I agree that is a good article. Are you trying to say mine's not by posting a link to a Conservative site while a cite a Harvard Professor? Both links are worth reading and provide different strategies to curb gun violence.

This isn't a case of short-term solutions being forsaken for longer-term ones. It's just that the longer-term one doesn't eliminate the need for a shoter-term one. Combating depression and suicide directly is a great idea, but depression and suicide don't just happen out of thin air and they're not root causes. They're social ills beget by other social ills, such as poverty, social isolation, alcoholism, abuse, etc. So the "get to the root cause" strategy is a problem that will take much longer to combat, will probably address some things that you don't WANT addressed, and is already being undertaken by many many people. The long-term solution is already happening. And in the meantime, shootings are still happening. So we still need a short-term solution.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

You're doing it again. You fail to distinguish between good guys with guns (cops, CCL holders) and bad guys with guns (criminals, psychos). You roll them into one amalgamated lump (number of guns), and then blame the lump for the gun violence problem.

The higher the ratio of good guys with guns to bad guys with guns, the less likely there is to be problems, and the more likely problems that start can be quickly ended.



*WTF? Anyone else see a weird scroll bar underneath the quote box?

_________________

Not at all on your Harvard link. If I was trying to say that, I would have quoted your post and since so.

But since you want to bring Harvard into the argument. I will bring up two Harvard professors that may differ in opinion with the Harvard professor in your link:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_g ... productive

I posted this link a day or two ago. Are you trying to say that my link isn't a good one by posting yours?

_________________
Member formally known as AC59

Bingo.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend "gun-free zones," such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch's study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.

The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.

_________________

Always the difficult to convey entire meaning and intent with writing. My premise disagreement is actually with the gun control advocates stating that gun control would have prevented this tragedy. I believe, and studies show, that more access to guns leads to more violence. I don't think that is a good mix. I did not mean to imply by the "as well" that guns at school could not effectively stop a school shooting. I just think that it brings too many possible bad outcomes to offset the rare instances of these atrocities. Kids get in fights all of the time at school. Teenagers are prone to rash decisions. Guns and rash decisons do not mix.

A police officer is a totallly different position than a teacher. To be an effective teacher, I have to be in the middle of a room full of kids. Kneeling and helping a student for a given period of time. Teacher's should not have this as part of their responsibility.

I am trying to make this so you don't get up in arms and try to put words in my mouth. Note: No where do I state that a teacher can't be qualified to do carry a weapon or to keep one secure in the classroom. As an experienced educator, I just don't think that the two items together are conducive to an educational environment. Have a police officer assigned to the school. Train the proctors/security to carry weapons if that is the direction you want to go. Arming teachers in the classroom is not, in my opinion, the right answer.

An armed teacher will never be as effective as a law enforcement officer. It doesn't matter if they can put the same number of holes in a tight circle through a piece of paper at the range. Once adrenaline kicks in in a situation like that it is not at all like target shooting. Law enforcement at least has adrenaline-fueled moments almost every day.

I think the FBI still puts out annual statistics on firearm discharges involving officers both State and Federal. It's been more than a decade since I read one but it was somewhat astounding how often officers missed from very short range in shooting situations when they were being fired upon. Fortunately in most cases their higher intensity of training means they are the shooter that walks away alive.

I don't believe there is a short term solution to this problem. But between assigning trained professionals to each school and letting teachers bring their own weapons I'd take the former and be against the latter.

What exact bar should be met by a teacher in order to be allowed to bring a firearm to school for effective protection? As a parent I'd very much like to know at least that.

I was listening to a group of teachers in Miami talk about the shooting and some of their ideas I thought were great. I am a big supports of educators ( 4 family members are teaching ) the ideas:
1. Armed security. Teachers teach. We guard our money at banks, protect politicians with them. Are our kids not as valuable ?

2. A cohesive plan. Hiding in cabinets with the lights off is not a plan. Trusting the police to get there quickly is not dependable. It took over 8 minutes in CT and the shooting was over. They felt that it should be treated in many ways like a fire. Out windows if doors are not an option. The goal is to evacuate.

3. Gun control. Not realistic. The Genie is out of the bottle with well over 150 million guns in the wild. Even in Norway with very restrictive laws 77 people were killed in the island shooting. We already know about suicide bombers and multiple other options.

