|
Post by galion on Feb 24, 2018 19:22:47 GMT -5
You must literally believe anything you hear if it come from the right propaganda source. Think about it for a second. In 3 minutes not only did a security guard make it clear over from another building but 3 other deputies magically morphed onto the scene as well. Unbelievable. Right from the mouth of the Broward County sheriff. That's good enough for me. Yeah, post the link.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 24, 2018 20:18:22 GMT -5
Right from the mouth of the Broward County sheriff. That's good enough for me. Yeah, post the link.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 24, 2018 20:29:22 GMT -5
Tell me the more likely scenario. A nutcase entering the school with an assault weapon or some smartass kid bringing a toy gun to school and pointing it at people. We all know how that second scenario turned out in Cleveland. Are you telling me that a teacher with a CC and little to no training won't make the same mistake as a trained professional? We all know the truth of the Cleveland incident. Rule #1, you don't point a gun at a police officer. Expect a response that won't be very pleasant. That officer has a family at home, expecting him to return alive every night. Where do you get your information that none of these teachers are trained? CC comes with it a tremendous responsibility and in their case, tactical response training beyond the CC classes is the norm.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 24, 2018 20:35:33 GMT -5
Yes, there was ONE there who could have entered the building. We already knew that. The other 2 couldn't have stopped it but they are trying to figure out how the kid just lays down his weapons on the 3rd floor and walks out of the building and to a McDonalds without anyone knowing.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 24, 2018 20:44:34 GMT -5
Tell me the more likely scenario. A nutcase entering the school with an assault weapon or some smartass kid bringing a toy gun to school and pointing it at people. We all know how that second scenario turned out in Cleveland. Are you telling me that a teacher with a CC and little to no training won't make the same mistake as a trained professional? We all know the truth of the Cleveland incident. Rule #1, you don't point a gun at a police officer. Expect a response that won't be very pleasant. That officer has a family at home, expecting him to return alive every night. Where do you get your information that none of these teachers are trained? CC comes with it a tremendous responsibility and in their case, tactical response training beyond the CC classes is the norm. Are you telling me that they are going to have the same training as a law enforcement officer? What do you figure that's just a weekend workshop? You have to be smarter than that. I'm not saying that the Cleveland officer was wrong. I'm saying that he was literally trained to deal with that situation and that was the result. The deputy, who, was again trained to deal with that situation and froze. Soldiers oftentimes freeze during their initial combat experience, as has been stated by a veteran on here several times. How do you figure that a civilian with merely a fraction of that training is going to fair any better? I understand your anything is better than nothing mentality but that is not always the case. Remember teachers have families who expect them to return home alive every night as well.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 24, 2018 20:47:21 GMT -5
Yes, there was ONE there who could have entered the building. We already knew that. The other 2 couldn't have stopped it but they are trying to figure out how the kid just lays down his weapons on the 3rd floor and walks out of the building and to a McDonalds without anyone knowing. The ONE deputy cowardly staying out of the building is old news. The most recent update involves 3 additional officers. Think the Sheriff's job might be hanging by a thread? Not only did the shooter go to McDonalds and feed himself, he went to Walmart.......as if it were just another uneventful day.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 24, 2018 20:50:46 GMT -5
Yes the officers who arrived on the scene after the fact who let the shooter get away in the crowd.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 24, 2018 22:13:08 GMT -5
Yes the officers who arrived on the scene after the fact who let the shooter get away in the crowd. Yep......
