready to leave her obscure job as senior adviser for firearms policy coordination to the under secretary of the treasury for enforcement, Susan Ginsburg can take satisfaction that she has presided over what some law- enforcement officials and academic specialists call one of the most important accomplishments of the Clinton administration. With no public recognition, she has helped transform the understanding of how criminals and juveniles get guns, an achievement that has provided new ways to crack down on the illegal firearms market.

Before Ms. Ginsburg, it was widely believed that little could be done to prevent criminals from getting guns. There were roughly 200 million firearms in America, and the thinking was that criminals simply stole their weapons from that huge supply.

But Ms. Ginsburg helped arrange for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to undertake widespread tracing of guns used in crime, and as a result it is now known that most criminals buy their firearms from licensed dealers, gun traffickers or straw purchasers. That in turn has led police agencies across the nation to make targets of corrupt dealers and illicit traffickers for the first time.

"To put what she did in perspective, it's like saying that up till five years ago, nobody had been doing any drug enforcement," said David Kennedy, a senior researcher at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, at Harvard.

Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy at Duke, turns to the Bible for a comparison. "Susan reminds me of the story of the miracle of the loaves and fishes," he said. "She may not have had a staff," he said, and she worked under the shadow of the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress, but she essentially created a new federal policy out of little more than some abstruse academic thinking. "She has really been one of my heroes."

At least as remarkable, in contemporary Washington, Ms. Ginsburg has never been quoted by name in a newspaper or appeared on television. Her anonymity is such that when asked his reaction to her work, even Bill Powers, the chief spokesman for the N.R.A., said he had never heard of her.

That is precisely how Ms. Ginsburg, wary of gun-control politics and modest as well, has wanted it. "I've been very disciplined about not seeking publicity," she said. Even when she knew this profile of her was being written, she insisted in a cascade of messages that the real credit should go to Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, people at the firearms bureau and the academic researchers who first suggested to her the possibilities of gun tracing..............

............ Ms. Ginsburg had no special interest in gun control when in 1995, as an official at the Treasury Department, the firearms bureau's parent, she was invited to an academic conference in Santa Fe, N.M., on youth violence.

It was there that scholars like Mr. Kennedy and Professor Cook explained to her their new findings suggesting that criminals were buying their guns, directly or indirectly, from licensed dealers, rather than stealing them.

"I became an accidental convert," Ms. Ginsburg said. "It was my job to translate their ideas into policy," some of which she did in telephone calls with them lasting up to 10 hours, without an interruption for a meal.

Ms. Ginsburg then put the resources of the firearms bureau to work, greatly increasing the number of crime guns it traced. By now, the agency has recruited 50 cities and 6 states to trace all guns they recover in crimes.

The research has produced some crucial findings. For example, it has shown that only a small fraction of dealers, 1.2 percent of the total, accounted for more than half of crime guns traced in 1998. At the same time, it has underscored the scholars' initial discovery that criminals and juveniles want only certain guns: high-powered semiautomatic handguns of a kind widely available only in the last few years.

Contrary to the experience of earlier years, when the N.R.A.'s supporters in Congress kept the firearms agency's budget small, Ms. Ginsburg came up with a way to diffuse Congressional opposition. By focusing on criminal conduct by scofflaw dealers and criminals' acquisition of guns, she found a middle ground between gun-control advocates and the rifle association that has broad political appeal.

The result, she said, is that in the budget passed by Congress last week, there is money to hire 500 new A.T.F. agents. That will be the first real expansion in agent staffing since the bureau was created nearly three decades ago

Quote:

<a href="http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/223_428.pdf">http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/223_428.pdf</a>
REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE: AN OVERVIEW OF NEW YORK CITY’S STRATEGIES
Megan Golden
Cari Almo
Vera Institute of Justice
March 2004

(Pg. 8) In contrast to the recent national trends, gun violence has decreased in New York City, a leader in reducing crime. Between 1999 and 2002, the number of shooting victims in New York City fell seven percent, from 2,030 in 1999 to 1,892 in 2002. This number declined by another three percent in 2003, to 1,837. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) attributes these declines to a range of initiatives it has implemented to combat gun violence. Because gun crimes do not occur in a vacuum, the NYPD embeds specific initiatives within its broader crime-fighting strategies and collaborates with other law-enforcement agencies to supplement and fortify its efforts.
This paper is intended as a guide for law enforcement and public safety agencies in the United States and worldwide that are looking for effective strategies to reduce gun violence and gun trafficking. The paper describes some of the strategies that the NYPD, in cooperation with other government agencies, has implemented to reduce gun violence, as described by the NYPD officials who manage them. Although the department has not evaluated these programs through formal social science research, it monitors their effectiveness through its internal management processes.
Gun Intelligence Initiatives
The NYPD depends on citizens and technology to provide investigators with information that helps them to solve cases more quickly and prevent future gun violence. The department uses several strategies to encourage citizens to share information on illegal guns; it uses this intelligence to plan operations, build cases against gun perpetrators, and to find and recover illegal guns and those who distribute them. The NYPD’s use of sophisticated technology to identify crime patterns and link specific guns to crimes, even without having recovered the weapon, complements its use of human intelligence.