4. Locking inner doors. I never heard of this but it sounded good. Right now all doors are left open , blocked open etc. The building doors it would not be practical due to traffic, but class doors yes.

5. Mental Health. Teachers complained that if they say that little Johnny is acting like a raving Lunatic In class and trying to stab other students they get little support from Admin if the complain. The parents get mad for singling Johnny out , complain and the teacher gets labeled as unable to Control their class.

Only the middle school dance shooter (who was shooting at a restaurant by that time) was thwarted really. The Pearl shooter had already left the school and was heading back to his car. The Shoney's restaurant was a robbery with what was probably no intention of homicide.

In fact most school shootings result only in the death of 1-2 people. Most have a target, most only want to kill one person (and themselves). There's only a few instances of actual attempted mass murder. Out of those ~6 mass shootings 1 of those schools had an officer with a gun. Unfortunately the officer at the time was not in the school.

What that article has shown is that these cowards and weaklings when faced with an armed police officer would most likely not attempt the shooting at all or at least would be temporarily held back. This doesn't make a case for teachers carrying guns, it makes a case for having a professional, trained policeman who is not sitting in the classroom with a gun, or has it locked up "safely" (yeah, that never goes bad!).

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Will you quit with the "locked up 'safely'" crap? If a person is carrying, it means he/she is carrying.

As I have said many times, I don't mind the idea of police being at schools. But as you have mentioned, there is a significant cost involved. And for real security, there would have to be two cops on campus, not just one. And they wouldn't be able to be called off on another call. Do you think any police force would agree to that?

_________________

Guns in the classroom is a ridiculous option.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Would you not bring your kids to a bank? To a police station? To a military installation? Are guns in those places also ridiculous?

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Rather than waste our time talking about school shootings...lets talk about something that kills more people - TVs falling over and crushing people (mostly children). I suggest we place heavy restrictions on TV ownership or ban them altogether...thoughts?

You are basing your opinion on some faulty premises.

1. You are assuming that all teachers have never had experience with "adrenaline-fueled moments", and therefore are unable to handle such moments.
2. "Law enforcement" has adrenaline-fueled moments every day, but individual cops don't.
3. A lot of cops miss at close range, not because of adrenaline, but because they are crappy shots to begin with.

You might not believe it, but I have seen it with my own eyes. I have been on ranges when cops have been training or qualifying, and some of them barely make it. One guy that couldn't hit a human size target from 7 feet away, and failed his test three time in a row. I met a cop in Mountlake Terrace who was much more passionate about recycling and litter than she was about qualifying with her gun. To her, it was distasteful, and she only went to the range whenever she had to qualify.

If you have a cop at a school, you might have one who can put down a shooter. Maybe not. If you don't believe me, talk to a cop about what they have to do to qualify, and how many cops are really proficient vs. cops who are barely proficient.

By the way, just to establish my credibility, I spent seven years in the Marine Corps as a firearms marksmanship and safety instructor. I owned the pistol score record in two of the units I was in. I know about training, and I know about shooting. In the Marines, and in the Army, people wear their shooting qualifications on their chest (in dress uniforms), so you can tell at a glance who can shoot and who struggles. IIRC, cops may wear their shooting qualifications on their dress uniforms, but not on their everyday uniforms -- if that's the case, you can't know without asking how good of a shot they are.

I have also competed as a civilian in practical shooting competitions. There are a helluva lot of civilians who can shoot better than your average cop. You seem to think it doesn't matter, but it matters a lot if someone can put rounds in a tight pattern on a target.

What would the bar be for teachers to carry? I can't say for sure, but there are quite a number of advanced firearms training facilities. Completing the basic, advanced, and concealed carry pistol courses would give them more training than average cops typically get. Personally, I would send teachers through every pistol course a facility has. Having multiple qualifications and certification should ease the minds of concerned parents.

http://www.firearmstraining.com/class_desc.html
http://practicalfirearmstraining.com/Co ... n-Courses/
http://www.frontsight.com/Courses.asp
http://ccwguntraining.com/gun-training-classes/
http://www.advancedfirearms.org/Conceal ... Quali.html
http://www.suresightfirearmstraining.com/courses.html