|
|
|
Post by moneyball on Feb 25, 2018 10:48:10 GMT -5
Just read this one and it is worth the read. "Here is what the Indiana Sheriff's Association calls the safest schools in the country. They are located in Shelbyville, Indiana southwest of Indianapolis on I 74. . Not one teacher carries or has any access to a gun or other weapon. Its a number of things the school did a couple years ago specifically after Sandy Hook. That includes every teacher has a panic button on their person that when activated immediately sends out an alarm throughout the school campus for a total lock-down. Said one teacher can shut down the entire school system. With the alarm sounded all doors to the classrooms are secured and every door is bullet proof. Each room has a safe protected area should a shooter be outside and shooting inside thru the windows. The Sheriff has full access / control to hundreds of cameras located thought out the building to view the situation. Every classroom has been outfitted with a radio that has direct access to the Sheriff's office. All hallways are equipped with smoke generators that the main office or Sheriff office can activate making it nearly impossible for anyone to see to move in the hallway. They said other measures exist as well but none of those have any individual other than the police with a weapon. Article quoted the Sheriff saying the last thing I want is 20% etc of the staff running around with guns all chasing a shooter. Said that is best left to trained and fully equipped law enforcement. As said this is considered the safest school system in the country. Cost bit over $400,000 and slightly over $100,000 was provided by a Federal grant.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Feb 25, 2018 11:37:12 GMT -5
Just read this one and it is worth the read. "Here is what the Indiana Sheriff's Association calls the safest schools in the country. They are located in Shelbyville, Indiana southwest of Indianapolis on I 74. . Not one teacher carries or has any access to a gun or other weapon. Its a number of things the school did a couple years ago specifically after Sandy Hook. That includes every teacher has a panic button on their person that when activated immediately sends out an alarm throughout the school campus for a total lock-down. Said one teacher can shut down the entire school system. With the alarm sounded all doors to the classrooms are secured and every door is bullet proof. Each room has a safe protected area should a shooter be outside and shooting inside thru the windows. The Sheriff has full access / control to hundreds of cameras located thought out the building to view the situation. Every classroom has been outfitted with a radio that has direct access to the Sheriff's office. All hallways are equipped with smoke generators that the main office or Sheriff office can activate making it nearly impossible for anyone to see to move in the hallway. They said other measures exist as well but none of those have any individual other than the police with a weapon. Article quoted the Sheriff saying the last thing I want is 20% etc of the staff running around with guns all chasing a shooter. Said that is best left to trained and fully equipped law enforcement. As said this is considered the safest school system in the country. Cost bit over $400,000 and slightly over $100,000 was provided by a Federal grant. All very good and sensible measures. Saw on the news this morning that Butler County Ohio Sheriff offered FREE concealed carry classes to teachers and other school personnel. Available spots (around 300) filled up in one day. Training starts tomorrow. He said it would be legal in Ohio for school personnel to pack if the school OK'd it. Not making any judgment here, but which way do you think most school boards will go to increase security?
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 25, 2018 20:43:56 GMT -5
The Indiana school with all the bells and whistles, gadget security innovations, must be located in a very affluent community, willing to spend almost a half a million. That's all well and good, whatever works for them. Security is not a one size fits all proposition. Every school district has different needs and methods to meet those needs, while keeping within a budget.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 25, 2018 21:52:02 GMT -5
I'm certain that the Indiana way would work in any school district. But certainly arming teachers would be a cheaper. The NRA would favor the arming of teachers because it will sell more guns even though it would be much less effective.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 25, 2018 23:33:19 GMT -5
The Indiana school with all the bells and whistles, gadget security innovations, must be located in a very affluent community, willing to spend almost a half a million. That's all well and good, whatever works for them. Security is not a one size fits all proposition. Every school district has different needs and methods to meet those needs, while keeping within a budget. That's one of the most incredulous posts I've read in a long while. Let me see if I'm following your logic. For essentially the cost of an artificial turf field or an all weather track you can make your school virtually impregnable. But that might be a bit over your budget restrictions. Such a high emphasis you place on the safety of our children.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Feb 26, 2018 0:02:49 GMT -5
