Can the police protect?

[TheMason]

Okay so during drill this weekend, one of my fellow NCOs was talking about the training he has to go through as a public school teacher in terms of school shooting. What he said the training consisted of includes:

1) When to close and lock the door...even if there are students running away from the gunman who would be trapped outside w/the shooter.

2) The police said they would be on their own until there were at least four cops available to enter the school.

This last one made me think about my own experience. The cops were not going to come until after the guy trying to break into my home was already inside. Considering response time in either a metropolitan setting or an excluded rural area...aren't the cops really there to "serve and clean-up"?

I'm not trying to unfairly criticize cops. There are several cops in my Guard Unit and my Masonic Lodge is about two-thirds Sherrif's Deputies. They have a dangerous and difficult job. However, they cannot be everywhere and by the time they could respond to any shooting...ppl are already dead.

So doesn't some sort of plan allowing certain non-cops to carry guns in a school make sense? I'm not talking everyone...perhaps ppl with law-enforcement or military experience?

[Christopherr]

It's also some huge deal to have any guns anywhere on a school campus... They could at least arm the cops at some schools :/

[TheMason]

At 1/7/08 10:28 PM, Christopherr wrote: It's also some huge deal to have any guns anywhere on a school campus... They could at least arm the cops at some schools :/

At my school the University cops who are fully bonded and have state-wide jurisdiction. In fact they are even authorizied to carry AR-15s (M-16s) in their trunks. However, it is a HUGE campus w/few cops...response time could be too long...

[Angry-Hatter]

At 1/7/08 10:25 PM, TheMason wrote: So doesn't some sort of plan allowing certain non-cops to carry guns in a school make sense? I'm not talking everyone...perhaps ppl with law-enforcement or military experience?

No, but implementing laws that make it impossible for kids and mentally instable people to obtain guns does make sense. The majority of guns that are obtained illegally in the US are guns that were purchased in gun stores. Logic states that if you close up shop = less guns in the hands of criminals.

[Imperator]

At 1/7/08 10:34 PM, TheMason wrote:
At my school the University cops who are fully bonded and have state-wide jurisdiction. In fact they are even authorizied to carry AR-15s (M-16s) in their trunks. However, it is a HUGE campus w/few cops...response time could be too long...

The DPS at Umich are fully deputized.
And as far as I can tell they're pretty much everywhere.

I usually see one or two officers walking down the halls when I'm at dance practice, and I see their patrol cars all over the place.

The obvious solution is just to get more cops, but I realize that's not always in the budget......
Maybe a repositioning for somewhere like your school could be a more effective solution, plus civvie watch groups or non-deputized "neighborhood watch" type patrols.

[stafffighter]

I have to agree that this all comes down to budget. People aren't going to trust anyone who isn't absolutly qualified to carry a gun in a professional capacity to do so in a school and the money to put a bunch more people out there or properly arm and train people who are already there just dosen't exist.

[TheMason]

At 1/7/08 10:37 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 1/7/08 10:25 PM, TheMason wrote: So doesn't some sort of plan allowing certain non-cops to carry guns in a school make sense? I'm not talking everyone...perhaps ppl with law-enforcement or military experience?

No, but implementing laws that make it impossible for kids and mentally instable people to obtain guns does make sense.

That's impossible. The 1994 AR ban contributed to the Dems loosing Congress. Furthermore, there are way too many guns out there for them to be completely removed from the black market...then there are two incredibly unsealable boarders to the North and South...

[TheMason]

At 1/7/08 10:49 PM, stafffighter wrote: I have to agree that this all comes down to budget. People aren't going to trust anyone who isn't absolutly qualified to carry a gun in a professional capacity to do so in a school and the money to put a bunch more people out there or properly arm and train people who are already there just dosen't exist.

Not true...I've already been trained. Many of my classmates have already been trained. As for the arming, many cops arm themselves (their secondary weapons); as would any veteran. I don't think funding would really be much of an issue since it would be a cost that would happily be bourne by those volunteering to carry...

[Angry-Hatter]

At 1/7/08 10:49 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, there are way too many guns out there for them to be completely removed from the black market...then there are two incredibly unsealable boarders to the North and South...