(pg. 12) Collaboration Between the NYPD and Other Agencies

Another way the NYPD works to prevent gun violence is to collaborate with other agencies that can supplement its own efforts and resources. These collaborations include the Joint Firearms Task Force with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF); a Gun Court with the Mayor’s Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, the state court system, and local prosecutors; and Triggerlock with federal prosecutors.

(pg. 13) Joint Firearms Task Force
The Joint Firearms Task Force is a partnership between the NYPD and the ATF to reduce interstate gun trafficking into New York City by identifying out-of-state gun purchases destined for New York and apprehending the people responsible before the guns hit the city’s streets. Teams from the ATF work with police officers to trace all illegal guns recovered in New York City. Using a gun’s serial number, agents trace each gun to its original place of purchase. If the gun was purchased out of state, ATF agents use sales records to track the original purchaser. ATF agents interview the original purchaser to find out what he or she did with the gun. The agents then interview the next owner, as reported by the first one, and so on. They continue to do this until they have traced the gun to its recovery.<b>
Officers have found that traffickers frequently pay people (referred to as “straw purchasers”) a small fee to purchase large numbers of guns in states with lax gun laws. Then the traffickers drive the guns to cities with more restrictive gun laws and sell them to people on the street. Once ATF agents have traced a gun’s pathway, they prosecute the trafficker in federal court, using the straw purchasers as witnesses. In 2000, the states that were the largest sources of illegal guns in New York City were Florida, Virginia, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.</b>
In one case, dubbed the “Iron Pipeline Case,” the Task Force traced several guns purchased by the Firearms Investigation Unit in undercover operations to gun dealers in Georgia and South Carolina. Through investigations in those states, the Task Force identified eight “straw purchasers,” most of whom were young women. They learned that a New York-based trafficker had paid the women to buy guns, which the trafficker then drove to New York City and sold. Eventually, this NYPD-ATF collaboration allowed law enforcement to build a solid case against this man, arrest him, and prosecute him in federal court.
Keys to success. A key to the task force’s success is the division of responsibilities between the Task Force and other NYPD units. Officers and detectives in the FIU and in the police precincts focus on seizing guns from the streets of New York, while the Task Force uses its expertise conducting investigations of and building cases for violation of federal laws. The NYPD officers assigned to the Joint Firearms Task Force are cross-designated as federal agents, allowing them to cross state borders and enforce federal laws. They serve as the link between the NYPD officers in New York and the federal agents and prosecutors enforcing federal laws against interstate gun trafficking.

Gun Court
Despite a one-year mandatory minimum sentence for gun possession, people convicted of gun possession in New York City in the past often did not receive jail sentences. To address this issue, the Mayor’s Office worked with the Office of the Court

Administration, the Brooklyn District Attorney, and the NYPD to create a specialized Gun Court for people charged with gun possession. One judge and three prosecutors are dedicated to the court, allowing them to become experts in gun possession cases. The goal is to process gun cases more quickly and have more gun offenders serve the minimum sentence, thereby deterring future gun crimes.
The Mayor’s Office and the NYPD used data to identify the five police precincts in Brooklyn with the highest violent crime rates and gun arrests; the cases of people charged with gun possession in these five precincts are tried in the Gun Court. Officers within these precincts attend a three-day training about illegal gun possession. The training focuses on recognizing illegal gun possession, safely apprehending people with illegal guns, and testifying against these suspects in court. Roughly 200 cases were referred to the Gun Court from April through October 2003. During its first six months, the proportion of defendants sentenced to jail without probation increased from 14 to 44 percent and probation-only sentences were virtually eliminated. In September 2003, two additional precincts were included in the pilot, and in 2004 the court will expand to cover almost half of the city’s 76 precincts.5
Keys to success. Government officials involved in planning and monitoring the Gun Court believe that training to help officers identify people who illegally possess guns and testify against them is a key component of the program. Of equal importance is the expertise in legal and non-legal issues in gun cases that the judge and prosecutors develop through their work in the court.

