patrick.net

I heard many proposals over the weekend, however I would say that arming the teachers is not a good idea. There are some teachers out there that are not the most stable personalities. They will shoot students for not turning in homework assignments or not completing lab writeups up to their satisfaction. I am sure we all ran into some eccentric ones in school. It would be a timebomb and a disaster waiting to happen if those guys were armed. Not to mention that the climate of fear that's not conducive to learning that would result in the classroom.

Call it Crazy says

Wow, after everything I posted, I feel like I'm going round and round in circles, like a dog chasing it's tail.....

That's the way I imagine you too.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

That's the way I imagine you too.

I have a easy solution for you!! Don't read my posts!!

Wing-nuts make me laugh.

Call it Crazy says

What if these particular teachers were armed?

Conn. law apparently already allowed concealed carry permit holders to bring on school property, so in theory one of those teachers COULD have been armed, but they weren't. This case doesn't seem a legal issue so much as a mental health issue to me.

Do you mean ENCOURAGE them to be armed? Like a subsidy for those that act as armed guards? This would go against the dominant paradigm that teachers should be minimum wage disposable people, with no pensions and no support.

I am a former IPSC competitor and I feel queasy about the idea. I don't really want a teacher whose focus is TEACHING to have loaded on their plate additional job as an armed guard and having to be paranoid every second about where their sidearm is and not having an accident or having it seized from them.

Pre-Reagan we locked up people in loony bins right and left. Maybe we were too indiscrimant back then, but the pendulum has swung too far and now we don't institutionalize people UNTIL they have murdered a bunch of people.

Vicente says

I am a former IPSC competitor and I feel queasy about the idea. I don't really want a teacher whose focus is TEACHING to have loaded on their plate additional job as an armed guard and having to be paranoid every second about where their sidearm is and not having an accident or having it seized from them.

I am a gun owner, and in the past have had a concealed carry permit and I don't think (mandatory)armed teachers is a good idea either.

A school full of armed teachers is not going to dissuade an attack from a mentally ill person bent on mayhem and murder followed by their own death.

leo707 says

A school full of armed teachers is not going to dissuade an attack from a mentally ill person bent on mayhem and murder followed by their own death.

No, but it would increase gun sales!

FortWayne says

Way more people die in car accidents, ban cars too. And if you own an SUV stronger rules should apply.

Way more people die in car accidents than terrorist attacks. So let's start by banning the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. These are organizations that material harm the U.S. population and provide no real safety.

Call it Crazy says

Why didn't these attackers go after a police station, gun show or shooting range??

Gosh, wouldn't it be great if there we MORE gun shows and MORE shooting ranges? Certainly, MORE guns is the answer.

Of course, your logic for more guns will be disputed by the families of the two cops who got killed today in Kansas.

Back to chasing your tail!

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Way more people die in car accidents, ban cars too. And if you own an SUV stronger rules should apply.

Way more people die in car accidents than terrorist attacks. So let's start by banning the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security. These are organizations that material harm the U.S. population and provide no real safety.

Well, I do agree that driver's license are given too liberally. So if someone suggested that we make it more difficult to get a driver's license, I would agree. Of course, the auto industry might have a problem with that.

Call it Crazy says

Right, show me anywhere, anywhere, in my posts that I said we need "more guns".... anywhere..... maybe in your fucked up mind!!!

Call it Crazy says

How about arming some of them? Let it be their choice. Send them to specific training on how to deal with these incidents.

How about arming the principal or V. principal? I would think they would be stable enough to handle it. After all, they didn't get into the management position because they were unstable.

Arming the principal or V. principal? Where do those guns come from? Or did I misread that and you meant we should hire amputees as school administrators and give them prosthetic arms?

Call it Crazy says

How about arming the principal or V. principal?

REQUIRE THEM? What if it's against their beliefs? Oh right, we can make that another job requirement. They can wedge it in among their other unpaid duties. Attend PTA meeting on Tuesday, then firearms qual on Wednesday night. We'll also have to make them immune from prosecution should their actions ever result in a mishap.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

Arming the principal or V. principal? Where do those guns come from?