_________________

Maybe you mistunderstand reality. Somebody already beat me to the punch line here, but in short, if you think "the people" could rise up and overthrow our government from a force of arms standpoint, you are sadly mistaken. Nothing in the hands of the American people is an effective trump card to a cruise missle, Abrams tank, or an Apache attack helicopter, not to mention all of the other fun toys owned and operated at the hands of the US Military. Also, this isn't about that debate, which is so far fetched as to be idiotic. I, as a current member of the law enforcement community and former member of the Armed forces, know one thing above all others. It isn't about the weapon, it's about the person holding the weapon. I understand this applies both for and against my argument, but my argument non the less is that a person with a bolt action rifle, (not a safe and sane pop gun, is there even such a thing?) and any kind of understanding of fieldcraft and firearms manipulation is as dangerous or even more so than a person with an AR15 type rifle. My personal beliefe system (feel free to disagree, one of the great things about being an american) is that a large majority of the AR15 owning American Public own such firearms becasue they are lazy. They believe that the high capacity AR15 in their hands makes them more capable than they really are. I find it humorous at best, tragic at worst. There are people out there who understand what I'm talking about. Unfortunatly they are in the minority due to our current culture. Is there credibility to the arguement that if AR15's were to be removed from hands of the American public that we would all be a little bit safer... maybe, maybe not, it really is a subjective arguement. I can tell you that a person with a semi automatic handgun (even with "limited" 10 rd capacity magazines) who knows how to use it could, if they were so inclined, shoot the magazine empty and reload faster than you would be able to respond and stop their actions. Such a person could continue shooting and reloading untill either everyone was around them was expired ,they simply ran out of bullets... or another armed person with a set of balls (real or figurative) put a stop to it. So I guess the point I'm getting at is this: those who don't need high capacity magazines on military style rifles are not the ones commiting these crimes, and if they were, the body count would be much, much higher. Those that need high capacity magazines to commit crimes of the magnatude of the one that started this thread, shouldn have access to them, which accounts for the vast majority of Americans. I love the 2nd amendment, and as I have stated before, I am a firearm owner and lifelong hunter. I don't like even talking about baning guns. I doubt it will change anything because the people are the one's commiting these crimes, and until you change the people you havn't changed anything. All I'm saying is there may be an argument for keeping military grade high capacity firearms out of the hands of civilians. Of course I may be full of hot air too. Once again, the great thing about being an American are our freedoms. I get to be as opinionated as the rest of you and you can feel free to disagree with me if you like, I'm ok with that. Carry on...

_________________
Position Before Submission

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

No, you don't get to do the "doh" face. YOU are the one who is arguing that school shootings are so rare that we shouldn't have armed adults in schools. You don't get to argue that they are statistically insignificant, and then be offended when someone points out they are statistically insignificant.

_________________

If you want to appear intelligent, try forming paragraphs, each bearing its own individual point, rather than an incoherent wall of text. Oh, also, there is such a thing as a spelling checker, and it's a fantastic bit of technology - USE IT.

To state so matter-of-factly that there's no way an armed rebellion could succeed in the USA (when our nation was formed in the wake of such an armed rebellion), is completely idiotic. Do you honestly think we'd be launching cruise missiles indiscriminately at targets on Wall Street in trying to quell a rebellion? The odds of that are pretty much zero so long as our nation's economic health hinges on the growth and commercial/industrial output of our major cities. If the rebels were holed up in the hills of Tennessee, then yes, cruise missiles would be the weapon du jour to handle some "terrorists", but if the fighting were on the streets of NYC, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, and so on, it would require a much more delicate approach.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Effective in which regard? Effective as a crime stopper, able to take out the bad guys using tactical training? Of course not. That's not their job. They're not crime fighters. But armed with a concealed carry weapon, they're very effective - as a deterrent, and that is the whole point of what we're talking about.

DETERRENCE. Preventing it from happening in the first place. If all schools have concealed carry folks on staff, it's a great deterrence. No, they're not going to be as effective with the anti-bad guy techniques and tactics as the police, but when their job is to prevent it from happening in the first place, that's perfectly alright.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

The general thought, though, is that deterrence has no effect on someone who isn't in their right mind. Therefore, the primary consideration is whether our protection will be effective as a combatant.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power