At 1/25/13 12:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
There are specific schools where a higher level of security is needed, but Fontana California, a relatively quiet suburb, is NOT one of them. The remainder of schools disstricts, may run into an event where high caution is needed once a year. These aren't bad enough to warrant guns on campus. The number of schools districts that will have such a bad event in the existence of the district at all is statistically none.
Hey...I agree with you totally. That not all schools need the same level of security. These guns in particular, are probably not that big of a necessity. But at the same time...it is not that much of an extravagence either.
This is still a bad idea. Teachers are there to teach, not to patrol the hallways like a sheriff out of Tombstone. Many students are already intimidted by their teachers. Giving teachers guns is hardly a way to endear the students to them.
I think you're overstating this. If teachers were to be allowed to carry...they should be required to keep it concealed. If we allow guns to be carried in school...only the armed teachers, the principal, superintendent and the school board president should know who is carrying.
If someone (no matter what their position) reveals who is carrying...they are automatically terminated keeping only the minimum pay and benefits allowed under the law.
There are two types of gun control that I think would work. Gun monitoring (strong background checks as well as a single national database) and making the possession of a gun without resgistering equal to failure to reister as a sex offender. The second is complete gun control. The removal of all legal guns DOES make committing a gun crime exponentially harder, and will deter many if not most, of the spur of the moment gun crimes (which make up the near entirety of US gun crimes).
Stronger background checks: I agree there is room for this. However, I do not completely trust Obama on this since he is trying to limit consumer options (ie: trying to bring Walmart in with the promise that gun buyers will buy from them instead of independent FFL dealers at gun shows). But I do appreciate Obama making an exemption gor guns left to family members after a person dies.
Registration/database: These have very low utility and have been consistently shown not to work. All they do is cost money...not solve problems. Look at Canada. With a population 1/10 of ours...it cost them $2 billion and was recently given up as a failure.
So do you want to throw $20 billion at something that is consistently proven to be a failure...or spend it on programs that will encourage economic growth? How many school counselors could we hire with that $20 billion?
I looked at 2009. I looked at the categories that indicated for spur of the moment murders that did not involve an illegal (ie: narcotics) or other activity that is borderline criminal (ie: gang membership. Just being a Blood, Crypt, or Latin King is not illegal). And I came up with the following number: 3,808. I included the following categories:
* Romantic triangle
* Child killed by babysitter
* Brawl due to influence of alcohol
* Argument over money or property
* Other arguments
Now looking at the data, there is a cluster of mudrers centered around age, peaking in the 20-24 year old age range. Now one of the things we know about adolescent psychology is adolescence lasts, in Western society, until the mid-20s. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate our 21 to buy a handgun law. In 2009, hanguns were used in 89% (controlling for the two unknown/unreported categories listed in table 310) of murders. We could do this while maintaining second amendment rights because:
* 18-24 year olds would retain the right to self-defense via shotguns.
* We would not be banning them nor their possession.
* As you've pointed out, an item's purpose is important in determining if it is a reasonable restriction. Handguns have a very limited role for the military...and in fact they are the only firearms with the original purpose being to kill people. Plus they are exceedingly useful to criminals and criminal behavior.
If people are serious about gun violence...looking at assault rifles is like having a nuerologist x-raying your ass to check for a brain tumor.
And while yes...taking away guns will lead to a reduction in firearm homicides...there are still other ways for the criminally minded to kill and hurt. But how many more people will be put at risk because now they lack the means to defend themselves from violent people?