Skip to main content

View Diary: Guns in our schools (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Regardless of how the gun control fight turns out (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Not A Bot, Boris49

    the kids need better protection.   Even if you banned every gun out there, unopposed maniacs could still kill them --with Molotov cocktails, cars driven into them,etc.  

    A lot of the measures involve things other than armed guards -- federal protective specialists need to look at the problem and design surveillance systems, drills, protective barriers, special tactics, etc.  

    The problem is that the threat facing any one school is very low but unpredictable and disasterous when it occurs.
    So I think the idea of having some teacher volunteers covertly trained and  armed --in exchange for a hazard pay supplement -- may be a frugal approach.

    The Commerce Business Daily contracts list the Federal Protective Service's requires for private armed guards to get a gun: (1) A GED or high school diploma (2) Passing a police background check (3) 2 days of training.

    An armed guard does not need the months of instruction in the entire body of the law that police receive -- he does not need to investigate burglaries or enforce traffic laws.  He should call the police and act only in narrow specific circumstances when a kid or teacher's life is in danger.

    Police scanner log for Sandy Hook indicates it took the police 15 minutes to respond and find the killer.   Depending on remote offsite police does not work.

    •  We are already having issues with a militarized (10+ / 0-)

      police state.

      I believe that a lot more could be done on simply strengthening communities for starters. Encouraging more tight knit neighborhoods, neighbors, etc.,

      Maybe talking to gun owners about the dangers of guns in a house where there are concerns about family members behavior? The time is right for that sort of discussion. I wouldn't wait too long.

      Encouraging to people to think about long term consequences.

      We could arm everyone, and ramp up the fear and paranoia, increase divisions of communities along race, creed, religion and economic status, and then throw heavily armed guards, mercs and police in there, to make a truly spicy mix.

      Or we could start treating each other as human beings, start talking more, working together more, sticking together more for the local common good, and maybe guns can be considered that last ditch effort, rather than the first resort to everything.

      •  I read and post to Comments section (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zinger99, GreenMother, mungley

        of HuffPo.  Yes, really.

        I recently engaged with a guy who whined that even though he wears his NRA baseball cap and encourages a discussion, he doesn't seem to attract the kind of people he wants to talk to.  In other words, he's looking for a fight, not a discussion.

        We went round and round a bit and finally I said that his choices and his rhetoric are effecting everyone in his life...he denied this.  His replies were argumentative and defensive and it's a good guess that those in his life either enable him, support his point of view or shut him down.  

        The NRA has created a sub-set of gun owners who are more interested in muscle flexing and ranting than listening to sane and well thought out solutions.

        When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

        by msmacgyver on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:30:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re "we could start treating each other as human (0+ / 0-)

        being"

        I agree.   But WHO is promoting and glorifying extreme violence and AGGRESSION to our youths?

        The NRA?  Go to their site and look at their publications.  
        Boring technical manuals with  exhortations about gun safety.   The manuals on police tactics/shooting are restricted to the police and not available to the general public.

        Compare that to the products of the computer game industry and the movies put out by Hollywood producers like Quintin Tarentino.

        •  That is a silly question. (0+ / 0-)

          Adam Lanza was not a child.
          Jerrod Loughner was not a child.
          The Arizona Theater shooter was not a child.

          These were not minors.

          If you are worried about children acting like assholes, I suggest one observe either their parents or other adult role models.

          •  Does rearing have no effect on the eventual (0+ / 0-)

            adult?

            How many parents are abandoning their children to play computer games and watch violent movies?

            Schools have been vulnerable to these kinds of attacks for over 100 years -- the weapons to commit these atrocities have been available for at least that long.   The Winchester pump shotgun was used to clear trenches of German soldiers back in WWI.

            But these school massacres  have been happening only recently.   Why?

            I don't know the answer -- it requires a lot of study of the incidents.  I've seen several factors mentioned -- single moms afraid to stand up to teenage sons, pressures of the economic recession, middle class collapse into poverty, widespread availability of guns, a culture --even among Hollywood liberals -- that exalts the power of guns, side effects from anti-depressant drugs, etc.

            But the attacks are occurring -- and a broader response is needed than just stopping the future sale of some types of guns.  (Per the Fifth Amendment , to actually ban the 15+ Million assault rifles would require the government buying them -- the no taking without compensation clause.)

            •  I thought I was pretty clear back there. (0+ / 0-)
              ... a broader response is needed than just stopping the future sale of some types of guns.
              Yea I covered a broader response, my answer is an And-if, not an either-or.

              The reasoning promoted for why people want to keep weapons with high capacity rounds, could also be used to justify the collection of explosive devices or vials of deadly pathogens.

              Guns are for defense, target practice, and hunting.

              If you need that many bullets for any of those three things, then perhaps you don't really need one at all because you are either blind or over eager.  

              I am lucky, I can keep my kids at home. There are millions of other Americans who are not in position to make that call, and probably just as many who wouldn't want to. And even then, we have to leave the house some time.

              Why is this happening now? Well in the old days when most people had bolt action rifles and shotguns, or just plain old six shooters, it was more difficult for them to spray innocent unsuspecting civilians in a rapid manner with a large number of bullets.