So nice you can selectively cut and paste. Here's the the other part I posted:

Call it Crazy says

How about arming some of them? Let it be their choice.

See, let it be THEIR choice... if they chose to be armed, they most likely own their own firearm..... or..

Would you rather pay a few hundred dollars to purchase the gun for the teacher or allow many other kids to be killed? Your choice??

Ok, I went back and added the part where you say they can choose to be armed.

Your point though, loud and clear, is that we need MORE people with MORE guns to fight the bad guys/crazies.

Most rational people would say your idea is insane.

Or we privatize the school system using vouchers. Parents and the schools can choose to hire armed security guards.

Call it Crazy says

Can you see the word CHOICE there???

Apparently it already was a choice in Connecticut. So your suggestion has no value.

Vicente says

Call it Crazy says

Can you see the word CHOICE there???

Apparently it already was a choice in Connecticut. So your suggestion has no value.

And that is the problem, most people are just not suited to be "guards." There will never be enough people that voluntary arm to "harden" all public "targets."

And, yes, shooters will go for "soft" targets in order to maximize the damage they do before they die.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

Your point though, loud and clear, is that we need MORE people with MORE guns to fight the bad guys/crazies.

Most rational people would say your idea is insane.

Fine, then give me YOUR solution on how YOU would stop the bad guys/crazies?? I already gave the stats on how more crime has been prevented by the population being armed, show me yours!!

We have much more crime than any other industrialized nation. So, yeah if the whole country is armed, then there will be incidents where a bad guy is stopped by an armed citizen. Of course, statistically speaking, that citizens gun is more likely to be used in an accidental death than it is in preventing a crime.

The weapon's industry is huge and they will go to great lengths and spend boatloads of money to twist perceptions.

My solution is we need a much tougher and more regulated gun industry. That we need to outlaw sales of automatic and semi-automatic assault type weapons with large, easily reloaded clips. We need to find as many of them that are out there and force the owners to tough and regular testing and licensing if they want to keep their "grandfathered" weapons.

We need to aggressively assist, educate, medicate and track anyone with personality disorders. We have to reach out to their families and make sure that have what they need to keep their children on their meds and report any lapses. Although the ACLU will scream, people diagnosed with these disorders will need to be tracked. It is unfair as the great majority pose no threat, but until effective treatments/cures are available, we really have no choice.

BTW, These disorders are completely different from the Autism spectrum disorders that the shooter in this case has been said to have had. Anyone who has first hand knowledge of those on the autism spectrum understands that these citizens pose no threat. The threat comes from the much rarer (thankfully) personality disorder syndrome. In fact, many therapists are known to refuse treating people with personality disorders because of potential litigation. That needs to change too.

This will be very expensive. Both the ACLU and the NRA will scream. The costs can be mitigated by gun taxes in the same way that the cigarette industry pays for education and health costs.

You have the easy answer - more guns for the good guys. I have the more complex and more expensive answer.

Okay, I've had my (long) say. Now you may start screaming (!!) at me again.

Call it Crazy says

The other 1/3 above could be anything... a knife, a axe, a baseball bat, a chain saw, a steel pipe, a rock or anything. Maybe even a car...

Go enter a large MOB of people with ANY of the weapons you listed above. see how long you last before you are crushed and have your eyes gouged out by the angry mob.

Meanwhile a machine gun could mow them down if you had unlimited ammo. That's where-in the problem lies... Automatic weapons make it too easy to kill on a massive scale.

Call it Crazy says

Do you have a link to that.... From what I have seen, all school zones now are federally specified "no gun zones".

http://cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-217b.htm

".....this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education."

The various iterations of Gun Free School Zone Acts exempt holders of state-issued carry pemits. I had a Georgia concealed carry permit for over 20 years and I'm moderately familiar with relevant laws.

