I would say that trained, armed security guards are a safer and more realistic measure than armed teachers. I say this as a Second Amendment supporter. No, we don’t have to have guys in full military gear roaming the halls of every school, but a few guys in plainclothes discreetly keeping an eye on the grounds and one guy monitoring the halls will make a world of difference. At my high school, we always had security guards. All were ex-cops, and they watched everything like hawks. They weren’t armed, but they were qualified to be armed.
@ unravelingmind :
You said : “We already have at least one school district in Texas that allows teachers with their CCW to carry because they live 30 minutes away from the nearest police station.”
What do you mean by CCW ? I don’t understand this abbreviation.
ad unravelingmind (…) I’m talking about the way some of you guys (not necessarily you) who want to ban guns talk like every person who owns a gun is just a ticking time bomb. It’s absurd and extremely offensive to suggest that firearm owners are dangerous just by virtue of owning a firearm. Do you agree with me on that? (…)
I certainly do agree with you. As I have said previously on other occasions I am NOT against gun ownership, I just don’t see the need for private people to own military-style assault weapons. Most people don’t know that European countries allow gun ownership as well. In Austria we have many more licensed and unlicensed guns than people would think. We also have killings where people use registered and unregistered guns. But I have never heard of any case where somebody killed dozens of people with a military weapon. That is the only point I am trying to make here.
I have used firearms and to be honest I also enjoy shooting - NOT with people as my target, of course. When I was in the army I enjoyed shooting as some sort of precision sports (I don’t know if that is a proper English word, sorry). I would not want to have a weapon at home and I’m glad I feel safe enough so I don’t need to buy one. But people should be given the right to buy certain types of weapons under specific circumstances.
And there are cases where I could readily imagine getting an arm myself, also in Austria. We have had an increase in attacks on banks, gas stations etc. by armed gangs that mostly cross our borders and then quickly retire to where they have come from. Our laws allow for people to carry and use guns to defend themselves. Only recently we had a case where the owner of a house shot at three intruders who would not leave when he fired a warning shot into the air. The prosecutor decided not to charge him and if he had there would have been an uproar since Austrians, too, believe in the right of self-defense.
If I felt threatened to the extent I wanted to get myself a gun I think the state should not prevent me from doing so. If the government cannot provide for my protection the least it can do is to make sure I’m given all options to defend myself. HOWEVER, this does not include any supposed right to arm myself as if I was going to war.
There has to be some reasonable approach to this. After all, nobody - except for some sick and/or criminal people - wants somebody else to get hurt or even die.
I just wonder why the situation in the US has deteriorated to such degree that schools must be “locked down” like high-security prisons. The elementary school had introduced new security regulations just weeks prior to the attack. If I’m not mistaken the community where this happened is small and generally speaking rather safe. But still they felt there was a need for these measures. What is going wrong there? I’m not saying these things don’t happen in other countries. But would you agree with me that for some reason or other they seem to occur more often in the US and also with deadlier results?
And, believe me, if need be I would certainly make use of a weapon. I just don’t want to live in a society where everybody has to carry a gun to feel safe when he or she walks around.
So, I guess my main point is, yes, citizens have a right to carry guns but there must be regulations in place that make it as difficult as possible for sick criminals to cause harm. You can kill people with a pistol, but you will kill many more with a machine gun or another type of assault rifle. And that’s where I think changes ought to be made.
At the end of the day it is for the American public to decide what they want to do. I am not here to judge but to simply raise my opinion. By the way, I really appreciate the fact that despite our differing standpoints we can have a normal discussion. I very much enjoy exploring topics in depth with people who offer a different view of things. What I do not appreciate is verbal abuse disguised as arrogant lecturing. I’m happy you do not fall into the category of people who act like this. Thanks for that.
So the answer to gun violence in schools in a nutshell: More guns in schools.
Gotcha.
So when some kid with a toy gun gets mown down by a squad of rent a cops, with itchy trigger fingers wanting to play the hero we can console ourselves it was for the greater good: Schools, while now resembling child prisons with metal detectors, CCTV and armed men lurking about the halls are “really much safer”.
At no point, no point at all can you guys conceive of an alternative answer?
“I just wonder why the situation in the US has deteriorated to such degree that schools must be “locked down” like high-security prisons. The elementary school had introduced new security regulations just weeks prior to the attack. If I’m not mistaken the community where this happened is small and generally speaking rather safe. But still they felt there was a need for these measures. What is going wrong there? I’m not saying these things don’t happen in other countries. But would you agree with me that for some reason or other they seem to occur more often in the US and also with deadlier results?”
They most certainly occur in the US more often, and in recent years with alarming frequency. One thing NO ONE here has mentioned is that these attacks are ALWAYS committed by mentally disturbed people who are almost always taking SSRI psychiatric drugs. Such drugs have a high correlation with anti-social violence in young people. This is a constant in the equation, and should be looked at very closely.