There seems to be a pretty big divide between both sides that are looking for a solution. One side seems to think that arming teachers provides a deterrent while also providing the ability to respond to shooters. The issue is centered on protecting our schools, arming the good people, and preventing people who should not have guns from getting them and using them. The other side thinks banning the firearms will remove the mass killing ability of the shooter. The school shooter issue is really seen as a greater gun violence issue. Not only do they think that arming teachers is ineffective, they also believe this will fail to prevent shootings in Vegas, but really gun violence in general. I both sides need to discuss this at a different angle if they are ever going to reach a consensus on this. The question that should be asked Gun advocates: What would it take for you to support repealing the 2nd Amendment?If someone isn't going to ever stop supporting the 2nd Amendment, they are never going to support legislation that inhibits it. This is the NRA's entire reason for existence. They and their supporters believe that owning arms is a god given right and it is part of their American identity and makeup. Do you have a problem with gun violence in America? The NRA is going to say it's a people issue, not a gun issue. My individual right to bear arms should not be inhibited when there are obviously 2 ways to prevent shootings. Stop "bad" individuals from getting guns and kill "bad" individuals when they do. They think they can solve the shooter problem individually, through mental health screenings, background checks, and acting on warning signals for individuals. Others think we arm the populace and just address the "inevitable" shooting case by case. Gun advocates are using motivated reasoning to defend guns because it is integral to who they are as a person and what they think America should be about. I don't think people like sportsjock are going to be convinced about any gun-related solution because it's literally not an option for them. For people like galion, they think guns are the problem, because in his mind gun=lethal violence. They see a correlation between gun violence and the number of guns in a country and think that they can address it collectively. They look at charts like this: and this and this and they think that getting rid of guns will reduce gun violence. The correlation works right? It makes sense due to statistics. If they believe this is true, then they are going to do the same motivated reasoning as gun advocates. They are going to ignore that there may be countries with both many guns per person and lower gun deaths because the solution is so clear and easy to them. Something needs to be done to reframe this debate and find a solution for this gun violence once and for all. We know that neither side will cave to the other so let's try to agree on some easy things. 1. We all think the United States has a gun violence issue. Whether it is a people problem or a gun problem, it doesn't matter. We can agree it's an issue. 2. We can all agree that school shootings are part of that greater gun violence issue. It is a bad/crazy/misled person with a gun that seeks to murder someone, whether it be a rival gang member, a school child, or even themselves. 3. If we agree on the above 2, we can start looking at case studies that have a high level of guns and low violence. You guys are literally just arguing your perceptions on how asinine hypotheticals would play out in when teachers have concealed carry and you both literally have no hard evidence of whether it works or not. Yes, many schools are adopting cc carrying teachers, but let us also remember that it was widely used policy to take fluoride out of the water to combat communism brainwashing. Yes, there are arguments that can be made that it is unpractical but you literally don't have enough knowledge in human psychology to be able to prove how people will react to every shooting incident. Anyways, it is getting us nowhere and you guys aren't going to reach a solution anytime soon. If you guys could use some EVIDENCE and talk about a solution that takes into account to each other's biases, that would be great. Looking at case studies from countries that lowered gun violence without banning guns entirely would be nice. If you guys can't do that, these discussions aren't going anywhere and you guys can save your time and go back to arguing about high school sports.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 26, 2018 3:47:50 GMT -5
I'm not advocating banning guns entirely. I simply believe that it should be at least as difficult to get a gun in this country as it is a drivers license. As far as the NRA goes, perhaps at one time it was conceived as a means to defend the second amendment but it has morphed into something entirely different. They are now the outspoken lobby to advance the causes of the gun manufacturers and dealers in this country. Their primary concern is to put money in pockets. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's about second amendment rights when it's simply about profit. The gun industry as most industries work on the principle of acceptable risk. What's the worst thing that can go wrong and how do we mitigate it if it does? With the auto and medical industries it's usually class action suites and undisclosed settlements. The fossil fuel industry typically pays a slap on the wrist fine. The gun industry simply polarizes the issue of easily accessible firearms with second amendment arguments, mental health questions, and pointing the finger at anyone that will take the focus off of how a disturbed individual can gain access to a firearm in the first place. Ask an NRA member why they are against somebody at a gunshow having to go through the same scrutiny they'd need to go through at their local Walmart. You need look no further than North to Canada for ideas but if it comes from a "socialist" country it must be evil.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Feb 26, 2018 7:37:04 GMT -5
I'm not advocating banning guns entirely. I simply believe that it should be at least as difficult to get a gun in this country as it is a drivers license. As far as the NRA goes, perhaps at one time it was conceived as a means to defend the second amendment but it has morphed into something entirely different. They are now the outspoken lobby to advance the causes of the gun manufacturers and dealers in this country. Their primary concern is to put money in pockets. Don't kid yourself into thinking it's about second amendment rights when it's simply about profit. The gun industry as most industries work on the principle of acceptable risk. What's the worst thing that can go wrong and how do we mitigate it if it does? With the auto and medical industries it's usually class action suites and undisclosed settlements. The fossil fuel industry typically pays a slap on the wrist fine. The gun industry simply polarizes the issue of easily accessible firearms with second amendment arguments, mental health questions, and pointing the finger at anyone that will take the focus off of how a disturbed individual can gain access to a firearm in the first place. Ask an NRA member why they are against somebody at a gunshow having to go through the same scrutiny they'd need to go through at their local Walmart. You need look no further than North to Canada for ideas but if it comes from a "socialist" country it must be evil. Of course the higher ups in the NRA are no doubt protecting gun companies because they benefit from the profits. I'm not denying that. But for the millions that support the NRA, they obviously don't see themselves as defenders of the profits for the large corporations. Wouldn't it have been easy to convince people in the first place if that was true? Sportsjock has said, at least a couple times, that he feels that good people shouldn't be punished for what others are doing. They see regulation as hinderence of individual freedom. You will literally convince 0 people that their stance may be wrong by accusing them of backing the greedy corporations. There is a reason why the NRA frames the argument a certain way, and it is because they understand what values they need to appeal to in order to retain the support of it's regular citizen backers. As for just advocating background checks, or what not, again provide evidence that it works. Provide studies where small checks make a huge difference. Otherwise, people will still just think it's a hindrance to good people getting guns and not effecting shootings in the slightest.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 26, 2018 7:39:46 GMT -5
Why is it, the states with the strictest gun laws also have the highest murder rates? Chicago has a total ban on firearm sales, there are no gun stores in that city, yet it has the highest murder rate.
Bump stocks should have been banned years ago and yet, today they remain legal....why? Large magazine clips still remain legal....why?
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 26, 2018 7:44:14 GMT -5
I'm certain that the Indiana way would work in any school district. But certainly arming teachers would be a cheaper. The NRA would favor the arming of teachers because it will sell more guns even though it would be much less effective. It's working here in Ohio and elsewhere, and the list of school districts allowing teachers to quietly arm themselves is growing. I don't believe any of those districts are involved in firearms purchasing. The teachers own their own CC weapon of choice.
|
|
|
Post by cbus on Feb 26, 2018 8:46:04 GMT -5
heresjim wrote
The question that should be asked Gun advocates: What would it take for you to support repealing the 2nd Amendment? ----------------------------------------------- I think one of the frustrations, is that the NRA funds many members of Congress so there is a perception that they buy support that is disproportionate to the actual belief of the American citizens. I think the only way forward is to remove this support by changing campaign finance laws. Then we will see if 60% of Congress actually wants to change the 2nd amendment based on its merits. Presumably, that will mean there are 60% of Americans that also want it amended. This is somewhat oversimplified given the way the Senate is structured.
Democrats probably had the opportunity to do something in 2009 when they had effective control of 60% of the Senate and 59% of the House with Obama as President. The fact that they did nothing shows either: 1) their constituents do not want the 2nd amendment changed or 2) something else....
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Feb 26, 2018 9:02:13 GMT -5
heresjim wrote The question that should be asked Gun advocates: What would it take for you to support repealing the 2nd Amendment? ----------------------------------------------- I think one of the frustrations, is that the NRA funds many members of Congress so there is a perception that they buy support that is disproportionate to the actual belief of the American citizens. I think the only way forward is to remove this support by changing campaign finance laws. Then we will see if 60% of Congress actually wants to change the 2nd amendment based on its merits. Presumably, that will mean there are 60% of Americans that also want it amended. This is somewhat oversimplified given the way the Senate is structured. Democrats probably had the opportunity to do something in 2009 when they had effective control of 60% of the Senate and 59% of the House with Obama as President. The fact that they did nothing shows either: 1) their constituents do not want the 2nd amendment changed or 2) something else.... That's something that is going to be impossible unless you can hire lawyers to overturn Citizens United vs FCC. Since we can't get money out of politics you literally have to convince a mass swathe of the electorate to vote out people in place right now (also seemingly impossible). Really the context of me asking that question is looking at how we frame our conversation. I'll explain later what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 26, 2018 10:32:19 GMT -5
Those in favor or removing the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution represent a radical minority element. The chances of this happening are next to nil. There have only been 27 amendments in the history of our country. And only ONE amendment has been rescinded. The 18th amendment that prohibited the ―manufacture, sale, or transportation‖ of alcohol was ratified in 1919. It was rescinded with the 21st amendment in 1933. Try getting a 2/3 majority in the House and 3/4 majority in the Senate to even get a bill introduced. Then it goes to a Constitutional Convention. It ain't happening, but there are those that are willing to waste there time and efforts towards such futility.
|
|
|
Post by fanofthegame on Feb 26, 2018 13:06:38 GMT -5
heresjim, I look forward to more of your posts. Do you have any links to some studies you allude to in your posts. I’m curious because most people draw conclusions that don’t always have basis in fact. Coorelation does not prove causation. Chicago’s ban on gun sales doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with their homicide rate. It looks great as an argument against gun bans, but there are too many other variables. The research you are talking about is sociological and that’s muddy research. What would need to happen is Ohio make teachers packing heat mandatory and Indiana ban them from doing so. No other strategies could be implemented (bullet proof doors, smoke screens) and then wait to measure what happens. That ain’t gonna’ happen.
|
|
|
Post by utsherman on Feb 26, 2018 14:23:32 GMT -5
There seems to be a pretty big divide between both sides that are looking for a solution. One side seems to think that arming teachers provides a deterrent while also providing the ability to respond to shooters. The issue is centered on protecting our schools, arming the good people, and preventing people who should not have guns from getting them and using them. The other side thinks banning the firearms will remove the mass killing ability of the shooter. The school shooter issue is really seen as a greater gun violence issue. Not only do they think that arming teachers is ineffective, they also believe this will fail to prevent shootings in Vegas, but really gun violence in general. I both sides need to discuss this at a different angle if they are ever going to reach a consensus on this. The question that should be asked Gun advocates: What would it take for you to support repealing the 2nd Amendment?If someone isn't going to ever stop supporting the 2nd Amendment, they are never going to support legislation that inhibits it. This is the NRA's entire reason for existence. They and their supporters believe that owning arms is a god given right and it is part of their American identity and makeup. Do you have a problem with gun violence in America? The NRA is going to say it's a people issue, not a gun issue. My individual right to bear arms should not be inhibited when there are obviously 2 ways to prevent shootings. Stop "bad" individuals from getting guns and kill "bad" individuals when they do. They think they can solve the shooter problem individually, through mental health screenings, background checks, and acting on warning signals for individuals. Others think we arm the populace and just address the "inevitable" shooting case by case. Gun advocates are using motivated reasoning to defend guns because it is integral to who they are as a person and what they think America should be about. I don't think people like sportsjock are going to be convinced about any gun-related solution because it's literally not an option for them. For people like galion, they think guns are the problem, because in his mind gun=lethal violence. They see a correlation between gun violence and the number of guns in a country and think that they can address it collectively. They look at charts like this: and this and this and they think that getting rid of guns will reduce gun violence. The correlation works right? It makes sense due to statistics. If they believe this is true, then they are going to do the same motivated reasoning as gun advocates. They are going to ignore that there may be countries with both many guns per person and lower gun deaths because the solution is so clear and easy to them. Something needs to be done to reframe this debate and find a solution for this gun violence once and for all. We know that neither side will cave to the other so let's try to agree on some easy things. 1. We all think the United States has a gun violence issue. Whether it is a people problem or a gun problem, it doesn't matter. We can agree it's an issue. 2. We can all agree that school shootings are part of that greater gun violence issue. It is a bad/crazy/misled person with a gun that seeks to murder someone, whether it be a rival gang member, a school child, or even themselves. 3. If we agree on the above 2, we can start looking at case studies that have a high level of guns and low violence. You guys are literally just arguing your perceptions on how asinine hypotheticals would play out in when teachers have concealed carry and you both literally have no hard evidence of whether it works or not. Yes, many schools are adopting cc carrying teachers, but let us also remember that it was widely used policy to take fluoride out of the water to combat communism brainwashing. Yes, there are arguments that can be made that it is unpractical but you literally don't have enough knowledge in human psychology to be able to prove how people will react to every shooting incident. Anyways, it is getting us nowhere and you guys aren't going to reach a solution anytime soon. If you guys could use some EVIDENCE and talk about a solution that takes into account to each other's biases, that would be great. Looking at case studies from countries that lowered gun violence without banning guns entirely would be nice. If you guys can't do that, these discussions aren't going anywhere and you guys can save your time and go back to arguing about high school sports. I don't think there will ever be consensus on this issue. And of course no 'one-size-fits-all' approach. You're also straddling the line between school safety and the broader issue of general gun violence. It's difficult to narrow the focus to any one specific study, or evidence, as you request. In reference to gun violence, most will point to Australia's comprehensive gun control initiative. That model would never work here. As mentioned in a New York Times Op-Ed, " Australians have a profoundly different relationship with weapons. Americans love guns. We're scared of them." Our respective histories' are different where it regards the role of firearms. They never had a revolution, or fought foreign troops on their soil. No civil war. So when it became time to confiscate 650,000 privately owned firearms, ban semiautomatic weapons, initiate twenty-eight-day waiting periods, provide a genuine reason to qualify for a license (self-protection doesn't count), and a national gun registry, Australians, on the whole, were happy to accept said new restrictions. Could you imagine the madness if that were proposed here? And depending whether you watch Fox News, MSNBC or listen to NPR, you'll find a study to suit your particular viewpoint, right? Without continuing to bloviate, I'll share the following as an interesting read: www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidenceIn reference to issues regarding school safety, I prefer placing a laser-focus on prevention (response) versus reaction. As an example, the Sandy Hook Promise initiative is a solid model. I'll post the link (below) so people can look if interested. They essentially work to build coalescence between parents, schools, and community organizations to deliver gun violence prevention programs and mobilization for the passage of sensible state and national policy. At this point, there are schools statewide in Ohio that do participate in this program already - at no cost. Again, this is important to me because it can be implemented right now. We don't have to wait for funding, intense debate that goes nowhere, or for our elected officials to get off their... well, you know what. www.sandyhookpromise.org/And for those of you who want to provide me the worst case-scenario situation, or blow holes (figuratively) in my perspective, I hear you. And that's why I've asked some of these 'asinine hypotheticals', as heresjim calls them, in my previous posts to advocates for CC in schools. I'm just a parent who's looking to listen to all voices. Even if I don't agree with them all.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Feb 26, 2018 17:03:46 GMT -5
First off utsherman , I wish we could utilize a solution at the school level, but we don't have any research done on initiatives that are out right now. This is why so many people are worried about equipping teachers because we simply don't know the consequences. We can, however, use the research that has been done on gun violence, and see if we can utilize any of those solutions. (I suggest reading The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis Matthew D. Makarios, Travis C. Pratt Crime & Delinquency Vol 58, Issue 2, pp. 222 - 244 to start off your research and form your opinions from there). That is why I'm straddling the line of school shootings and gun violence. We are so uninformed on this narrow issue so we have to look at broader literature to form a solution. Alright, I'm going to address some past posts. Lets see if I can organize my thoughts here. The reason I asked the question about repealing the 2nd amendment is because I wanted to make clear that we literally can't have a talk about banning guns (asking the question seems ridiculous because we hold it in such a high regard). And when I mean banning guns, I mean preventing the sales of semi automatic rifles and related accessories that make killing more efficient. I understand that no one is really proposing to ban guns entirely and that any proposed buy back program would fail miserably in the United States(for reading on this, look again at The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis Matthew D. Makarios, Travis C. Pratt Crime & Delinquency Vol 58, Issue 2, pp. 222 - 244) On the other side, the left is against ADDING more guns to the area (because we don't have the research), so the right needs to stop suggesting that we need CC for teachers in every school. (We don't have research on teachers with CC in high schools but do some reading on CC, look at Dieterle, J. M., and W. John Koolage. “AFFORDING DISASTER: CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS.” Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2, 2014, pp. 115–145.-> and this interesting piece Hemenway, David. “LOCATION.” Private Guns, Public Health, New Ed., University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2017, pp. 79–106.) Form your opinion from this information so maybe you guys can understand some of the logic behind the apprehension toward concealed carry with teachers. Now, while we may be able to come to a compromise on mental health reform an additional background checks, it is pretty clear that this won't be an all encompassing problem. For reading on the results, look here: Fox, Cybelle, and David J. Harding. “School Shootings as Organizational Deviance.” Sociology of Education, vol. 78, no. 1, 2005, pp. 69–97. Its finding the balance between having guns and preventing them from being used in violent ways. I guess I'll do my best in providing an example case study analysis of other countries (or individual states in the U.S.), but I haven't read enough myself to form an opinion of what we should do yet. For example, we could look at this chart. Why does Minnesota have a relatively low gun to gun violence ratio? From this, someone could do further research to look at initiatives that were taken in the state that caused this initiative. You could, for example, look at an article like this and see if the solution makes sense (I don't think this article says anything definitive, but this is an example). 1. Johnson, Daniel S, M Ed. "Community Solutions to Violence:." American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 14, no. 3, 1998, pp. 93-97. OhioLINK Electronic Journal Center, doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(97)00042-1. Maybe with some more research we can find some solutions that work well in a state or a country due x reason. Maybe we can apply those solutions to other states, maybe we can't. However, it would be cool to get some new ideas and see if we can get some more information on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by heresjim on Feb 26, 2018 17:10:12 GMT -5
If anyone is interested in reading these articles, pls pm me or go to your local library and look these up on a data base.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 26, 2018 17:52:52 GMT -5
The Indiana school with all the bells and whistles, gadget security innovations, must be located in a very affluent community, willing to spend almost a half a million. That's all well and good, whatever works for them. Security is not a one size fits all proposition. Every school district has different needs and methods to meet those needs, while keeping within a budget. That's one of the most incredulous posts I've read in a long while. Let me see if I'm following your logic. For essentially the cost of an artificial turf field or an all weather track you can make your school virtually impregnable. But that might be a bit over your budget restrictions. Such a high emphasis you place on the safety of our children. Thank you Galion.....thank you very much...lol You bought into all the hype and bullcrap, that school district was shoveling out, in their self promotion campaign. I'm not buying for one instant, that it is the safest school in America. They may wish to bill it as such, but I don't think it is even near the case. Essentially, with their boastful, self promotion, they have presented a challenge to some demented mind, challenged to outwit them with all their gadgetry in place. Once the perpetrators has proven he can beat their system, he is essentially home free, because we are now back to the same ol', same ol' waiting for law enforcement to arrive after the shooting has done it's deadly damage. So much for gimmicks like 'panic buttons'. Why not dole out panic buttons to the entire student population, still comes down to response time and that is just not good enough....students are dying in the mean time.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 26, 2018 23:24:41 GMT -5
So if a school publicly institutes a CC program among its staff is that not going to "challenge some demented mind" as well? "
|
|
|
Post by deathfromabove on Feb 27, 2018 1:48:28 GMT -5
So if a school publicly institutes a CC program among its staff is that not going to "challenge some demented mind" as well? " Good point Galion, There are people out there that really don't give a hoot about there own life let alone some one else's life.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on Feb 27, 2018 6:59:01 GMT -5
So if a school publicly institutes a CC program among its staff is that not going to "challenge some demented mind" as well? " Actually, I think not. Let us not forget the fact that first and foremost, most shooters are cowards, before you get into the complexities of their psychological state and past history. They will certainly avoid a venue, where there is no certainty who the individuals are, on site, at the very moment they plan to commence their assault. Quite the opposite approach of the school with high profile promotion of their 'safety program', the schools that have a CC program in place, maintain a very low key and low profile approach to their implementation. A school with a CC program in place is no longer a soft target, quite simply.
|
|
|
Post by galion on Feb 27, 2018 7:46:33 GMT -5
While I agree that some shooters are cowards, let's not forget those that do not intend to survive the incident. Many shooters intend to die. Have you ever heard of suicide by cop? I suppose you're now willing to add suicide by teacher into the vernacular as well.
|
|