Quote:

Data for Figure 1 comes from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Facts at a Glance, “Crimes Committed With a Firearm,” 12 Dec. 2003, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/...uncrimetab.htm

host · 03-26-2005, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

No.

Apparently, they also think it's better for people to be unarmed victims.

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/1851

The story does not seem quite as controversial as the way it
was presented at packing.org ............
Since most Mcdonald franchises are owned and operated by entities other than parent corp, McDonalds, does not an inability on corporate's part, to oversee an employee firearm policy at each outlet, be a reasonable excuse for corporate legal advisors to come down against workplace firearms possession and use, and the associated liability?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.kc3.com/news/keep_job.htm">http://www.kc3.com/news/keep_job.htm</a>
McDonald's Employee Keeps Job
Charges Reportedly Have Not Been Filed

HOUSTON, Updated 4:28 p.m. CDT July 12, 2000 -- In response to a viewer's e-mail, McDonald's has answered the question that has caused a heated debate in Houston; Willis Lee is still employed as a janitor at the fast-food chain at 5301 East Freeway.

News2Houston confirmed that Lee is still with the restaurant in the maintenance department.

Lee reportedly voluntarily left after breaking the hamburger chain's rules about carrying weapons to work after shooting two armed robbers on June 26...........

.................the restaurant where the "unfortunate incident happened is independently owned and operated by a franchisee. This maintenance employee remains employed with this McDonald's franchisee and while this is a police matter, no charges have been filed against this employee."

The McDonald's owner, Teroy Vance, who faced the possibility of having to fire Lee, praised his employee for his quick actions.

More coverage on the political fallout:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-life24mar24,1,6814918.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true">http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-life24mar24,1,6814918.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true</a>
March 24, 2005
THE NATION
Bush Speaks Out and Stays Silent

................................The Minnesota tragedy has increased alarm among some school safety professionals about Bush's efforts to eliminate funding for two major programs meant to prevent classroom violence, including a Clinton administration initiative to help schools hire more police officers.

"It makes absolutely no sense that at a time when we are talking about better protecting bridges, monuments, dams and even the hallways of Congress, that we are going backward in protecting the hallways of our schools," said Kenneth S. Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a consulting firm.

........................"From a practical standpoint, there really isn't any law that one could imagine that could have helped prevent this," said the strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Some leading Democratic analysts agreed.

"It isn't so much a gun control issue," said Bruce Reed, who helped shape Clinton's response to Columbine as his chief domestic policy advisor.

Rather, Reed said that Bush was "missing an opportunity" to encourage a discussion about the steps the federal government and other institutions could take to reduce youth violence.

In contrast to Bush's eagerness to assert federal control over the Schiavo case, Reed said, the administration had argued that preventing crime was a local responsibility and rolled back Clinton-era initiatives to provide communities with more federal law enforcement assistance.

Under Bush, Congress has cut annual funding from $180 million to $5 million for a program Clinton launched after Columbine to help districts place more police officers in schools. Bush has sought to eliminate all of the program's funding.

Curtis Lavarello, executive director of the National Assn. of School Resource Officers, said, "There isn't a day that goes by that our office doesn't get a call saying, 'The federal funding has dried up. What do we do?' "

The association has also protested the administration's proposal to eliminate a $437-million program that provides grants to states to fund school antiviolence and antidrug programs.

Modzeleski, the Education Department official, said the administration was proposing to eliminate that funding because it had not "proven to be effective in the sense that those dollars could be tied to a decrease in crime and violence."

The administration has proposed an increase of about $85 million in a separate grant program to finance innovations in school safety.

Strange Famous · 03-26-2005, 03:46 AM

wow... what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

I have to say, giving the number of "5 year old kid dragged off in handcuffs" stories I have been recently, this doesnt seem a very godo solution.

Maybe this might sound crazy... but maybe REDUCING the number of guns available and making it harder for people to arm themselves might reduce gun violence, rather than arming everybody up.

As for the McDonald's guy... I'd rather be robbed than kill two people. But the fact it was company property just makes his actions even more difficult to understand... maybe I dont know the whole background and the robbers were threatening to take hostages or something... but if someone just pulls a gun and says "empty the register and the safe" I think it would take a very dangerous and unpredictable person to start shooting... why not just let them take the cash?

And yes, if you outlaw firearms only the outlaws have them... but a lot less people get shot.

pan6467 · 03-26-2005, 04:39 AM

My God, I can't believe people are so fucking insane anymore. Arguing about whether or not teachers should have guns?

JFC, where's the common sense that says, "ya know what maybe we need to find out why these kids on meds start killing people when they stop taking their meds."

Maybe, perhaps, instead of arguing over whether or not we'll allow students to start truly going nuts after they raid teachers gun stashes, we can try to find out why these kids want to kill. Why these kids are so far gone killing seems the only solution to them.

Could it be the fact both parents work and the family still barely makes it? Could it be the violent video games? The "gangsta" attitudes? What is it that is causing our youth to go nuts?

Violence is no solution to violence because violence just keeps both sides escalating in strength. Teachers have guns, so the next student will bring in dynamite or homemade pipe bombs he learned to make off the internet. Guns won't be a deterrent to students who already have the mindset of going in to kill. It will just offer them more of a challenge.

Peeople in this country have fucking gone nuts. We better find solutions and we better find them fast.... Guns ain't one of them.

samcol · 03-26-2005, 06:34 AM

Yes let's outlaw guns so only cops and crimminals can have them. I feel better about my neighbor owning a gun then some of these police officers and security guards. Maybe we could have police go door to door and gather all the guns up. Or more of these UN funded gun buyback days.

I really don't see what's wrong with arming some responsible teachers. Like The_Dunedan brought up the point that it even worked in Israel.

Charlatan · 03-26-2005, 06:51 AM

I know... let's arm everyone. Let's give guns to the kids, too (that would take care of any bullying problems for sure).

If we ALL carry then no one will ever get shot again... right?

superiorrain · 03-26-2005, 06:57 AM

^^nice picture

The only way to solve the gun issue is either ban them totally, as in destroy all guns, throw them all in the sea or send them to the moon and never allow anymore to be produced. Or alternatively give every man, women, boy, girl and anything else that wanted a gun, a nice big machine gun. Then we could all protect ourselves and thus all be safe from the danagers of guns. You'd think twice about firing a gun if you knew everyone around had one to and would likely shoot back.

Arming responsible teachers is a silly idea, how do you deem that they're responsible?

flstf · 03-26-2005, 07:11 AM

I don't think it would be necessary to arm all teachers. Just let it be known that the school district encourages them to carry and that a certain percentage are packing. That should be enough to keep many of these cowardly psychopaths home where thay can take their anger out on themselves and their own families. Of course if somebody wants to commit suicide by teacher hopefully they would be taken down before they can do too much damage.

roachboy · 03-26-2005, 08:42 AM

well, bush's poll rating are taking a dive:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/fi...1_image001.gif

a composoite graphic cited in this article from yesterday's washington post:
(excerpted here)

Quote:

Bush's Approval Takes a Tumble
Friday, Mar 25, 2005; 12:42 PM

Was President Bush's showy foray into the Terri Schiavo case a tremendous political miscalculation? Or could it be those skyrocketing gas prices?

One way or the other, Bush's approval ratings seem to have taken a sharp tumble in recent days.

As I noted in yesterday's column, the latest CBS and Newsweek polls showed a sudden drop-off.

Now comes Gallup, finding the public's satisfaction with the president at an all-time low.

Bill Nichols writes in USA Today: "President Bush's approval rating has fallen to 45%, the lowest point of his presidency, according to a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll."

"The finding, in a poll of 1,001 adults Monday through Wednesday, is a dip from 52% in a poll taken last week. . . .

"The White House declined to comment. Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said that Bush is taking on 'tough issues, whether it's to reform Social Security, promoting the spread of democracy or making a renewed pitch to Congress to pass comprehensive energy reform.' "

Here's a fascinating fact: "The new poll found the largest drop for Bush came among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers."

Now I should point out, to be fair, that Bush's approval ratings were as low or lower in other polls last spring, when the public was at the height of its unease with the situation in Iraq and the prison abuse scandal. See pollingreport.com for more.

And Gallup itself explains: "This is the lowest such rating Bush has received since taking office, although it is not significantly different from the 46% approval rating he received in May 2004."

So what's up?

Gallup speculates that "[t]he timing of the seven-point drop suggests that the controversy over the Terri Schiavo case may be a major cause."

But the survey also "suggests that the public's increasingly dismal views about the economy, and about the way things are going in general, could also be factors in Bush's lower approval rating. . . .

"One factor contributing to the economic malaise is almost certainly the rising price of gas and oil. In an open-ended question, 17% of Americans cited fuel prices as the most important economic problem facing the country, up from just 5% who said that a month ago, and 3% who mentioned it in mid-January."

Here is the spread in approval rating polls since Bush took office, from DePaul University economics Professor Stuart Eugene Thiel's wonderful Professor Pollkatz's Pool of Polls Web site.

Thiel has another chart showing how Bush's approval tracks pretty closely to gas prices (inversely of course).

For a little historical context, I went back to look at pollingreport.com's summary of President Clinton's second-term job approval ratings, and it looks like they never got anywhere near so low. In fact, even during impeachment proceedings they remained largely in the 60s.

The Gallup numbers come on the heels of a CBS poll that found Bush's job approval rating down six points in a month to 43 percent, with his disapproval rating up four points to 48; and a Newsweek poll that found Bush's approval rating down five points to 45 percent, with his disapproval rating up six points to 48 percent.

Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that support for Bush's proposed private accounts for Social Security dropped over the last month among its most likely supporters: younger Americans.

"In February, people age 18-29 favored the idea of private accounts by a 66%-19% margin. Today, just 49% favor private accounts, while 25% are opposed, and nearly as many (26%) say they don't know how they feel about the issue.

"Despite the White House effort to keep Social Security reform on the front burner, public awareness of the issue has not increased substantially over the past month."

Ironically, for the White House, that's a good thing.

"In general, opposition to the plan to allow private accounts is much higher among people who have heard a lot about it than among those who are less familiar with it. Overall, people who have heard a lot about the plan oppose it by 52%-41%, while those who have heard little or nothing favor it by a 47% to 30% margin."

so the schiavo thing isnt going so well for the right.
people are not buying the bushline about social security. despite the hard sell.
the administration continues to operate on the economy as if acting pollyanna makes sense.
so the polls are tanking for cowboy george.

bush at least waits to say anything about the "local crime" that is the latest school shooting

doldrums fall upon the conservative media apparatus.

but wait!
the nra could say that "we" should arm all teachers in school.
gun control--now there is a pet issue.
the conservative base will rally around this because arguments against this idiotic proposal move straight into gun control space.
it does not matter really how insane the argument itself might be: what galvinizes is the counter argument---if you do not in principle support arming teachers in schools, then you must support restricting guns.

i agree with charalatan--if anyone is seriously contemplating arming teachers in a school--which is of course quite a fine message to send educationally--you students are the enemy, we are so afraid of you that we come armed to defend ourselves against you---then the nra should also advocate arming students.

i am sure that there is some hellfire and brimstone kind of rationale that could be floated for this: it is good that everyone knows they could die at any minute.

this is a karl rove special shit sandwich, a story floated to counter trends in polls, a bit of nothing designed to agitate the base and help mark it off as over against the Adversary, which in this case is simple reason. its effect in spaces like this explains its existence at all. this is not a serious proposal---the implications are so profoundly bad--if you can take your eyes away from the gun issue and think, maybe, for a minute, about the educational question.

ARTelevision · 03-26-2005, 08:47 AM

I have posted on the realities of school violence on numerous occasions here. I'll reiterate my position that I prefer armed guards in schools to arming teachers themselves.

...note: IMO teachers and all citizens would benefit from firearms training.

Strange Famous · 03-26-2005, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I have posted on the realities of school violence on numerous occasions here. I'll reiterate my position that I prefer armed guards in schools to arming teachers themselves.

...note: IMO teachers and all citizens would benefit from firearms training.

Ive never been in a school that had armed guards and I've never been in a school where there was a shooting, or any fatal attack of any kind. The reality is that kids are violent and irrational a lot of the time as I see it... and the reality is that if violent and irrational people have relatively easy access to weapons of lethal force... you watch the body count pile up.

Growing up, I saw plenty of school fights of course, and even had a couple myself, and sometimes it could get nasty... I am pretty convinved that if a significant number of people in my school had accesss to a gun at home they could have got just by breaking a cabinet lock... I would have known someone who had been shot by someone by now.

The more guns are available the more shootings you will have, it is really a simple equation... any society can have as many civilian gun deaths as they are prepared to tolerate.

Sweetpea · 03-26-2005, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

Where are the illegal firearms coming from? Are they already manufactured illegal? Or are they bought as legal weapons and than are stolen or sold illegaly?

Somewhere the "life" of a gun has to start and it starts as a legal gun. So outlawing guns would dry out one of the supplies of illegal guns.