I’m sorry: SSRI refers to Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor. They are used as antidepressants. They are the most commonly prescribed drug in the United States, and are given out like candy by doctors. Their use is much more limited in Europe. The rise in school shootings since the early 90s corresponds with the spike in anti-depressant use by young people. I know that correlation doesn’t equal causation, but it’s correlation nonetheless.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
"So the answer to gun violence in schools in a nutshell: More guns in schools.
Gotcha.
So when some kid with a toy gun gets mown down by a squad of rent a cops, with itchy trigger fingers wanting to play the hero we can console ourselves it was for the greater good: Schools, while now resembling child prisons with metal detectors, CCTV and armed men lurking about the halls are “really much safer”.
At no point, no point at all can you guys conceive of an alternative answer?"
Do you support the disarming of police? If not, why not? Police shoot people by accident all the time. So what’s your “alternative”? You’re against teachers having guns. OK. I suggested trained armed guards. But you’re against that too. What if an armed police officer were assigned to each school? Would you be against that? You’re against turning schools into “prisons.” So do you support the removal of all security measures? Probably not. But then you complain when we speak of beefing up security as well. So it seems you’re against everything. In what “alternate” way do you stop someone who has begun a shooting spree other than to shoot him back?
at rwargas22: (…)
Yes, I know Austria is a rather small country and as I said we are certainly not an exemplary model for everybody to follow in every respect. By the way, I’m not in favour of the kind of insanely high taxes Hollande introduced in France recently. The belief that high taxes will automatically benefit society at large is erroneous and harmful. I just read an article a few days ago where they compared the tax revenues in the US under various administrations. All those who had introduced major tax increases ended up with drastically lower tax revenues. Those who had chosen a more balanced approach also ended up with more money that could then be used for the society as a whole.
I do believe, for example, that taxes in Austria are way too high. Our social welfare system would work just as fine with lower taxes but more intelligent and careful spending. By the way, I do not agree with Friedemann when he portrays the Scandinavian countries as states run in an exemplary way in almost all respects. That to me is mostly wishful thinking or maybe a memory of better times in the past.
This does not only concern their tax systems but also their immigration policy. Sweden is an excellent example of this. They have rising ethnic conflicts (for example the Jewis community has left Malmö in great numbers because of incessant attacks from muslim gangs; this is NOT to say that all muslims are violent, of course not, please don’t get me wrong, but Sweden’s “liberal” immigration policy now produces results which show in a staggering increase of xenophobic attacks and other crimes. There are many reports about attacks on the Somalian community in Sweden as well. Just opening up borders suggesting anybody can come in at any time is not very helpful and I think Sweden is learning this lesson the hard way right now. By the way, we have problems too, so I’m not saying Austria is the good guy and the rest of the world is bad.).
Just google Malmö and read through related articles about ethnic conflicts in Sweden.
Multiculturalism is not the problem, the lack of control and proper action against offenders is. Singapore is a highly multi-ethnic country and very safe. Japan is much bigger than Austria, with lots of people crowded in a few places (only a small part of Japan’s territory actually is populated due to issues with earthquakes, volcanoes etc.), and yet they have a much lower crime rate than most other places, including Austria.
I feel a lot safer in Tokyo than I do in Vienna (even though I am not afraid to walk around in Vienna either I do take precautions in certain areas at night).
The only thing I’m a little surprised about is what you said about New York. Even though I tend to support proponents of the Democrats in the US, I thought Giuliani did a fantastic job in reducing crime and getting New York back on its feet. I was in New York in June this year and found it to be an amazing city, full of life and with many very friendly and helpful people. I thought New York had become a much nicer and safer place than it was a couple of decades ago. That’s the impression I got from articles I read and from the way I felt when walking around in the city. I might be wrong though.
Rwargas, Sorry to bust your bubble man but the police in the UK and Ireland don’t carry guns.
I’ll come at it like this. Only where I am from, Northern Ireland; do the police carry guns. They carry guns there because we had a long and horrible war, where we killed our brothers and sisters by the gun and the bomb. After this, the two sides told the government where all the guns and bombs where, as they lived now in relative peace and didn’t want them anymore. A peaceful society doesn’t need the police to carry guns any more than we need armed men or metal detectors in schools.
The Bear patrol; waves of attacking lemur monkeys or armed men in the cafeteria all chase the same illusion: security through the act or threat of violence.
omad. There’s no bubble to burst. Nowhere did I mention British or Irish police. The discussion is about gun violence in the U.S. vis-a-vis school shootings. You’re refuting an argument I didn’t make. Moreover, relative to the rest of Europe, I wouldn’t consider the UK peaceful in terms of violence crime.
“A peaceful society doesn’t need the police to carry guns any more than we need armed men or metal detectors in schools.” This is a tautology, akin to saying that healthy people don’t need medicines. By that logic, in order to have a healthy society we must forthwith abolish all hospitals in the country.
