...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Disarming people? How? How do you take guns away from "nutcases" without disarming non-nutcases. Maybe we need a national sanity test everyone has to take whether they want to buy a gun or not. Surely that would be even more useful. We can cull out all the nutcases and eliminate a lot of other problems all in one fell swoop. No more homicidal gun nuts, no more hoarders or obsessive hand washers.
Our world will be a better place, right?
Was the shooter's mom a "nutcase." Should some cops at some point have shown up on her doorstep to tell her, "You're a nutcase. Give us your guns."
I'm not a gun proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Don't have one; don't want one. I just laugh at the measures anti-gun people (a) think will work and (b) imagine are possible.
If gun control were to work, it would probably take 10-20 years or more to really have a profound effect.
What to do in the meantime even if gun control goes into effect is a practical question.
For every example that one can offer of the effectiveness of an armed guard someone else can argue an example of its ineffectiveness. If it works out to be fifty-fifty, its is not statistical different than not having them there at all, but certainly important to the individual families whose children were spared in that specific example.
It doesn't work out to fifty-fifty if one side's arguments are illogical, contrary to common sense, and contrary to fact. It only works out to fifty-fifty in an atmosphere of "all arguments are equally good."
Arguments against providing armed responders in schools generally assume something stupid (that the armed responders need to be rent-a-cops, uniformed police, etc.) Many counter arguments illogically point to the relatively few cases where armed response has gone horribly wrong. Some even seem to argue that if your response can't save every child, it's not worth even trying, or that the possibility of a "friendly fire" incident in which the responder injures or kills a child by mistake makes the response a failure even if that was the price to save several.
The arguments propounded by gun opponents are often just as wacky as the ones used by the NRA and the gun nuts.
I don't think anyone is saying that having an armed "friendly" on the scene is a fail-safe way to prevent slaughters like this, it would just improve the odds in a way that's likely to be very statistically significant. (BTW, I really don't like the idea of uniformed security guards because they are just target practice for a shooter like we had in Newtown.)
Here's how effective gun control would work, every house, outhouse, barn, tool shed, garage (etc., etc., etc.) would be searched, guns found and melted down. You need to get rid of the weapons. Gun laws concentrate on gun ownership, but you don't need to own a gun to use it in a crime. You just need to have it in your hands. A stolen or borrowed gun kills just as effectively as a gun one owns.
It could be done quite non-threateningly to the 2nd Amendment, prove ownership of the gun or its confiscated, the official song being song is its the illegal guns that are the problem not the abiding citizens.
How would the govt become AWARE of the existence of the weapon in the first place? Of course, after the bad guy's shoot-em-up, the government can step in and charge the suicidally-dead corpse with having a gun that is illegal.
On the other hand simply having previous military training is not enough considering the high instance of PTSD, anger issues, and socialization issues, from returning military people, you don't really know where their head is at after all that they have experienced.
I think a lot of people with PTSD would simply want to stay about as far from this sort of duty as they could get, but yes some sort of psychological evaluation for ex-military would seem to be called for.
I don't think that having stealth teachers/staffers with arms available on campus is a perfect solution. No solution that's perfect is also possible. And maybe the day will come when an armed teacher goes on a rampage, but I think that's less likely than the intruder/killer.
If we had proper documentation and universal registration of all guns regardless of it being a commercial or private sale, if we made reporting the theft of a gun required, and the failure to report, a crime, then this conversation would be moot.
And what about the people who don't obey the law? They exist, and thus there won't be anything "universal" about registration and people won't report lost guns for a variety of reasons, including that they don't know yet that they have been lost/stolen. What are we going to threaten them with? Ten years in a Federal penitentiary. They're already full to the brim with people caught with marijuana.