Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »



New calls for arming teachers and SROs in schools

In wake of Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre


Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news ... z2FXj3OVYZ
news/new-calls-for-arming-teachers-and-sros-in-schools

CINCINNATI - There were new calls Tuesday for school districts to consider allowing school resource officers (SRO), teachers and staff members to carry guns on school grounds.

The recommendations from Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters came on the heels of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Adam Lanza took his own life when he heard police officers enter the building after he shot and killed 20 schoolchildren and six adults.

The question now is whether the crisis may have been averted if there was an armed staff member or SRO on site.

Deters believes that would be the quickest way to stop such tragedies, and said he doesn’t oppose school personnel carrying concealed weapons

"I have no problem with them carrying on their person, none at all," Deters said. "If it's a trained officer, I have no problem with that at all."

Asked about teachers being armed in their classrooms, Deters replied, "If a teacher is trained to handle a weapon, I would have no objection to a teacher having a weapon."

DeWine said he would leave those decisions at the local level and not tell a school what to do. However, he added he favors lockboxes for guns in schools.

"If I was on the school board, I think that I would think about having someone in the school who is very well trained, who has a gun under lock and key and that no one could get access to but them," he said. "If a tragedy does occur, they can go get that gun."

He acknowledged critical seconds might be lost trying to disarm a shooter just to unlock the weapon, but said that system is the logical choice.

Skipjack
Posts: 6812
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Wasnt there an amok run at a US army base once, where a shooter killed a dozen people or so?

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

Skipjack wrote:Wasnt there an amok run at a US army base once, where a shooter killed a dozen people or so?
I assume you mean the fort hood shooter. My understanding was that the policy on base was that you were not allowed to carry firearms unless you were on active duty. That's why he was taken down by police officers (instead of any bystanders) after shooting multiple people, everyone else (accept the shooter) were unarmed.
According to John Lott, every mass public shooting in the US since 1950 with one exception (the Gabriel Gifford's shooting) took place in gun free zones.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... -john-fund#

..Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools...

..spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons...

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Post by paperburn1 »

total time from start to stop was less than ten minutes with the first responding officer there in 5 minutes.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

paperburn1 wrote:total time from start to stop was less than ten minutes with the first responding officer there in 5 minutes.
I assume you mean the Sandy Hook (Connecticut school) shootings? If you were that principal there, would it have taken you anywhere close to 10 min to get your gun (assuming it was inside with you), load it and confront the assailant? After all the school was on lockdown before he shot his way in, they knew something was up, they did what they could it just wasn't enough.

SheltonJ
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:14 pm

Post by SheltonJ »

The following research paper http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=161637 shows that the only effective policy found so far is non-discretionary concealed carry permits. All other gun control attempts do nothing to reduce the frequency or size of multiple victim public shootings. They may in fact do the opposite. In the case of the Batman movie shooting, the killer appears to have bypassed several more convenient theaters to find one which prohibited lawful concealed carry, thus ensuring disarmed victims.
I find the push to train and arm the teachers to be the sanest proposal so far and the only one likely to reduce future loss of life.
Unfortunately our media has a tendency to under report shootings where an armed citizen is the one who ended the attack. While searching the internet for such things I noted that a majority of the stories about the Pearl High School shooting did not mention the Assistant Principle who, using his .45 pistol, subdued the gunman before he could leave (he was headed to another school) and continue his attack elsewhere. This agenda based filtering of the news gets more and more disturbing to me the more I look into it.
Emotion is a horrible basis for legislation, especially when logic and experience tell us that the actual result will be the exact opposite of the (claimed) desired result. Gun free zones have become predator hunting preserves.
Wishful thinking applied to the real world and treated as a prescription for how reality ought to work is a recipe for disaster.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Is it coincidence that the pro-drug crowd is also the anti-gun crowd?
Does that make them hypocrites?

I guess you can look at it the other way as well, the anti-drug crowd are the pro-gun crowd. What does that mean?

For me I guess it means I am tired of people being granted the right to mess with my life arbitrarily and without my consent. If they want to hold me at risk, I should have some rights in the mix to protect myself...
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ANTIcarrot
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:47 pm
Contact:

Post by ANTIcarrot »

How much will it cost to train the member of staff to handle guns, and regularly recertify them, and the ammunition chest in their place of work? There may also be insurance costs. Are you happy for your taxes to go up to pay for this?

Weren't several thousand people injured last year in America by guns going off when no-one was touching them? In trained hands guns are very reliable at killing people. But not in the hands of someone who practices every three months down at the range, and barely passes. And guns are famous for being extremely unreliable at NOT killing people when we don't want them to. The number two rule is 'Don't point guns at people' for a reason.

