Seriously? You’re blaming the victims? Unreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff
Printable View
Seriously? You’re blaming the victims? Unreal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff
Blaming innocents is disgusting. I bet those first grade kids that were massacred deserved it to with that type of reasoning.
Your failing reading comprehension. First grade kids didn't bully adult shooters and is a different issue then situations like Columbine where high school age kids were shot by a fellow high schooler who had been bullied. That isn't the same issue either as an earlier one where a shooter opened fire, out of boredom and not liking the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
I probably should have realized as emotional as you all are acting, you couldn't get it.
So please tell us Alan, Toomuchstuff or anybody what is the solution? Please somebody come up with something.
How could we prevent the 30 school shootings this year? How can we prevent more?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States
who will pay for the armed teachers, perimeter security, and metal detectors that some have suggested? Our students already rank in the middle of the world pack as far as school rankings go in developed countries. Diverting funds that might possibly pay for math and reading teachers, updated textbooks etc?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...-math-science/
what laws currently on the books are not being enforced as some have mentioned?
Irreconcilable arguements seem to have a few trademarks. Both sides are partially right, both sides are partially wrong and neither is willing to compromise based on distrust of the other. Separation and inward reflection is the only thing that will result in meaningful steps toward a solution, temporary or otherwise.
School shootings could be reduced. We are a civilized society capable of applying workable plans to make things better for ourselves. Or are we? Adding “friction” to reduce crime is what all laws are really about. They aren’t intended or designed to eliminate the commission of crime by all facets of society. So anything that reduces the opportunity for a young person to solve his problems with a semiautomatic firearm....is a workable solution.
But the gun is only one ingredient. Alone, it poses no risk. Add mental illness or lack of a nurturing home environment and you have an ugly cocktail. A well educated child possessing common morals and ethics can withstand bullying and verbal abuse without resorting to mass murder.
Compromise seems to be a word not very well respected by either side. The only way to make any progress here is not with more comparisons, statistics, anecdotes or accusations of intentions. It’s about looking inward.
How are mental health issues and lack of nurturing environments solved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
Many comments have been made in this discussion thread about the concept of permitting armed teachers (with firearm training) to increase security in schools.
Florida is about to put a law on the books that will accomplish this … in the state where the Parkland shooting incident occurred.
The Florida house passed a bill 65-47, following passage in the Florida senate. Next, the bill goes to Governor Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it into law.
Polling indicated that most Floridians opposed the arming of teachers.
The law will enable individual school boards to opt out. Several boards have already stated that they will opt out, if the bill becomes law.
In the wake of the Parkland shootings, a wide range of measures were taken to harden schools as potential targets for gun violence, including the addition of at least one armed guard in each school. Florida's Armed Guardian program provided for 132 hours of training (a "refresher" because all participants were to have recent experience in the military or law enforcement). Armed Guardians were an alternative to, as well as an addition to sworn law enforcement officers assigned to school security duties.
The Florida bill allows for teachers to be armed in schools, if they complete the Armed Guardian program.
I don't know how it would be possible to evaluate the number of mass shootings that were deterred or prevented by armed guards. There have been some incidents where firearms were accidentally discharged by guards in schools (which may be a reflection on the effectiveness of their training). Also there have been incidents in which a guard accidentally discharged a firearm while subduing a student regarded as a threat.
There have been no incidents I am aware of in which a lawfully armed teacher opened fire on students or other faculty. However, it may be that teachers are not immune from becoming uncontrollably angry, even to the point of violence. According to the Wikipedia entry "Going Postal" : between 1986 and 2011, workplace shootings happened at a rate of 2 per year in the US, with an average of 12 people killed per year.
Wasn't Parkland the school where the armed "sheepdog" sat on his thumbs while kids were being slaughtered?
Yes, he didn't have what it takes to put the welfare of others ahead of his own, and now he has to live with that. That's an all-too-common consequence of forcing people to rely on governmental protection while denying them the ability to effectively protect themselves. A true sheepdog knows up front they couldn't live with the consequences of inaction. You see examples of them in every incident such as this whether it's a teacher giving up their life while trying to shield a student under their charge or a student dying while fighting back against uneven odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
It's mind boggling that teachers will be expected to take up the slack when supposed trained professionals drop the ball. But they likely will have more of a vested interest in protecting their students.
I'm not aware of anyone expecting teachers to take up the slack, I think the focus is on not denying them the opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I'm just waiting for the first "I felt threatened" excuse for a murder of a minority student with smartphone video backing the deceased student. Is there enough liability insurance coverage for school districts adopting the arming of instructors, given the inevitable lawsuits that will arise? And what of potential instructor imprisonment for pulling the trigger too fast? I seriously doubt all teachers would ever be guilty of such - but there will be a scattered few who are, and it seems as if this new law in Florida actively denies this reality.
Good thing constant muggy air and palm trees only work for me in countries with much more reasonable costs of living than the United States.......I have no desire to ever set foot in Florida, and less even now with this new law (Though to be fair right before the Noor verdict, a police officer was incarcerated in Florida for 25 years for murdering an innocent, unarmed African American male waiting for a toe truck in his vehicle, so Florida has made some concessions to the rule of law and human life meaning something as it does in other countries where there are checks and balances against the police). Rob
I hope you never get to feel that particular giddiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Having to live with doing nothing while kids are dying is not getting what he deserves by having to live with it. I am sure he didn’t commit a crime so no way to punish but it’s sickening.
I didn't mean it that way, Alan. I too hope it never happens....I just don't discount the eventuality is all. There would be no giddiness for me in such a thing happening - I hope you understand this? RobQuote:
Originally Posted by Alan
imwrote this almost a year ago and no one has answered. Still the shootings go on.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
I live in Florida. It is easy to get concealed carry permits and firearms. I know many people who carry, and many more who have guns in their homes. I have never seen anyone with a gun out in public except in Alabama where a policeman had a gun aimed at a black man with his arms up who was then taken into custody. I have only heard opposition to the guns in school arguments. Counties are opting out. I imagine there are some people for it. I can only say a black teacher who is armed is going to need lots of thoughts and prayers that they are not assumed to be the active shooter. This is the south after all and the southern states have lots of guns and very high incarceration rates, especially blacks. Coincidence?
https://www.sentencingproject.org/th...set-option=SIR
I don't know the answer, I wish I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
I do feel strongly that the desire to deny citizens the means to an effective self defense by legislative means is the wrong answer, it's like eliminating capitalism by denying everyone the right to vote. I think it would help to teach people that right and wrong are not relative, that evil is evil and should not be tolerated, that every life is a blessing and should be cherished. We've gotten away from that.
Not being an intruder from Canada so much as asking in the interest of discussion, why the need for 'an effective means of self-defence'? What drives this need in the US?
Since most school shooters (all?) (like most terrorists in general) are white males, it shouldn't be a concern, but it probably is, lamentably.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
DH served on the Grand jury for three months, going to court several days a week. He heard mostly gun and drug cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by razz
He saw close up that all of the laws in the world do not keep the bad guys from getting, keeping, and using guns.The bad guys have guns. Why dont you ask them rather than the law abiding citizens on this website?
I think more than anything, it's philosophical. This country was founded under the radical philosophy that the individual was not subservient to a ruler or central government and immediately became a beacon of hope for people from every corner of the world. The ability for the individual to protect themselves and their families from tyranny perpetrated by other individuals or groups is essential to maintain that independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by razz
Of course, our government made every effort to keep indigenous peoples from enjoying that right and it turned out badly for them. Our government denied slaves the ability to protect themselves and the practice thrived for generations as a result. World history is filled with examples of tyranny against peoples denied the right of an effective defense.
Some modern societies depend upon the altruism of their local and national governments to maintain their safety, ours has shown itself un-deserving of that trust. But that's must my opinion.
Other countries don’t have this issue and we should look at ones with low instances of mass shootings and their solutions.
I'd start with teaching absolute right and wrong and ensure consequences are worthy of avoidance. We've stopped doing that with our children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
I think the more fundamental question to ask is why the exercise of a given right requires justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by razz
I think that's very true. Regulation is a poor substitute for morality and transient political fashion is a poor substitute for custom and tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
OK, I can see the given right of self-defence viewpoint but does not every right have responsibilities that go along with the right? Is it the needed education of the responsibilities that is missing? When it was given as a right, were no responsibilities attached? Or is it the chosen means of self-defence that requires the responsibilities defined and the education?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Is this the part of teaching rights and responsibilities that you were thinking, Alan? If so, where and how to start?Quote:
I'd start with teaching absolute right and wrong and ensure consequences are worthy of avoidance. We've stopped doing that with our children.
Yes, the three greatest influencers in any childs life are the home, their school and their church, which should all be local. Meaning we should not handicap local school districts with federal edicts or handicap families with programs that indirectly encourage breaking up nuclear units. If we did those two things, I think churches would regain their place as social, if not spiritual influences. I think we would then see gradual but positive changes in popular culture and media influencers.Quote:
Originally Posted by razz
My wife works at an elementary school servicing the poorest area of our county and it is obvious which children are from broken families and which ones are not, which children are taught right from wrong and which ones are not and which children have positive social influences and which ones do not.
Maybe it's because this country was founded on genocide; we've been a violent people since our inception. And then there's the Puritans, to add a fillip of cruelty to the mix But we're a relatively new country--kind of adolescent--and we may eventually grow some maturity, one hopes. Of course being by far the biggest arms dealer in the world doesn't help matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
If you take those two statements as fact, that's all the more reason not to trust those who wish to take away your means of self defense, dontcha think?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I can see where some would think so, but I've gotten this far without arming myself to the teeth, and I'll carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Kids from loving nurturing homes will do well regardless of intact family or not. Churches can be part of that for religious people but aren’t a necessity. All families need a good support system, decent daycare or after care and a reasonable work schedule so parents aren’t too exhausted to do their best as parents. Plus some kids turn out bad due to drugs or despite having the best upbringing.
That's ok, if circumstances change and you become a target you can change your mind, at least currently.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Yes, nothing is fool-proof, but we can improve the odds of success if we try. Or to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if we stop making people so comfortable in their poverty (economic or moral) they gain incentive to improve themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
I can't envision a situation where 1) I would need a gun to defend myself, or 2) I would have it at the ready to deploy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Maybe if I were hiking alone, or traveling in a wilderness area. (Which would have never happened.) But even then, I wouldn't be packing an AR-15.
I don't have one either, but if I ever needed a nice varmint rifle it would be a good choice, albeit a scary looking one.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Yes let’s blame the poor. A favorite pastime of conservatives and republicans.
I don't blame the poor, I blame the systems and "empathetic" enablers which guarantee they stay that way. Maybe I haven't made that clear enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
The poor wouldnt be poor if only we made being poor more unpleasant so that they would be inspired to stop being poor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I was just reading about "Make My Day Laws" which are on the books in various states (MT, CO, OH, FL, TX, probably others as well). Under certain circumstances the occupant of a dwelling is justified for the use of deadly physical force against an intruder in a residence. The circumstances may vary somewhat from state to state, but in general:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
1. the intruder made a knowing, unlawful entry into the dwelling, and
2. the occupant reasonably believed the intruder was committing or intended to commit an additional crime against a person or property in the dwelling, other than the unlawful entry, and
3. the occupant reasonably believed the occupant might use physical force against any occupant.
In Loveland CO, in February 2019, a man named Guzman was at home. Three intruders stole a toy helicopter he had bought as a gift for his son. He went to another room, got his 12 ga. shotgun and loaded it. By then the 3 intruders were leaving the property, and he fired two blasts, killing one and seriously wounding another. He has been charged with murder. Perhaps his lawyer will use the "Make My Day" defense... but the problem is the bad guys were running away by the time Guzman shot them.
It may be that Guzman used his firearm precipitously, with a misunderstanding of the legal justification for the use of deadly force in his jurisdiction.
Something like that, think generationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1