              Speed Loaders are a helluva a lot more bulky than clips.

              Any death in this manner is unacceptable, but leaving ourselves open to be attacked by nutcases with guns that can fire more than a couple of bullets without reloading, makes absolutely no tactical sense whatsoever.

              I know that only gun owners are supposed to think of tactics, but the funny thing is, non gun owners are totally allowed to take that word and use it too.

              If you really need more than a couple of bullets to defend yourself from enemies, then you either need to work on your people skills, or move.

              Post 1980, people started organizing in large numbers, preparing for one of the following with guns: Race War, Apocalypse, Foreign Invasions, or Coup by various groups believed to be ring leaders in various consipiracy theories--it's a multiple choice test--Jewish folks, NATO, Commies, Satanists, etc., {and no I don't believe in any of this crapola]

              The NRA sided with these people and fed these deep seated fears-- see Ruby Ridge for starters. When 911 happened, it near about pushed them all over the edge. The GOP decided it could use this fear to win them votes, and it did for a short period of time. But neither the NRA nor the GOP can control this deadly narrative, that they have taken so much time to cultivate with religious nationalism and fearful conspiracies.

              The people in these groups are so fearful, they cannot distinguish their friends from their enemies. Is that who you want armed with high capacity weapons? Many want to secede from the Union every time something doesn't go their way, and by their way, I mean every time legislation or national consensus doesn't reflect their bigotry. They carry guns openly to political rallies, to intimidate voters who disagree with their positions.  Because of them, we are so busy watching their antics, that we have to divide our resources between them and a genuine corporate enemy. These people are lose cannons. And their fear mongering periodically results in some fringe adherent going nuts and killing fellow citizens, because they cannot take the self inflicted pressure.

              If the NRA and the GOP, and the Gun Community are incapable of policing it's own behavior, and it's own communities, then someone has to do it for sanity's sake. No matter how responsible I might be, my example is a silent one. No news is good news in this case. So that means the worst make a name for us, and have they ever! And the response from the NRA--More Guns! Not better, more affordable health care screenings for mental health conditions, not raising the age that one can buy a gun, not hiring more police officers, or reconsidering the kinds of guns that are the issue, but no--More guns for everyone! Lets have a gun extravaganza!

              Now we have nutcases with guns, wearing body armor attacking people in public venues. Their [NRA-GOP] answer--Not forbiding civilians from getting body armor, but no--More Guns! Lets arm teachers and and everyone, so we can have wild west shoot out every time someone farts on the bus.

              I have a shotgun. I use it to control varmits.  But for shit's sake, do you mean to tell me I will have to buy thousands of dollars in body armor for me and the kids, and an automatic pistol with a huge clip, just to go to the grocery store or the library? Or the Park? Just in case I have to deal with a crazed shooter?

              We have laws in place that are supposed to prevent nut cases from getting guns, but they work haphazardly. We don't take care of our people, we don't screen them, and then we expect the members of these groups mentioned before, to detect someone slightly more nuts than they are and make the call.

              You can blame this all on parenting, but since there isn't a whole lot we can do about that, then the answer seems pretty clear. Limit access to High Capacity weapons.

              I wish I could say I knew we could do something about mental health in this country too, but I don't have much hope for that. Hell we can't even take care of our own vets, much less look after our own civilian population. And you think we--as a nation are responsible enough to be armed to the teeth?

              America doesn't seem to know the difference between a Warrior Code and a Bully Culture. Maybe we don't deserve to be armed.

              And words at this point are meaningless for a response. If you want to be right, then you and thousands of other Americans need to go out and put your money where your mouth is, make it right.

              I don't want to hear what you think you can do. I want you all to show me and everyone else that you and others are responsible citizens who are committed to contributing to a greater communal good.

    •  There was an armed guard (6+ / 0-)

      at Columbine.

      Not convincing? Ft. Hood is considered the largest military base in the world. The shooter there killed 13 and wounded 30 more.

      •  The problem at Columbine (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boris49

        is that the police focused on establishing a perimeter  and waiting for SWAT instead of rushing to immediate confront the attacker.  

        IN fairness , It is hard to come INTO a situation from a remote location and not know if there are snipers, where they are etc.

        You evidently have little knowledge of military bases-- the military locks guns up on armories and keeps tight control of them.   Aside from the MPs, you don't have just every soldier strolling around ladened with weapons like Rambo.

        •  Clarification -- I was referring to military bases (0+ / 0-)

          in the continental US.

        •  why not? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MaikeH, Kevskos, Red Bean

          Why does the U.S. military keep guns locked up and tightly
          controlled on their (U.S.) bases? After all, the folks on those
          bases are arguably the best-trained, most responsible gun
          carriers in the entire population. Shouldn't they be able to
          "exercise their 2nd amendment rights"?

          Perhaps the U.S. military believes that having everyone carrying weapons is actually not ideal, and is not really the way to ensure a "polite society".

          Reminds me in a way of those "gun rights" politicians who are
          happy to prevent anyone from carrying a gun into, say, the House of Representatives... wouldn't they feel safer and more polite if their colleagues and random folks in the visitors gallery were all packing heat?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (19)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site