You want to put these acidents waiting to happen in a place where you know there will be children? That seems counter intuative to me.

Also think back to your childhood. How many stupid, arogant, sadistic or corrupt teachers/other staff do you remember? Or failing that, how many do you remember that were run off their feet, and simply didn't have the time, patience, or energy for another job on top of everything they were already doing?
Some light reading material: Half Way To Anywhere, The Rocket Company, Space Technology, The High Fronter, Of Wolves And Men, Light On Shattered Water, The Ultimate Weapon, any Janes Guide, GURPS Bio-Tech, ALIENS Technical Manual, The God Delusion.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

ANTIcarrot wrote:How much will it cost to train the member of staff to handle guns, and regularly recertify them, and the ammunition chest in their place of work?
Firearms safety training is usually a free service provided by NRA and law enforcement officials. It's in everyone's best interest, people with guns know how to be safe with them. Shooters always pay for their own ammo. You're fabricating problems where there are none.
Weren't several thousand people injured last year in America by guns going off when no-one was touching them?
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a time where a gun went off with no one touching it. Someone has sold you a crazy bullshit story. You really do need to be able to discern an obvious fabrication from the truth. How is it you think guns are unlike all other inanimate objects and can act of their own accord?
How many stupid, arogant, sadistic or corrupt teachers/other staff do you remember?
You can use that same argument against any nameless, faceless person to deprive them of their constitutional rights. What you need to grapple with is the fact that our Constitution was not written to pander to your pet fears. It was written to recognize and protect our God given right to self-defense. If that topic makes you anxious, perhaps you ought to think on something else, but that's not an excuse to argue for removing the rights of others.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by williatw »

GIThruster wrote:
ANTIcarrot wrote: How many stupid, arogant, sadistic or corrupt teachers/other staff do you remember?
You can use that same argument against any nameless, faceless person to deprive them of their constitutional rights. What you need to grapple with is the fact that our Constitution was not written to pander to your pet fears. It was written to recognize and protect our God given right to self-defense. If that topic makes you anxious, perhaps you ought to think on something else, but that's not an excuse to argue for removing the rights of others.
And realistically the set of teachers/principals/school officials allowed to carry on school property would very probably be a subset of those 8 million concealed carry permit holders (who have already been vetted), with perhaps supplemental training as mandated by the state, local gov. or school board of a particular area. CCW holders have a homicide rate considerably lower than the general public, and police actually accidently shoot people in greater no. than CCW holders do.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

GIThruster wrote:To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a time where a gun went off with no one touching it.
If there were such an incident, the major media would be all over it. Any gun that did discharge from being jarred would be a poor design.

Related, one set of experiments the Mythbusters did was if a gun could be set off by a very loud stereo in the car carrying them. Stereo cranked up way beyond prompt hearing damage, guns selected with free moving firing pens to maximize chances, no discharge.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

150 years ago some revolvers could be set off by accident, but that does not mean they could go off by themselves. Early revolvers had the firing pin attached to the hammer, so inadvertently pulling the hammer back and releasing it would fire the weapon without using the trigger. For this reason, early revolvers were usually carried with the chamber under the hammer empty.

Nearly all modern revolvers have an internal "safety" known as a "transfer bar" that is activated by pulling the trigger. It is a bar that slides up between the hammer and the firing pin as the trigger is pulled - which means that the hammer will not strike the firing pin if it is struck or if the pistol is dropped onto the hammer. These types of pistols are relatively safe to carry fully loaded.

But in no case past or present do firearms go off by themselves. They may be discharged unintentionally, but then again, Ford Expeditions unintentionally carve their way through crowds at times. That doesn't mean SUV's can drive themselves.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

ladajo wrote:Is it coincidence that the pro-drug crowd is also the anti-gun crowd?
Does that make them hypocrites?

I guess you can look at it the other way as well, the anti-drug crowd are the pro-gun crowd. What does that mean?

For me I guess it means I am tired of people being granted the right to mess with my life arbitrarily and without my consent. If they want to hold me at risk, I should have some rights in the mix to protect myself...
Well that is not strictly true:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... eedom.html

The movie linked features a Sheriff.

You might also like this one on NRA activist Richard Feldman:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... speaks-out

====

Given all the trouble alcohol causes (20X as much as all the illegal drugs combined) I'm surprised you haven't proposed prohibition as a cure. If it works for drugs shouldn't it work for alcohol too?

====

Ah. You want protection? Total control is the only answer. Otherwise you take your chances.

===

I probably should add that Richard Feldman and I correspond.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

GIThruster wrote: What you need to grapple with is the fact that our Constitution was not written to pander to your pet fears.
So where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment?

It looks like our Federal Government is pandering to your fears without benefit of law. This will come back to bite you.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply