deedolce
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since October 2006
Posts: 1,828
|
Post by deedolce on Dec 22, 2012 0:44:59 GMT -5
Boy, I may regret posting in here, but it's a BIG thing in my household.
It's not a big sweeping attack on all mental illnesses, it's those scary, threatens-to-kill-family-rage cases, whose family have found nowhere to turn to, that are the problem.
This has been huge on my mind, as I teach 1st and 2nd graders. That Friday, afraid of copy-cat nuts, I did shelter-in-place drills. My place was by the door. All I had to defend myself and these young lives was a broom. A broom! Seriously, I started obsessing, how could I defend us if someone came in my room, with my broom? Hit him in the knees first? If he's down, could I strike a blow with my broom handle against his wind pipe? Pretty silly, I know. But we've had scary children go through our school. Ones that had gone into uncontrollable rages, hitting their aides and teachers, that did't seem to have any remorse or control, that are now adults. We have children like that now.
Like others I work with, some of us wouldn't give a second thought of shielding our charges with our defenseless bodies, but that really wouldn't prevent my charges from being killed seconds later, now would it?
If they offered a program for teachers to carry concealed weapons, I would volunteer. Me, who has never been interested in guns, shot once in my life where I missed the target my then father-in-law set up for me, and I hit my mother-in-law's plant instead (oops.) But you bet I would take it seriously, practice regularly, and I bet I'd get pretty darned good. I would do it with the assumption that I would never, ever have to actually shoot it, but if I had to, I would.
To protect my students, I would give my life. To protect my students, I would take one, too.
|
|
cherok
having dreams about rocks
Member since December 2012
Posts: 66
|
Post by cherok on Dec 22, 2012 1:05:29 GMT -5
It is sad to read all the comments regarding gun control and mental illness. It is disappointing to read the anger between the lines that are written. There is no absolute solution to gun control. There is no possible way to handle all people with violent tendancies, because no one knows when some individual may have lost control. It is the world we all live in. We all have opinions, and none of us has a viable solution. Speculation and conjectures are not solving any problems, just making people angry. Let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 22, 2012 1:47:20 GMT -5
Well, we aren't going to solve the problems of the world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't think about them either. I don't think gun control is an answer... mostly because the sheer number of guns in the US today means that IF they tried to implement gun control here, it would mean that only the law abiding would turn in their guns, leaving the tens, perhaps thousands of guns in criminal hands. Further, even among the law-abiding, there are plenty who would refuse to turn in weapons handed down from their fathers and grandfathers. This could turn law-abiding people into criminals. Gun control in the USA is just too late, and will not solve the problem. Dee, even if you were willing to shoot to protect your students, having a gun in the classroom may not be a great solution. How do you protect yourself from potential 'excessive force' accusations? Having a gun, if a crazy former student came barging into your classroom, and say started beating a child... could you shoot him? Would you not potentially accused of killing an unarmed assailant? Look at the accusations police face every day for shooting someone they believe are a direct threat. Years ago when I was in school, I remember reading about a burglar who sued a homeowner in DC for shooting him in the foot. This guy was INSIDE the man's dark bedroom when he was shot. The man woke up, heard a stranger inside his room, grabbed his gun, and did not aim to kill, he shot the guy in the foot. Unbelievably, the burglar sued him, and as I recall, won the case. The argument was, I was only there to steal, and you maimed me. HOW does that even become a case? The man in his bedroom was supposed to know that someone inside his bedroom in the middle of the night was NOT armed and would NOT kill him? I tried to find an article about it... and found THIS from 2012!!! sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/10/24/burglar-who-shot-marin-county-homeowner-in-face-suing/Marin Homeowner Sued By Alleged Burglar Who Shot Him In Face GREENBRAE (CBS SF) — A homeowner who police say survived being shot in the jaw during a burglary has received startling news: The burglary suspect sued him for returning fire. The Marin Independent Journal reported Wednesday that Samuel Cutrufelli filed the suit claiming 90-year-old Jay Leone negligently shot him. Here's another case of a burglar suing a homeowner in Seattle from 1983: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19830202&id=gflLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0u4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5928,543162 Wounded Intruder sues Homeowner If you google "burglar sues homeowner", you get an eyeful. This is inside people's homes in the USA. That's why Florida passed the Castle laws... you can't get sued for protecting your own home, but it happens everywhere else. Imagine shooting someone in a classroom to protect students? Unless there were dozens of fatalities already, you might be the one in trouble just for firing the weapon. I don't think the question should be: how do you prevent shootings? The same problem would apply with 'how do you prevent stabbings'? Banning the tool should not be the only solution looked at. I believe tasers are legal in California? I'd buy that and a can of pepper spray to keep in your purse... www.taser.com/products/self-defense-products/taser-c2Bear Pepper spray... if it can stop a grizzly, it's probably more effective against people than the 'usual' little pepper spray, with the bonus that if you're camping, it can... well, stop a grizzly:P: www.udap.com/No aiming, no accidents, and no one dies if it discharges (but probably have to go to the hospital).
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Dec 22, 2012 2:30:17 GMT -5
The bear spray would probably disable everyone in the room it was sprayed in. You don't want one of those tiny purse sized cans with less than 6 foot range, but a 30 foot spray is too far for indoors. 15-20 feet is better. Your most effective defense weapon is your mind, train it. Start by assessing what you physically can do and are willing to do if threatened, then get enough intensive training to become confident no matter what the situation is. Walk away forever from the popular culture that says we are all victims who must be cared for or protected and embrace the fact that confident people are seldom targets. It will change you forever, with the small side affect that you will never be able to conscientously vote Democrat OR Republican again Lee
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 22, 2012 2:45:56 GMT -5
The bear spray would probably disable everyone in the room it was sprayed in. You don't want one of those tiny purse sized cans with less than 6 foot range, but a 30 foot spray is too far for indoors. 15-20 feet is better. Your most effective defense weapon is your mind, train it. Start by assessing what you physically can do and are willing to do if threatened, then get enough intensive training to become confident no matter what the situation is. Walk away forever from the popular culture that says we are all victims who must be cared for or protected and embrace the fact that confident people are seldom targets. It will change you forever, with the small side affect that you will never be able to conscientously vote Democrat OR Republican again Lee Ahhh... I was just reading about the spray range!!! LOL! Lee is right, it would DISABLE everyone in the room, didn't think of that at the time:P. Here's the spray pattern: www.udap.com/spraypatterns.htmThe keychain one would probably be better:P.
|
|
elementary
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since February 2006
Posts: 1,077
|
Post by elementary on Dec 22, 2012 4:11:10 GMT -5
I was going to stay out of this, but I think I need to state my opinion regarding guns at school - especially in the hands of teachers. I teach 6th grade and I would never NEVER allow teachers to carry guns. This is not about the right to carry firearms, nor am I saying that there should not be armed guards (I'm not expressing my opinion on that front - too many variables), but for teachers, my belief comes down to several things: 1 - Putting guns into untrained or inexperienced people's hands is not an answer. What this does is put more guns on campus and provides a greater opportunity for mishaps on the lesser side, or worse yet, if the teacher falls to the intruder, it adds another weapon to his arsenal. Besides, when I hear how a teacher with a gun would stop these events from happening, there is something to remember. Teachers are told NEVER leave their students unattended, so even if there were shots fired, the teacher would not be able leave their students unattended to 'hunt' the killer. How would you feel if the teacher left the room and the killer came in while the students were left unattended? So what if the killer does try to get inside that room? Then there is the possibility of the teacher freezing or hesitating before pulling the trigger, and before you say "I'd do it" I don't believe most people could actually 'know' that until put into that situation. If they can - great - if they can't - tragedy. So for those who can pull the trigger? Why not have them carry? 2 - Students are curious, and many will try to 'see' the gun if they know the teacher has one. There is a large number of students that are not helmed in by logic, but driven by emotion. Fear of punishment doesn't keep them from breaking rules. See as an example my student this year who brought a 4" knife to school after threatening students. He was expelled. Now imagine in high school. How many boys (or for that matter girls) do you think could take on a teacher and take a gun from their possession? Why bring a gun to school if you plan violence if you already know your 50 year old overweight teacher carries one? Heck, take him out somehow and you got yourself a weapon. You don't even need to have intent to put a gun in harm's way. Heck, I have teachers locking themselves out of their rooms all the time. What if it is kept in a purse in the room and is forgotten? Even with training, teachers will forget about the gun at times. This will increase the chance of student misadventure. If you want to disagree, look at www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htmespecially: "When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting [4]." (The statistics here are very interesting....and implies that in our desire to keep our households safe, many people actually endanger them.) Keeping teachers with loaded firearms around kids is not the answer for schools. I believe it would lead to more problems than solutions. We have to remember that these events are EXTREMELY rare for schools. I don't want to overcompensate and create a greater risk to our youth. Nor do I want our schools to become versions of Juvenile Hall Youth Jails - which I have taught at (don't wear a tie...it's a weapon of opportunity.) Finally (I have more, but my fingers are tired). 3 - Chances are the intruder will be better armed than the teacher and more importantly, most likely has already taken another human's life. The teacher, no matter the training, will not have been in that situation (except for the rare case). 4 - From a pure teaching standpoint, once students know there is a gun in the room, the whole goal of teaching them becomes changed. Generalizing, I would say their attention would be shifted, some could be feel threatened, and heaven help the students if the teacher gets / feels threatened (see earlier points made by others.) I'm not saying my stance on the gun control, but I do not believe teachers should carry. Oh, as for armed policemen on campus: latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/school-police-officer-shooting-.htmlor security guards: www.opposingviews.com/i/entertainment/shoplifter-killed-overzealous-walmart-securitywww.myfoxtampabay.com/story/19811747/school-security-guard-charged-with-having-sex-with-student(Trust issues?) Oh...and don't forget Columbine had an armed guard during its massacre. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.htmlwww.upi.com/blog/2012/12/21/Columbine-had-armed-guards/4111356112309/So...if you want an armed guard...how many do you want? For other unfiltered information, goto www.schoolsecurity.org/index.htmlLook for the yearly indexes for school violence near the bottom of the page. Lowell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2012 8:11:09 GMT -5
No silver bullet here. There are many many pro's and con's and good points on either side.
The biggest problem is that there are no statistics for how many people's lives have been saved by a gun possession so the con's are the only ones that have all the examples to back them up. The examples for the pro's won't even get put on the last page of the newspaper because (NOBODY DIED).
So, in this case we can not compare apples to apples, we can't even compare apples to oranges. And in the end the gubment will make the decisions in favor or the people that will vote for them next go round.
Now if we could get the drunks off the highway there would be some HUMONGUS changes in statistics for child deaths. Maybe someone will compare child by gun deaths to child by drunk driver deaths and the gun deaths probably wouldn['t even make it on the chart.
I really do not care how drunk you get but please please do not drive drunk. Tis the season to be jolly or dead.
I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A SAFE AND AWESOME HOLLIDAY. Jim
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Dec 22, 2012 10:03:05 GMT -5
Jim, the pro's will never make the newspaper because they're not " politically correct". They don't fit into the anti gun agenda.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 22, 2012 11:11:13 GMT -5
Lowell: Just a couple of comments as you are plainly a bit gun shy because like a lot of folks, you don't understand how a teacher carry program would work and are not a gun guy yourself and so would tend to have an innate fear of guns.
First off , the point of concealed carry is "concealment", not flashing your weapon, brandishment, showing off how tough you are etc. When a person carries concealed, it means just that, concealed. No student should know which teacher is carrying a concealed weapon, therefore no reason for curiosity. When I personally carry, I don't pull the gun out and show it off. Instead carrying becomes a lifestyle where you pick your gear, clothes etc for the express purpose of making sure folks do not know you are carrying. You learn how to move, bend reach, sit etc so you firearm does not show. Heck you even avoid hugs so folks can't feel your piece *L*.