My problem with the possetion of guns is that the american soceity is obviously obsessed with violence (see crime stats) and I think someone who violently insane shouldn't be armed to the teeth, so why should the american soceity be armed?
But I also think that guns are not the problem, the reason for the violence.

the point that i was trying to make Pacifier is that it won't matter if we choose to make firearms illegeal, if they are made illegeal for all citizens, the criminals will always find a way to gain access to them and the common individual will have no way to protect oneself.

As to your comment about American society . . . i WISH that things were different, not just in the U.S. but in the world in general, I wish that people held peace above violence. i would love to live in a society where no one needed gun to protect their bodies or their lives and where their was no threat of violence, but that is not the case in ANY country at this time.

And obviously you have never been in a situation where you or your friends lives were threatened, once you've been in a situation like this . . . Trust me, you would want to train yourself properly to carry a firearm to protect onself.

As to arming teachers, again, i don't know if it would be a fesible solution as to the comments made by "Gilda" alot of teachers would just prefer not to carry a firearm and perhaps an armed guard would be more appropriate. It is sad that it has come to this, but it would be sadder still to not take any precaution against this happening in other schools in the future.

Thanks,
Sweetpea

raveneye · 03-26-2005, 01:34 PM

On the subject of the impact of gun control laws on rates of homicide and suicide, Canada provides a very interesting case study.

Here are a couple of research articles on the Canadian situation.

They conclude that the new Canadian gun laws have significantly reduced the rate of gun related fatalities.

Quote:

Author(s): Boyd, Neil
Source: Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Oct2003, Vol. 45 Issue 4, p473, 6p

Abstract: This article notes that the decline in firearms-related mortality in Canada has coincided with regulatory changes beginning in the late 1970s and culminating in the enactment of Bill C-68 in 1995. It argues that the increasing regulation of firearms reflects cultural change; specifically, a growing intolerance on the part of Canadians for firearms and their associated perils. The apparent trend of declining gun ownership is a reflection of this cultural change. Fewer firearms, in turn, result in fewer fatalities. The registry is beneficial to public safety and the intense criticism of the program's cost is due not to its lack of impact or to poor management, but to unusual scrutiny as a result of its highly politicized nature. Costs have increased for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with mismanagement or bureaucratic excess. First, opponents of gun registration challenged the law, ultimately taking their challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada and delaying the implementation of the program by approximately two years. Second, most provincial jurisdictions chose not to cooperate in administering the new system, forcing the federal government to create a more costly centralized form of administration.
AN: 11701177
ISSN: 1707-7753

Quote:

Title: Gun control law (Bill C-17), suicide, and homicide in Canada

Author(s): Bridges FS
Source: PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS 94 (3): 819-826 Part 1, JUN 2004

Abstract: Canadian Bill C-17 was implemented in 1991 to restrict the use of firearms, providing a chance to investigate the effect of firearm control laws in the use of firearms for suicide and homicide. Following Lester and Leenaars' comprehensive studies, the present study examined the use of firearms for suicide and homicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-17 to assess the association of the bill with rates of suicide and homicide by method. Analysis showed a significant decrease after passage of Bill C-17 in the rates of suicides and homicides involving firearms and the percentage of suicides using firearms. The analysis provides support for the position that restricting the availability of firearms as a lethal means of committing suicide and homicide may help reduce the numbers of suicides and homicides.

Addresses: Bridges FS (reprint author), Univ W Florida, Div Hlth Leisure & Exercise Sci, 11000 Univ Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514 USA Univ W Florida, Div Hlth Leisure & Exercise Sci, Pensacola, FL 32514 USA

CShine · 03-26-2005, 02:27 PM

What surprises me is some people want to just pass out guns en masse when the obvious solution is more cops in schools.

03-25-2005, 05:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Somehow i dont think giving students who may not have a gun to go on a rampage access to the gun of a careless teacher is a good idea. Teacher turns his back for one second and is forced to say "ok, who stole my gun? We're not going anywhere until someone puts the gun on my desk. I'll close my eyes and count to 3 and if its not on my desk when im.. BANG" __________________ We Must Dissent.