Didn't you read my post? The vast majority of guns that are obtained illegally in America were bought at LEGAL gun stores, they weren't smuggled across any borders. And I don't believe for one second that there are too many illegal guns in America to successfully contain them given enough time, and having MORE people with guns is certainly not going to help.

The ideel sollution would be to close down the independant gun stores and have the government control the sale of guns (through police stations perhaps), and then require people to take a gun license exam and psych-evaluation tests before being allowed to even purchase a gun. This should be followed by annual checkups to make sure that you're not going to just give your gun away to a friend and report it as stolen. Failing to bring your gun to the checkup results in losing your license, since if it was stolen, you were obviously not being careful enough to hide it properly.

Too tough? Got a better idea?

[enonymous420]

fuck the police, they'll shoot u in the back any chance they get. they're cowards.

[enonymous420]

The ideel sollution would be to close down the independant gun stores and have the government control the sale of guns (through police stations perhaps), and then require people to take a gun license exam and psych-evaluation tests before being allowed to even purchase a gun. This should be followed by annual checkups to make sure that you're not going to just give your gun away to a friend and report it as stolen. Failing to bring your gun to the checkup results in losing your license, since if it was stolen, you were obviously not being careful enough to hide it properly.

This would NEVER happen or work, sorry.
People (myself included) would just get an illegal gun.
Or smuggle it thru mexico, like a lot of people do.
Second, consider the Iran-Contra affair.
Do u really want the government to have control of the gun trade?

[TheMason]

At 1/7/08 11:33 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 1/7/08 10:49 PM, TheMason wrote:

Didn't you read my post? The vast majority of guns that are obtained illegally in America were bought at LEGAL gun stores, they weren't smuggled across any borders. And I don't believe for one second that there are too many illegal guns in America to successfully contain them given enough time, and having MORE people with guns is certainly not going to help.

1) I read your entire post and you're wrong. I'm not talking about illegal guns, I'm talking about legal guns. The majority of guns used in crimes are legally obtained from gun stores and are bought by legitimate, law-abiding citizens. However, they find themselves to the street through theft or someone down on their luck selling them to make money. These are things that are not solved by eliminating the legitimate gun store owner. You do not take into consideration the method that these guns get from purchaser to street...and that is why your logic is flawed and your solution would do zilch to stop illegal weapons from reaching the street.

2) Then there is the issue of the boarders. In the mid-1990s Chinese AK-47s capable of full-auto or burst fire was intercepted as they were being smuggled in; destined for LA. A few years ago Chavez purchased AK-47s in the 7.62x39 calibur. This is important in that most other countries are equipping their soldiers with the 5.46 calibur. The 7.62x39 round is popular with two groups: a) regional narco-terrorists and b) Americans. Oh yeah, he also bought 3x more rifles than he has soldiers in the army. These weapons are destined for drugg-smugglers and the American black market. But stick your head in the sand all you want...

3) Furthermore, it is obvious that you have not read my original post. Who cares how the nutjob got the gun when you're in the situation? The cops are NOT going to come to your rescue, whether it is a home invasion or a school shooting. Someone coming your way w/a gun who do you want next to you; someone armed w/a book or someone who has been properly trained to deal with the situation and equipped to save both their's and your life? Imagine yourself in a scenario where how the person got the gun does not matter...because when people find themselves in that situation it is too late at that point.

The ideel sollution would be to close down the independant gun stores and have the government control the sale of guns (through police stations perhaps), and then require people to take a gun license exam and psych-evaluation tests before being allowed to even purchase a gun. This should be followed by annual checkups to make sure that you're not going to just give your gun away to a friend and report it as stolen. Failing to bring your gun to the checkup results in losing your license, since if it was stolen, you were obviously not being careful enough to hide it properly.

Too tough? Got a better idea?

Your plan is simply unrealistic, it may sound good on a bumper stick but would never work in the real world.