Second: You are making the assumption that you can carry concealed without training. Kind of a pointless argument for California where it's nearly impossible, in Ventura County for instance, to get a permit, but here in Texas it is a "shall issue" state. That doesn't just mean you go to the sporting goods store to buy an over the counter permit. You go to the range and practice and practice till proficient with your firearm, go to CCW school, a full day classroom course which is very intensive and has written exams on the gun laws etc. and then you go to the range to qualify in a shooting test with your gun and regular police type targets. The test is timed fire shooting and strictly monitored. Then you buy insurance for just in case you do have to shoot someone and have to have a lawyer help you explain your side of the shooting. Then you send in your fingerprints, forms, test scores and all the other paperwork and 30-60 days later, after a very complete vetting, you get your license. Any questionable episode regarding mental illness, violence, lack of self control regarding anger etc etc.= no license. Then in addition, if after receiving your license, you brandish, fight, engage in a argument loud enough for cops to be called, or even curse in public where a cop can hear you, and that license that cost you all that time , money, and practice, is gone. In addition, if you are caught drinking and carrying or even printing ( unintentional brandishment where your gun is showing via imprint on your clothes), you can also lose your license. Then, in addition to that, you have to learn all the places ( sitting duck zones, like schools) where you cannot carry and what kind of signage to watch for so you don't accidentally walk into a building where carrying can get you busted ( post office for example, Banks are mostly OK *L*) Interestingly, most CCW folks I shoot with shoot as well as many of the cops I've shot with, because responsibility comes with the license, so they practice to stay sharp.
Point is Lowell, if teachers carried they should and would be trained and vetted if they got a CCW license and no one would know they were carrying so no student would be in danger of being overly curious. Any evil intruder would have to face an additional level of security which would come as a surprise to them too, just like with air marshals. If it was done properly, no one would know who was carrying or when and who was not. It would make the school rooms more safe not less and give the defensive advantage to the armed teacher or administrator because first off, knowing "someone" is armed is a deterrent. Secondly not knowing who that someone is because they are carrying concealed, gives all the advantage to the person defending the kids whereas a open carry guard is easier to take out and it's not as good of a defensive solution.
Just some thoughts, but I actually think that concealed carry permits for a few teachers or administrators in a school is a pretty dang good idea in these times we live in because we've got a lot of mentally screwed up individuals in the country. Why should we protect our movie stars and political figures with arms and not someone as important as children in schools?...Mel
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 22, 2012 11:19:40 GMT -5
Lowell: MY comments above brought to mind a home poster you see around a lot of Texas homes. It reads like this:
"These premises protected by 12 gauge shotgun four days a week. Feel free to guess which four days!" Deterrent yes or no?
If folks knew a school was protected by someone who was carrying but not who was carrying or when, that is a deterrent in and of itself, right?...Mel
|
|
unclestu
Cave Dweller
WINNER OF THE FIRST RTH KILLER CAB CONTEST UNCLESTU'S AGUA NUEVA AGATE
Member since April 2011
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by unclestu on Dec 22, 2012 12:13:57 GMT -5
I think that having a select few people armed in a school will have only limited effect. I don't think it will really deter a mass killer because they generally kill themselves anyway. So they will not be deterred by the fact of armed presence in a school. As far as reducing the number people killed by a mass killer, that will simply boil down to being in the right place at the right time. If the armed teacher was in a different part of the school by the time he or she arrived on the scene many will have already been killed. I think the schools should be in total lock down with impenetrable entry points with metal detectors. In addition there should be a police presence at the school as well. Every day the building should be inspected with a sniffer dog for explosives. I don't think anyone would complain about the additional expense. Stu
|
|
deedolce
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since October 2006
Posts: 1,828
|
Post by deedolce on Dec 22, 2012 12:15:17 GMT -5
Yes, thank you Mel. That's my understanding, as my SO had a concealed carry in CT, and is pretty knowledgeable, as a former Marine Corp weapons instructor. I think if there are teachers that can qualify, just the knowledge that there is someone that is armed on campus will be the only thing that will prevent the insane from choosing a school as a target.
Anyway, that's my own belief. Who knows what actual changes will occur, because of this tragedy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2012 12:22:45 GMT -5
Collateral damage is always an issue but if you look back to the two bombs dropped on Japan the numbers are staggering. But if you figure in the lives that were saved (impossible to count) the number of dead is not such a big number in comparison.
The teachers carrying would have to be a voluntary program and nobody should be forced into carrying. We are short on good teachers and the last thing we want to do is push the teachers into being nurses.
The chance of a teacher having to use a weapon is about the same chance as winning the lottery and being attacked by a grizzly bear on the same day. But that chance is there and I will bet that if a teacher has to use a weapon to save lives in a school setting it will hit the news because somebody was injured or killed.
