That “we should treat guns like cars” is not really what your side wants.
They are not cars, so it would be very strange to treat them like cars. Except the bullet train, which is somewhat like a car and somewhat like a railgun.
Its a really dark place, where adolescent anxiety and social stigma rub a disturbed mind into frenzy. Something about this particular shoot-up-your-high-school is a convergence of several ugly streams of consciousness. The very fact of its prominence is an agitator. So, we can pretty much rest horrified that it will happen again.
The popular tide is already turning, the NRA is dithering about how much to give up of what they swore they wouldn’t. Because that’s what is bound to happen. Not if this sort of thing stops happening, of course, but that would mean thoughts and prayers fucking work! I’d love to think so, but I don’t think so.
There are gun nuts. Not gonna say anything like everybody who owns one is one, but they do exist. People who’s emotional attachment to weaponry is not reliant on facts or realities, but fixed fantasies. Dark fantasies of fear and defiance. They already think we are coming for their guns, have been thinking it for years, waiting for the dreaded crunch of liberal hob-nail boots, crunching up their path. They are about half nuts as it is, with nobody trying it, what are they going to do when somebody actually does?
How many are so far gone as to violently resist? Dunno. Good bet that we are going to find out, though. Interesting times loom ahead.
We are repeatedly assured that they’re all “law-abiding citizens”, so we have nothing to worry about.
And improving mental healthcare can’t fix the problem because people fade into (and out of) wellness. Sometimes very quickly. Predicting it and screening for it might help, but probably not by much. And that would also impinge on freedoms so I don’t think it would be popular among the gun owning public.
I like guns and if I lived in the US I would probably own a few. I don’t think of myself as anti-gun.
Yep, more guns in schools seems to be just what is needed:
If only a teacher had been armed, they could have “shot him down like a mad dog”, I believe is how it was put.
The high school in my district is set to pass a policy allowing teachers who volunteer and who meet the requirements (CCW permit, provides own handgun, undergo 20 hours of training, pass limited psych test) to carry. Their guns will not be locked up. They’ll be concealed-carry.
Just FYI.
Just curious, do you live in eastern WA or near the coast?
I don’t think that having teachers categorically prohibited from carrying guns is necessary; I don’t have anything against those who volunteer to do so being allowed, provided that they meet the criteria above. (I don’t know just how “limited” that psych test is, that is mentioned.) I just don’t agree with the people (and there are some) who say flat-out that THE single solution to the school shooting problem is that teachers be armed. This is bullshit.
I do believe the volunteers should be RESTRICTED to those with prior combat experience - I mean actually taking fire, either in a military or law enforcement capacity. Unless someone has been tested in that way before, and prevailed, I think it’s impossible to know how they would actually respond under the pressure and adrenaline in that situation, and being an armed guardian of a massed gathering of other people (who are likely to be smaller and less mature than most) should require that experience as a prerequisite. No, this doesn’t apply to every concealed carry scenario - the school is a special case. This is an environment where the capacity for deadly force is being pro-actively and pre-emptively introduced into a massed gathering of young people into close quarters; the skills of the individual in question need to be beyond reproach, IMO.
We don’t apply this strict standard to school resource officers today, or to any of the other officers that might respond to the scene of a school shooting.
I don’t have time to skim this entire thread; please give me an executive summary.
Was there any Doper — even a single solitary one — who thinks Trump’s arming the teachers was NOT the stupidest “thought” every to emerge from any Presidential orifice?
I’m on board with the general idea, if not perhaps some of the details.
Actually, it occurs to me that if we did impose that standard, various cranks would fabricate records in an attempt to qualify. They should pull the official files from the military or law enforcement agency in question, and falsifying it should be a felony.
The officers you’re describing are active law enforcement personnel, correct? I think any volunteer to be an armed guard in a school, who is not currently a serving law enforcement officer, should have to have superlative experience to make up for their non-professional status.
Presumably, not one of your better ideas. Firstly, not that many Americans have direct combat experience. How many of those are likely to take up a career in teaching? And what, if any, effects from PTSD might we anticipate? Given how little we know about it in comparison to how much we are obliged to know.
Arming people to combat fear is like fighting a forest fire with napalm.
This would be a strong argument against your proposal.
So why not allow qualified students to carry as well? In fact, if they meet the same standards as teachers, isn’t it age discrimination to forbid it?
Comes down to it, I’d rather have the captain of my competitive shooting team confronting the school shooter than my history teacher.
Just in case you weren’t making a joke, it is certainly not age discrimination to let teachers/employees, etc. do things that students/customers cannot do.