1) The problem is not the point of origin; it is what happens after the gun is bought. Your plan would not stymie this.
2) "Straw man" purchases such as you describe are not as common as you think.
3) Annual check-ups is assinine since if a gun is stolen the vast majority of law abiding gun owners are going to be filing a police report as well as an insurance claim...so these "annual check-ups" will be easily defeated by those wanting to break the law.

And my god, when did we become a nation where people who stood up in self-defense were considered to be bad ppl. I heard a story this morning about a Dominos Pizza delivery man who used his concealed pistol (which he was legally carrying) to shoot an assailant after he had turned over the pizza, pizza money and his wallet (per corporate training)...and the criminal STILL wanted to do him bodily harm. He ended up resigning because he knew he was going to get fired (carrying a weapon, even when licensed is against corporate policy).

Jesus, when did we become a nation of pussy sheep who go passively to slaughter and then be blamed for the slaughter?

[Madferit]

At 1/8/08 12:04 AM, TheMason wrote: Jesus, when did we become a nation of pussy sheep who go passively to slaughter and then be blamed for the slaughter?

When God invented democrats.

[LardLord]

At 1/8/08 01:24 AM, Madferit wrote: When God invented democrats.

When you people invented God.

[Musician]

At 1/8/08 01:35 AM, LardLord wrote:

At 1/8/08 01:24 AM, Madferit wrote: When God invented democrats.

When you people invented God.

ZING!

[Memorize]

At 1/8/08 01:35 AM, LardLord wrote:

At 1/8/08 01:24 AM, Madferit wrote: When God invented democrats.

When you people invented God.

I doubt God would invent something so pitiful.

[CommanderX1125]

At 1/8/08 04:08 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/8/08 01:35 AM, LardLord wrote:

At 1/8/08 01:24 AM, Madferit wrote: When God invented democrats.

When you people invented God.

I doubt God would invent something so pitiful.

Ah simply amazing how far the human race has come. Isn't it great that we can all tolerate, and perhaps even celebrate our differences of opinion... Wait a second.....

Anyway, to get back on topic, it is getting kind of bad in my old high school, it seems they implemented a new policy that if someone attacks you, and you do any thing other than simply sit there and take it you get kicked for the same amount of time as the guy who started it. When I heard that it I figured my old teacher was just screwing with me, but it seems that the school board unanimously agreed to the idea.

[Memorize]

At 1/8/08 04:33 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote:

Ah simply amazing how far the human race has come. Isn't it great that we can all tolerate, and perhaps even celebrate our differences of opinion... Wait a second.....

Anyone would be a fool to think anyone will ever celebrate differences of opinion.

[Christopherr]

At 1/7/08 10:34 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/7/08 10:28 PM, Christopherr wrote: It's also some huge deal to have any guns anywhere on a school campus... They could at least arm the cops at some schools :/

At my school the University cops who are fully bonded and have state-wide jurisdiction. In fact they are even authorizied to carry AR-15s (M-16s) in their trunks. However, it is a HUGE campus w/few cops...response time could be too long...

The schools around here have rent-a-cops... And only one has a gun... it's straight out of Striperella.

[SmilezRoyale]

When you have 2 contradictory statements regarding the TRUE origin of firearms used in crime, one of you has to back it up; somehow.

[robattle]

the police are supposed to be masters of their firearms so they should be able to take down a would be gunner.

[MortifiedPenguins]

To be fair though, not every school has people that are military or police trained to wield and carry these weapons.

Protection would be to inconsistent.

[Imperator]

At 1/8/08 08:41 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: To be fair though, not every school has people that are military or police trained to wield and carry these weapons.

Protection would be to inconsistent.

well.....would there necessarily need to be a standardization of the system?

I mean, U of M, for example, I don't think really needs teachers to be armed. DPS is large enough to act as a good security force.

Maybe the school admins could decide on a school to school basis instead?

At 1/8/08 04:08 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/8/08 01:35 AM, LardLord wrote:

At 1/8/08 01:24 AM, Madferit wrote: When God invented democrats.

When you people invented God.

I doubt God would invent something so pitiful.

Then explain G.W. Bush......
(the man really just canNOT seem to catch a break....)

Is that a zing? I dunno......