I am glad that I am not a teacher and have to make the choice but I am pretty sure that if someone was killing children with any kind of weapon I would shoot as fast as possible and shoot until I was pretty sure they were dead. I might vomit and pass out but I would eventually get over it. Jim
|
|
elementary
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since February 2006
Posts: 1,077
|
Post by elementary on Dec 22, 2012 12:35:16 GMT -5
Hey Mel,
I hear your points. As for hugging - I don't even hug because I'm a man in a school full of kids and in this day and age, I ain't touching nobody except for the occasionally high five. (sorry I'm not a cute and cuddly teacher) One other thing - I only put this onto the teachers. Admin and guards are different. They role in school is much different.
Please understand, I love guns. I like shooting them. I have many friends who own them. They take me out shooting at times. Target shooting is one of my favorite pastimes tho I don't do it enough - though I don't hunt. Though I understand why many do.
But I am no expert at guns and I would not call myself proficient with guns. I can't identify brands just by looking at them. I would call myself careful. Nor am I afraid to be in a house with guns: my uncle, best friend, two of my neighbors. I, myself, choose my house to be gun free.
Don, Regarding the NRA power vs gun control lobbies and newspaper accounts of good use of guns. Check the amount of money pumped into political groups. NRA ($2.5 million I believe) outspends gun control people ($400k) - numbers are off - going by memory. The reason the stories are not put on the news is because they aren't interesting to people and don't drive ratings and ratings pump up ad revenue. Why else do we see every car chase in LA splashed across our screens... So I don't see conspiracy there - just a business catering to its customers.
Just this - Mel - again, I don't believe teachers should carry as I believe that creates more danger in the classroom - even with training. I don't believe that is part of what we train and do. Admin, again, is different. I guess a crude comparison would be air marshals carry on planes and pilots do their job.
And again, the armed guard at Columbine was not a deterrent there.
Again, I hear your points and see your point of view, but I just think if someone carries on campus, (to get back to my opinion) I wouldn't want it to be a teacher - fine - give it to admin - but I'd rather have police than security guards or NRA volunteers doing that duty - even though that won't guarantee the students' safety.
I think that teachers carrying brings a direct danger on campus in hopes of deterring a possible danger.
My opinion. I don't make policy. I appreciate the counter arguments. It's why I posted. It's the only way we have of checking to see if our own arguments hold water.
Thanks for responding.
Lowell
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Dec 22, 2012 12:53:49 GMT -5
"Collateral damage is always an issue but if you look back to the two bombs dropped on Japan the numbers are staggering. But if you figure in the lives that were saved (impossible to count) the number of dead is not such a big number in comparison."
Certainly a subject for another discussion. We were all schooled that the A-bomb was dropped to save lives, not to kill people. And we(American Patriots) bought it lock, stock and barrel. I did too. However, recently unclassified documents from the WW2 era seem to make it clear that the Japanese had admitted that defeat was inevitable and were ready to surrender before the Abombs were dropped. Probably some truth and exageration to either side but it does, once again, bring into doubt the true nature of the American people. An indesputable fact is that we are the only country to use the Abomb against an enemy. Another is that we have many more civilian killing by guns than any other "Civilized" country. Even as crime has gone down over the past twenty years these incidents of mass shooting of innocents have increased.
charlie
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Dec 22, 2012 13:31:24 GMT -5
Two weeks ago, teachers were lower than whale poop . . .
Overpaid public employees, union parasites bleeding the noble taxpayer dry with pensions and healthcare.
Give it a couple of weeks and things’ll be back to normal.
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Dec 22, 2012 13:57:30 GMT -5
“Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent data, for the 2009-10 school year . . . “ Ho hum.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Dec 22, 2012 14:53:16 GMT -5
Two weeks ago, teachers were lower than whale poop . . . Overpaid public employees, union parasites bleeding the noble taxpayer dry with pensions and healthcare. Give it a couple of weeks and things’ll be back to normal. I disagree Rich. I think most Americans respect most teachers and support them as individuals, but dislike the teachers unions and the affect it has on those individuals. FDR said it best... "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." That said, the decisions regarding how each school district will ensure the safety of it's students are constitutionally limited to state and local governments. A national debate on how this should be done is a healthy thing, but a federal mandate is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Lee
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Dec 22, 2012 15:21:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 22, 2012 16:16:37 GMT -5
Tasers and Bear Spray for the WIN!!!
|
|