03-25-2005, 05:34 PM	#6 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	I don't think a student will stop their rampage because they don't have enough guns. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

03-25-2005, 05:44 PM	#7 (permalink)
crewsor Women want me. Men fear me. Location: Maryland,USA	I don't understand the statement that gun restrictions would not have prevented the rampage. How can you know if more difficult access to firearms would not dissuade shootings such as this? I think in some cases it could. I don't know where he got the weapons he used in this case, but I think limited access to firearms would make this type of thing less, rather than more likely. __________________ We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

03-25-2005, 06:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Its been reported since the beginning that had his grandfathers service revolver...he also had two shotguns, which are not regulated by "gun laws". Toughter gun laws wouldnt have stopped him from getting the one gun that was regulated because he took it from his grandfather, along with his bullet proof vest and squad car after he killed him. __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-25-2005, 06:20 PM	#10 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	Anti-gun advocates need to start thinking rationally about teachers carrying firearms in schools. Sure, it "sounds" bad to let somebody bring a firearm into a school, but I'd much prefer a responsible adult who is trained to carry and use a firearm carrying in a school than some punk kid bringing grandaddy's old revolver to school to settle some disputes. Emotion-based ideas rarely work when implemented in reality. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix

03-25-2005, 05:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I don't think this is that bad of an idea. Maybe an armed teacher could of prevented this or at least stopped the kid before he could do further damage.

03-25-2005, 08:10 PM	#12 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Hey, it works for the Israelis. They havn't had a terrorist attack or school-shooting since the mid-seventies, when they made the decision to arm their teachers. Not a single one. Also, schools are a classic example of a "Disarmed Victim Zone." Psychopaths like this little twit know that their victims are unarmed and unable to effectively resist. Ever notice how you never hear about this kind of thing on military bases, shooting ranges, at gunshows, or police stations? Criminals and psychopaths are generally crazy and anti-social; they're not stupid. They're not going to take their rampage to a place where they can be resisted. Lastly, the great "nail in the coffin" of Victim Disarmament; criminals and psychopaths like this kid are going to get weapons, of some type, regardless of the laws that are put in their way. The Columbine shooters broke over 20 State and Federal-level laws before they ever pulled the trigger. Disarming the innocent does nothing to deter the guilty; it only served to make the lives of criminals easier.

03-25-2005, 08:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	If the teacher is properly trained and can excecute use of said firearm . . . that would be similar to the idea of having an 'air marshal' on board a plane. Perhaps teachers should be taught how to 'neutralize' a target? I see how it could lead to the protection of both the teacher carrying the firearm and the students they protect. A teacher who is trained and practiced in firearm safety and use could be benificial to protecting the innocent lives, in addition the idea and knowledge that there are armed teachers might change the fact that these young shooters find their schools an easy mark . . . Currently, how are these teachers supposed to protect themselves? When the students they teach carry knives, firearms etc. Should teachers not be given the right to protect themselves? I think they should. however, if they are going to go this far . . . Why not just put a police officer in every classroom?? I am pro-firearm, i believe ppl should be allowed to protect their lives . . . but arming teachers and having guns in classrooms won't stop these shootings, guns in classrooms won't bring peace to our schools . . . the change has to come from society itself so we stop creating these monster children who are so full of hate and rage that they need to manifest those feelings in violence. Thanks, Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself" Last edited by sweetpea; 03-25-2005 at 08:40 PM..

03-25-2005, 08:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Sweetpea; Emphatically agreed re. the "top-down change" you mentioned. It's looking like there may be a very, VERY strong corrolation ( ie nearly 100% ) of school-shootings to Prozac; IIRC, every last one of these little monsters has been on this particular drug. However, until the proper sociological changes take place to prevent this from happening again, I think that the only workable solution is to allow teachers to arm themselves. Without the ability to defend themselves effectively, teachers and their students are nothing but moving targets.

03-25-2005, 08:50 PM	#17 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	arch13; Sweetpea's right. Civillians are almost never divested of their weapon by a criminal; it happens in less than .5% of all DGUs in this country. The vast majority of such cases come from criminals who make a grab for a cop's gun during an arrest; the gun is easily accessible, in the open, and in close proximity to the perp. All good defensive-shooting schools ( Thunder Ranch, LFI, Gunsite ) and a goodly number of CCW classes include weapon-retention training, as well.

03-25-2005, 11:07 PM	#22 (permalink)
Seanland Psycho Location: Ontario, Canada	to solve a gun issue, bring more guns into the situation..... yea, bright one......

03-25-2005, 11:23 PM	#23 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Seanland; It's worked for the Israelis..for Kenneshaw, GA...for every state that has adopted shall-issue CCW. Meanwhile, rates of violent crime in Victim Disarmament Zones like London, Washington DC, Moscow, and Chicago continue their climb.