Ah simply amazing how far the human race has come. Isn't it great that we can all tolerate, and perhaps even celebrate our differences of opinion... Wait a second.....

Anyway, to get back on topic, it is getting kind of bad in my old high school, it seems they implemented a new policy that if someone attacks you, and you do any thing other than simply sit there and take it you get kicked for the same amount of time as the guy who started it. When I heard that it I figured my old teacher was just screwing with me, but it seems that the school board unanimously agreed to the idea.

At 1/8/08 04:33 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Ah simply amazing how far the human race has come. Isn't it great that we can all tolerate, and perhaps even celebrate our differences of opinion... Wait a second.....

Well if we WERE at that level, the NG BBS would be quite small......

Anyway, to get back on topic, it is getting kind of bad in my old high school, it seems they implemented a new policy that if someone attacks you, and you do any thing other than simply sit there and take it you get kicked for the same amount of time as the guy who started it. When I heard that it I figured my old teacher was just screwing with me, but it seems that the school board unanimously agreed to the idea.

Zero tolerance policies are getting implemented all over the place. They're really more to protect the school and the teachers from liability than the students from danger.

[TheMason]

At 1/8/08 08:41 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: To be fair though, not every school has people that are military or police trained to wield and carry these weapons.

Protection would be to inconsistent.

Good point in terms of HS.

However, in college there would be many more veterans and ex-LE in colleges. Furthermore, the training required to carry firearms is not really all that difficult. Furthermore, in a collegiate setting such a program would most likely save lives and have a minimal cost to the public that would be bourne by the people who would be volunteering to carry.

[poxpower]

You know you might have a point here.

Maybe we should learn useful stuff in High School PE classes instead of separating all the kids into teams to play idiot sports.
Maybe we ought to train kids to learn some self-defense in the last 2-3 years of high school, since poor criminals are usually drop-outs. They'd get their asses kicked in a brawl.

It would be cool to get kids into martial arts instead of baseball.

As for arming yourself to the teeth with guns and knives and body armor, well I dunno. How much do you need? How paranoid should we be? Knowing americans, if everyone had a gun in their house, would it scare criminals away? Or would it just cause way more deaths by accident?
If someone broke into your house and killed your kid, that's horrible. But what if you killed your own kid with your gun in panic mode because the kid had a nightmare and woke up in the middle of the night?

Man that's horrible.

I know you'll consider these "crazy unlikely scenarios" but so it "dude breaking into my house to shoot me".

But you're probably right about one thing: there's too many guns in circulation to cut everyone off them.

[Imperator]

It would be cool to get kids into martial arts instead of baseball.

That's how I solved my "bully" problems.
Started the MA club at my high school, took lessons from the Spanish teacher who just happened to have 40+ years MA experience and black belts/sashes in 4 different arts......

Amazing how quick everyone let me be once they found that out.....

[TheMason]

At 1/8/08 09:24 PM, poxpower wrote: Maybe we should learn useful stuff in High School PE classes instead of separating all the kids into teams to play idiot sports.
Maybe we ought to train kids to learn some self-defense in the last 2-3 years of high school, since poor criminals are usually drop-outs. They'd get their asses kicked in a brawl.

So are you going to be a politician? You obfuscate the issue here by taking an extreme position and positing things that are not part of the question (or what I would propose)...

As for arming yourself to the teeth with guns and knives and body armor, well I dunno. How much do you need? How paranoid should we be? Knowing americans, if everyone had a gun in their house, would it scare criminals away? Or would it just cause way more deaths by accident?

Again...more obfuscation by not addressing the reality behind what I brought up...

If someone broke into your house and killed your kid, that's horrible. But what if you killed your own kid with your gun in panic mode because the kid had a nightmare and woke up in the middle of the night?

I'm just curious if you've actually had any experience being either a parent or in this situation? I grew up in a community where the vast majority of homes had a gun in the house...and yet I never lost a friend or classmate to an accidental shooting.

I sense more drama in your post rather than connection to reality...

[poxpower]

At 1/8/08 09:43 PM, TheMason wrote:

So are you going to be a politician? You obfuscate the issue here by taking an extreme position and positing things that are not part of the question (or what I would propose)...