Had you stopped to do 60 seconds of research, you wouldn't have wasted multiple posts suggesting that the Principal be legally allowed to have a firearm. Clearly that was already the case had she wished to do so.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Automatic weapons make it too easy to kill on a massive scale.

Automatic weapons are rarely used in mass shootings.

Call it Crazy says

How about arming the principal or V. principal? I would think they would be stable enough to handle it. After all, they didn't get into the management position because they were unstable.

The risk is just too great that unstable teachers/principals would snap and cause their own massacres if they felt dissed/slighted/disrespected by student body. It would be much better to have cops in civilian clothing monitor schools. If those guys are armed on campus, I have no problems with that. But to have armed teachers/principls many of whom already have authoritarianism issues and don't take kindly when students disobey them would be the equivalent of placing a bomb in school setting.

It is simply disappoining that in a country with so much abundance compared with vast majority of the world that people don't realize how good they have it. It's almost as if that frame of reference does not exist for them whether these folks are "mentally ill" or who resort to a gun to avenge past slights.

Bellingham Bill says

The issue is the toxic mix of insane people, glorification of "tactical" firearms, and the ready availability of assault weapons.

Removing the assault weapons breaks the chain to a significant degree.

No it doesn't. You can't remove millions of weapons that are everywhere. All you'll accomplish with a gun ban is innocent law abiding civilians being disarmed, while insane and criminals will have no problem being armed.

Millions of gun owners every day do not commit crimes. Why would you want to punish everyone for mistakes of the few crazies who should be locked up in the hospitals to begin with.

And if you noticed, or paid a little bit more attention, you'd notice that in majority of these crimes, assault weapons weren't used.

Call it Crazy says

You think it's acceptable to have teachers with "authoritarianism" issues free access to your kids??? Really??

Parents don't have a choice in this matter - they don't hire teachers. However, many people with "authoritarianism" issues do self select themselves into certain professions such as being a cop, teacher, military career etc. Giving teachers access to guns brings up too much uncertainty into the mix. Off the top of my head, I can think of my high school physics and chemistry teachers who should have been profiled as "red flags" if they were allowed to carry guns. Actually, I take it a step further. I am sure that my physics teacher would bust a cap into someone's ass.

Bellingham Bill says

leo707 says

Automatic weapons are rarely used in mass shootings.

That did not refute what you were replying to.

I was responding to pointless rhetoric.

OK, sure...let's ban all machine guns and automatic weapons.

This would be a great help, except they are never used in these mass shootings.

The "assault weapons" used in these types of shootings are not even "real" assault weapons, traditionally to be considered an assault weapon the gun had to be capable of automatic fire. The assault weapons used are primarily aesthetic third-cousins to real assault weapons minus the more lethal feature of being an actual automatic weapon.

Bellingham Bill says

The issue is the toxic mix of insane people, glorification of "tactical" firearms

It is a toxic mix of insane people and firearms. I doubt changing the aesthetics of the available weapons would prevent any shootings.

FortWayne says

It is a toxic mix of insane people and firearms.

It was a toxic mix of insanity and people.

leo707 says

I doubt chancing the aesthetics of the available weapons would prevent any shootings.

And I think you're wrong about that.

The insane people who want to kill people also want to be cool doing it.

There's also magazine capacity limits we need to regulate, too, of course.

Well, if you think having these toy guns around is more important than people not getting killed by them, you're free to disagree.

I just think you're insane -- the prototypical "gun nut" -- too, then.

FortWayne says

You can't remove millions of weapons that are everywhere. All you'll accomplish with a gun ban is innocent law abiding civilians being disarmed, while insane and criminals will have no problem being armed.

I'm not proposing "removing" them overnight. This will take decades.

It took decades to make the mess of a society we haven now, so we're not going to be able to fix it any faster.

And if you noticed, or paid a little bit more attention, you'd notice that in majority of these crimes, assault weapons weren't used.

That's irrelevant. Enough are.

The loss of new recreational firearms is not the end of the world. You can buy air-powered replicas like in Japan if you love them so much.

The use case of defending yourself with an assault weapon is idiotic. Stop bringing it up, since it's just gun-nut fantasy that has no bearing with today's reality.