How do you get a peaceful society? And what if the society isn’t already peaceful? School shootings certaintly arent peaceful. So how would a disarmed police force be able to deal with a school shooter?
I thought those little analogies were obvious enough.
You don’t need armed men in schools in a country where there are no other armed men. Society makes it its business to cleanse itself of guns, and tries to figure out why people would want to use them in the first place.
“You don’t need armed men in schools in a country where there are no other armed men.”
Please provide an example of a country where there are no armed men.
There are none.
I am in favour of a society where there are none, and support stringent efforts to make that so. You on the other hand seem to suggest that more guns are the answer to gun problems. I think that is madness. You have a society awash with guns and lots of people get murdered with them. I live in a society with few guns and not so many get murdered due in no small part to the difficulty in obtaining them. This is going round in circles I’m sure you will agree but I’ll ask a question that doesn’t need a lot of back and forth or conjecturing about this and that or “its just a tool etc”: In that fanciful castle of the mind, where we all live as ruler for a day, would you trade this constitutional right for a more peaceful society with less of these tragedies, or, as it were, stick to your guns?
Of course there are none. You have confused theory with practice. Thus you have admitted, even if you don’t intend to, that your lofty ideal exists only in your own mind, not in reality—kind of like your constant invocation of the Simpsons.
Surely, all sorts of wonderful things are true in theory. In theory, a country doesn’t need oncologists if nobody has cancer. The trouble is that, in REALITY, cancer exists and cannot be done away with so easily. Banning the ownership of weapons does not abolish the EXISTENCE of such weapons. They don’t dissipate like farts in the wind.
Nowhere did I state that more guns necessarily equals less violence. I believe guns are useful in certain situations and dangerous in others.
You, however, expressed the radical and categorical opinion that police should not be armed. You defended this by stating that a society in which no men are armed doesn’t require armed police. When I pushed you on this, you retreated into the more moderate position that no such society exists, but we should strive for it. Well, then, what are we to do WHILE we’re trying to get back into the Garden of Eden? Should the police be armed in this intermediate phase between dystopia and utopia? How will successful gun laws be enforced if they’re not backed up by the threat of force by armed law enforcement?
It was a simple enough question, the answer is no then?
“Banning the ownership of weapons does not abolish the EXISTENCE of such weapons. They don’t dissipate like farts in the wind”.
You remove them from the society by making it illegal to own or use them, if you are caught in posession you go to jail. Not that difficult.
“Nowhere did I state that more guns necessarily equals less violence. I believe guns are useful in certain situations and dangerous in others”.
You discussed armed guards in schools, again this misses the point of why the guards have to be in the first place, the presence of lots of guns in the society.
“You, however, expressed the radical and categorical opinion that police should not be armed.”
You keep bringing up the police to obfuscate the argument. I merely stated that in the two countries where I hold a passport, the Police don’t carry guns. That is neither here nor there but the point is made that you don’t really need the police to have guns in a society where there aren’t many guns. What makes your country so different, oh yes the fact there are 300 millions guns in circulation. The UK and Ireland are to be fair an anomaly in this regard; but I personally I like the idea of a policeman in society being respected through honesty and what he represents, not through the worry he might take me out.
“CAPS, Garden of Eden, shouting etc”
Its worth remembering that the history of humanity is one largely of cooperation and peace as opposed to war and conflict, I’d be for a society which strengthened and cemented that idea in its populace, particularly its children, instead of pitting us against each other with guns in our pockets.
I’ll leave it at that I think, and by the way Homer et al have probably more to teach us about how society reacts irrationally than you might think!
Fair enough. One last question: A shooter has entered a schoolyard and is spraying people with bullets. What should be the proper police response to such a scenario?
The Police deal with him (it always seems to be a him, doesn’t it?) by whatever means necessary. BTW of course there are some Armed Police in the UK and Ireland, but they are like Elite sqauds who deal with people who are armed. The regular police walking or driving around don’t.
After this, like what occurred in Britain after the Dunblane massacre, society hopefully has a debate on what the hell just occurred and takes steps towards stopping it in the future.
I think its easy to get into internet oneupmanship on issues like this, and I’m probably as guilty of that as the next man. I lived in the US for a few years and had a great time, friendlier people than you could ever meet, especially where I lived in the South. I think though, this may be a step to far for most Americans to not want at least some restrictions. The point made above about the drug war and how many young lives are lost in an average city is especially apt in how to takes white kid shooting white kids for people to just take notice of what the hell is going on.
what happens if you are confronted with a shooter and are denied the right to self defense? That is a standard question of the gun supporters. My answer would be to look at the price of arming more and more people. On balance I believe this arms race leads to a more and more violent society.
There are many threats that we cannot always protect us against 100%. The odds of becoming a victim of a shooter is very small but the price of guarding against that by arming more and more people is too high in my view.