What's extreme about turning PE class into something useful?
You want better home defense, I think having everyone know martial arts or some sort of self-defense would be a good start.

Should some people be able to carry guns in schools? Sounds like a bad idea to me. Guns and teenagers in a school? You're insane! I come from a place where there weren't that many pranks, and there was tire deflation of teacher's cars and a kid even managed to steal the keys to one.

You want guns in high schools? Damn :O
I guess the only way to know if it would work is to try it, but it sounds pretty iffy.

And who would those people be? Cops? Isn't your whole point that cops can't be everywhere at once? Would pulling 2-3 of them from every station to babysit kids in some high school stop more crimes?

:o

As for arming yourself to the teeth with guns and knives and body armor, well I dunno. How much do you need? How paranoid should we be? Knowing americans, if everyone had a gun in their house, would it scare criminals away? Or would it just cause way more deaths by accident?

Again...more obfuscation by not addressing the reality behind what I brought up...

Which was what?
Your personal experience?

Well no one tried to break into my house, I guess no one needs any guns anywhere then.

I'm just curious if you've actually had any experience being either a parent or in this situation? I grew up in a community where the vast majority of homes had a gun in the house...and yet I never lost a friend or classmate to an accidental shooting.

Yeah and some people have.
Great plan, as long as nothing bad happens to you, then it can't possibly happen to anyone else right? Damn I should get into this "lottery" thing, I hear people are winning millions!

I'm not sure what you want. You seem to be saying that at some point cops wouldn't help you out, and so we should put armed guards in schools to prevent shootings? I'm saying that we should train kids in high school for self-defense, which would help them out their entire life. Guns in high schools? You're asking for soooooooooooo much trouble, unless you turn it into a prison with metal detectors and strict surveillance.
Yes, taking people's freedom away is generally a great way to make them do less stupid shit, but is this what you want?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 1/8/08 12:04 AM, TheMason wrote: 1) I read your entire post and you're wrong. I'm not talking about illegal guns, I'm talking about legal guns. The majority of guns used in crimes are legally obtained from gun stores and are bought by legitimate, law-abiding citizens. However, they find themselves to the street through theft or someone down on their luck selling them to make money. These are things that are not solved by eliminating the legitimate gun store owner. You do not take into consideration the method that these guns get from purchaser to street...and that is why your logic is flawed and your solution would do zilch to stop illegal weapons from reaching the street.

Well actually, the majority of guns used in crimes ARE obtained through the "straw man" method. (http://149.48.228.121/wgbh/pages/frontl ine/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) Only about 10-15% of guns used in crimes are legal guns that were stolen. So yay, my logic is unflawed again.

2) Then there is the issue of the boarders. In the mid-1990s Chinese AK-47s capable of full-auto or burst fire was intercepted as they were being smuggled in; destined for LA. A few years ago Chavez purchased AK-47s in the 7.62x39 calibur. This is important in that most other countries are equipping their soldiers with the 5.46 calibur. The 7.62x39 round is popular with two groups: a) regional narco-terrorists and b) Americans. Oh yeah, he also bought 3x more rifles than he has soldiers in the army. These weapons are destined for drugg-smugglers and the American black market. But stick your head in the sand all you want...

Right, so what we should do is legalize drugs. Imagine the faces of the big drug bosses when they find out that they're going out of business because the government is opening up it's own drug shop, only they sell safer drugs for less money. They'd be pissed!

3) Furthermore, it is obvious that you have not read my original post. Who cares how the nutjob got the gun when you're in the situation? The cops are NOT going to come to your rescue, whether it is a home invasion or a school shooting. Someone coming your way w/a gun who do you want next to you; someone armed w/a book or someone who has been properly trained to deal with the situation and equipped to save both their's and your life? Imagine yourself in a scenario where how the person got the gun does not matter...because when people find themselves in that situation it is too late at that point.

But you have to ask yourself the question, does that kind of scenario occur frequently enough to justify arming teachers with guns? And does having tighter gun laws decrease or increase the number of school shootings? I believe it'd decrease the number of shootings.