And the gun-nut fantasy of liberating the country from .gov with their assault weapons is even further into the fever swamp you guys inhabit.

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Quigley says

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Considering DC is a smallish city surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, it obviously doesn't have the ability to control access to guns effectively since someone can just take a metro across the Patomic to a gun show in good ol' Virginia. You have to look at country-level data to make useful comparisons I'd say.

bdrasin says

Quigley says

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Considering DC is a smallish city surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, it obviously doesn't have the ability to control access to guns effectively since someone can just take a metro across the Patomic to a gun show in good ol' Virginia. You have to look at country-level data to make useful comparisons I'd say.

Country level data are tainted by demographic, cultural, and other factors.

Peter P says

bdrasin says

Quigley says

I don't have the numbers, but DC had a ban on handguns for a long time, yet it had the highest murder rate per capita in the nation. When the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban, the murder rate actually declined. How does that make gun control = less murders?

Considering DC is a smallish city surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, it obviously doesn't have the ability to control access to guns effectively since someone can just take a metro across the Patomic to a gun show in good ol' Virginia. You have to look at country-level data to make useful comparisons I'd say.

Country level data are tainted by demographic, cultural, and other factors.

Yes, these factors present difficulty in interpreting the data but the facts are so completely unambiguous that it doesn't matter.

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

zzyzzx says

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

unacceptable speech.

FILTH!

Your disgusting.

Filthy disgusting. Words fail me.

There is enough information in your post to have you arrested.

"Pedobear is an Internet meme that became popular through the imageboard 4chan.[1] As the name suggests ("pedo" being short for "pedophile"), it is portrayed as a pedophilic bear.[2] It is a concept used to mock pedophiles or people who have an interest in minors or jailbait. The bear image has been likened to bait used to lure children or as a mascot for pedophiles.[3][4][5]"

Bellingham Bill says

leo707 says

I doubt chancing the aesthetics of the available weapons would prevent any shootings.

And I think you're wrong about that.

The insane people who want to kill people also want to be cool doing it.

...

I just think you're insane -- the prototypical "gun nut" -- too, then.

I think you are insane if you think that limiting the availability to "uncool" guns would put any dent in mass shootings. You do realize that two of the four guns used in the Columbine shootings were 30 year old shotguns? Right?

Yes, lets usher in the next era of peace and require all guns to be licensed by hello kitty.

Feel better?

zzyzzx says

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

You fucking disgust me.

leo707 says

zzyzzx says

It's been several days and I still can't find any Sandy Hook Shooting related Pedobear pics. You people are disappointing me.

You fucking disgust me.

Unbelievable, just when you thought the right couldn't get any worse.

The filth this board spews!

OUTRAGEOUS!

Call it Crazy says

Your stance is that we need to have new laws, regulations and bans on assault weapons. By looking at this data, that's not where the problem lies...

The problem lies in the people behind the guns!

High caliber, semi-automatic handguns are a HUGE problem. Just ask inner-city cops. Easy to conceal and easy to fire 20 rounds in 20 seconds. (you never hear about drive by knifings.)

Automatic weapons are pretty much gone except for the wacko militia types in Idaho, Montana etc. I think machine guns, etc, have been outlawed for a long time.

Anyway, with all of your statistics you seem to be unintentionally making the case that we should go the way of Britain and pretty much ban them altogether.

Look, I understand the problem is complicated with no complete answers. But there are steps that could be taken to minimize gun violence. The fight against the gun industry will have to be like the fight against the cigarette industry. You can have your gun (or cigarette) but it is going to cost $$$$. That money will start to pay for the expensive solutions that are needed.

leo707 says

You do realize that two of the four guns used in the Columbine shootings were 30 year old shotguns?

they would have bought cooler guns if they could.

I rest my fucking case.

Bellingham Bill says

they would have bought cooler guns if they could.

No argument there, but the inability to get cool guns most certainly did not stop them.

I like the pink guns idea.