03-26-2005, 12:01 AM	#24 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i'l admit that i only read half of this thread so far....but i just gotta ask. what type of teachers are in your area??? Most of the teachers i know and have had were 65 yr old ladies who had been teaching all their lives.. now, putting a gun in these hands, requiring theseteachers to go through training and expecting them to be able to fend off a very fast, very motivated,angry teenager who has intent to do harm just seems a bit farfetched. I am not saying this is the case with every teacher, but i;m just saying that putting in a requirement for all teachers to be highly trained with firearms and self defense/crisis control with armed assailants is probably not a feasible thing to do. Having armed guards in the schools makes much more sense, but expecting teachers from all sorts of backgrounds to make for efficient blocks against this sort of violence is just not going to work. it may cause some of the sociopathic to rethink a strategy or two, but the dedicated would still find ways of doing the same thing. The presence of an armed guard could seriously curtail that threat much more effectively than arming typical teachers would. __________________ Live. Chris

03-26-2005, 03:46 AM	#29 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	wow... what could possibly go wrong with that plan? I have to say, giving the number of "5 year old kid dragged off in handcuffs" stories I have been recently, this doesnt seem a very godo solution. Maybe this might sound crazy... but maybe REDUCING the number of guns available and making it harder for people to arm themselves might reduce gun violence, rather than arming everybody up. As for the McDonald's guy... I'd rather be robbed than kill two people. But the fact it was company property just makes his actions even more difficult to understand... maybe I dont know the whole background and the robbers were threatening to take hostages or something... but if someone just pulls a gun and says "empty the register and the safe" I think it would take a very dangerous and unpredictable person to start shooting... why not just let them take the cash? And yes, if you outlaw firearms only the outlaws have them... but a lot less people get shot. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

03-26-2005, 04:39 AM	#30 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	My God, I can't believe people are so fucking insane anymore. Arguing about whether or not teachers should have guns? JFC, where's the common sense that says, "ya know what maybe we need to find out why these kids on meds start killing people when they stop taking their meds." Maybe, perhaps, instead of arguing over whether or not we'll allow students to start truly going nuts after they raid teachers gun stashes, we can try to find out why these kids want to kill. Why these kids are so far gone killing seems the only solution to them. Could it be the fact both parents work and the family still barely makes it? Could it be the violent video games? The "gangsta" attitudes? What is it that is causing our youth to go nuts? Violence is no solution to violence because violence just keeps both sides escalating in strength. Teachers have guns, so the next student will bring in dynamite or homemade pipe bombs he learned to make off the internet. Guns won't be a deterrent to students who already have the mindset of going in to kill. It will just offer them more of a challenge. Peeople in this country have fucking gone nuts. We better find solutions and we better find them fast.... Guns ain't one of them. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-26-2005, 06:34 AM	#31 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Yes let's outlaw guns so only cops and crimminals can have them. I feel better about my neighbor owning a gun then some of these police officers and security guards. Maybe we could have police go door to door and gather all the guns up. Or more of these UN funded gun buyback days. I really don't see what's wrong with arming some responsible teachers. Like The_Dunedan brought up the point that it even worked in Israel.

03-26-2005, 06:51 AM	#32 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I know... let's arm everyone. Let's give guns to the kids, too (that would take care of any bullying problems for sure). If we ALL carry then no one will ever get shot again... right? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-26-2005, 06:57 AM	#33 (permalink)
superiorrain Psycho Location: London	^^nice picture The only way to solve the gun issue is either ban them totally, as in destroy all guns, throw them all in the sea or send them to the moon and never allow anymore to be produced. Or alternatively give every man, women, boy, girl and anything else that wanted a gun, a nice big machine gun. Then we could all protect ourselves and thus all be safe from the danagers of guns. You'd think twice about firing a gun if you knew everyone around had one to and would likely shoot back. Arming responsible teachers is a silly idea, how do you deem that they're responsible? __________________ "The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible." - Arthur C. Clarke

03-26-2005, 07:11 AM	#34 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't think it would be necessary to arm all teachers. Just let it be known that the school district encourages them to carry and that a certain percentage are packing. That should be enough to keep many of these cowardly psychopaths home where thay can take their anger out on themselves and their own families. Of course if somebody wants to commit suicide by teacher hopefully they would be taken down before they can do too much damage.

03-26-2005, 08:47 AM	#36 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I have posted on the realities of school violence on numerous occasions here. I'll reiterate my position that I prefer armed guards in schools to arming teachers themselves. ...note: IMO teachers and all citizens would benefit from firearms training. __________________ create evolution Last edited by ARTelevision; 03-26-2005 at 08:49 AM..

03-26-2005, 02:27 PM	#40 (permalink)
CShine Crazy	What surprises me is some people want to just pass out guns en masse when the obvious solution is more cops in schools.