1) The problem is not the point of origin; it is what happens after the gun is bought. Your plan would not stymie this.

Yes it would. It'd make it harder for people to get guns, which means only people responsible and serious enough to go through the motions of getting a license will be getting guns, plus it'd educate gun owners on how to properly store their gun to make sure it doesn't get stolen or found by their kids.

If all you need to get a gun is a valid ID card, a wad of cash, and the patience to wait 3 days, then naturally more people are going to have guns, including criminals.

Anyways, this whole issue with gun laws is not really the heart of the problem. There is a form of reasoning in America that I find fundamentally flawed. You say that in order to protect yourself from criminals with guns, you need MORE guns, so you can shoot the criminals when they go after you. But that's just treating the symptom, not the illness. What you need to do is spend more money on communities where criminals are born; the poor communities. You need to spend more money on your schools, to make sure that less kids drop out. In many places, crime is the only way to go for many people. If you increase the standard of living of those who are worst off in america, you're going to see a rapid decrease in crime.

[TheMason]

At 1/9/08 02:53 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 1/8/08 12:04 AM, TheMason wrote:

Well actually, the majority of guns used in crimes ARE obtained through the "straw man" method. (http://149.48.228.121/wgbh/pages/frontl ine/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) Only about 10-15% of guns used in crimes are legal guns that were stolen. So yay, my logic is unflawed again.

Actually, that would be a bare majority and not an absolute majority. There are many more ways than stolen private guns and straw-man purchases. Furthermore, only 8% of FFL gun stores are the source of this problem. That is not statistically significant enough to justify as radical a restructure of our licensing structure as you suggest.

Right, so what we should do is legalize drugs. Imagine the faces of the big drug bosses when they find out that they're going out of business because the government is opening up it's own drug shop, only they sell safer drugs for less money. They'd be pissed!

Good dodge of the question! :)

But you have to ask yourself the question, does that kind of scenario occur frequently enough to justify arming teachers with guns? And does having tighter gun laws decrease or increase the number of school shootings? I believe it'd decrease the number of shootings.

The phenomenon of school shootings became more common under the 1994 assault rifle ban by ppl for whom owning a firearm was illegal.

And yes I think the threat is real enough that I want my kid's teacher armed. If my daughter is running to a classroom to seek safety from a shooter I want her teacher to have the option of shooting the shooter rather than locking my daughter in the hall with a murderer.

Yes it would. It'd make it harder for people to get guns, which means only people responsible and serious enough to go through the motions of getting a license will be getting guns, plus it'd educate gun owners on how to properly store their gun to make sure it doesn't get stolen or found by their kids.

Your logic is flawed in that you seem to think buying a gun is a impulse buy. The vast majority of legal gun owners are ppl who have training either through formal means (police, military, etc) or informal means (growing up on a farm). Furthermore, they give it serious thought as to their budget and what they need. Licensing would not deter that many gun owners.

If all you need to get a gun is a valid ID card, a wad of cash, and the patience to wait 3 days, then naturally more people are going to have guns, including criminals.

People who want guns are going to get them; the source you cite says the same thing. If a criminal wants one then they'll get one illegally. The only ppl it would deter would be a small number or responsible ppl who are not a threat.

Anyways, this whole issue with gun laws is not really the heart of the problem. There is a form of reasoning in America that I find fundamentally flawed. You say that in order to protect yourself from criminals with guns, you need MORE guns, so you can shoot the criminals when they go after you. But that's just treating the symptom, not the illness. What you need to do is spend more money on communities where criminals are born; the poor communities. You need to spend more money on your schools, to make sure that less kids drop out. In many places, crime is the only way to go for many people. If you increase the standard of living of those who are worst off in america, you're going to see a rapid decrease in crime.

You know what I agree with your conclusion here.

However, one thing I don't think you understand about America is that there are places here where there is NO police protection (ie: 3 deputies on duty for a 600 sq. mi area)...places where what little police presence there is can only show-up to clean-up (their words not mine). Furthermore, guns put food on the table. I knew kids growing up who would be malnourished if their family did not have guns.