And that needs to be recognized. Not allowing adults who possess state CCW permits to carry in schools is horribly shortsighted.
The first two people killed were the principal and the counselor who lunged at the crazy bastard. I’ll bet they would have liked to have had a gun.
Does it make any sense for the state to pass a law banning guns on school property? Will people who want to kill 20 students be dissuaded by such a law? The only people who obey those laws are the law abiding people who could have protected those kids on Friday.
My state has a law that makes it a felony, punishable by 3 to 10 years in prison to possess a gun (even in the car by a CCW holder) on school property. If I was of the mind to commit murder, punishable by life in prison, would I obey the “no guns in school” law because I don’t want to go to jail for 3 to 10?
I propose we enact legislation, say, under Homeland Security, to create the Virginity Action Group or VAG. Any male 16 or above who has not lost his virginity will be visited by an enthusiastic Special Agent and be relieved of their virginity. Semi-annual follow-up and/or counseling sessions can be arranged. And any male under the age of 50 (because after that, what’s the point?) who is experiencing a prolonged dry spell can apply for semi-annual treatment as well.
I doubt it. I can’t see the public demanding that all teachers be competent at defensive shooting as well as their subject matter (if for no other reason than that such a requirement would be met with lots of resistance). Lots of people have no interest in guns or shooting, after all, and they’re going to have a say in any policy decisions.
No doubt there would be. It happens to cops, after all.
I doubt it. I could see people demanding schools hire armed security guards, though (which, given the parlous state of many school budgets and the rarity of school shooting, is probably not a wise use of resources).
Something I want to run up the flagpole and see who salutes; a possible way to decrease these types of crime without even *touching *firearms laws courtesy of forensic psychiatrist Dr Park Dietz, speaking here about a shooting in Germany. For those with no access to YouTube, he says that CNN and other news media should:
Not start the story with blazing sirens.
Not Have photographs of the killer everywhere.
Not make the news 24/7 coverage.
Do everything not to make the bodycount the lead story.
Not make the killer out to be some sort of troubled ‘antihero’.
Localise the story to the effected community and make it as boring as possible in all other markets.
Also explained here (in regards to the Denver shootings);
Is coverage by the media glorifying these events and making shootings more appealing for lunatics looking to cash their chips in the most infamous way possible? If so, what do we do about it - more press regulation (in which case, the issue is also the First as well as the Second Amendment)?
I agree with you and figure9 that these killers share some serious mental problems. I also agree these mental problems are typically not suitably addressed. I Think anybody who has experienced modern medical systems and attitudes toward treatment of mental illness will come to the conclusion that a large proportion of the mentally ill are not treated sufficiently or not treated at all. There probably never will be a time when mental illness is suitably addressed. There will always be 1000s of people with an inclination to slaughter large groups of people who fall through the medical system’s cracks. The likelihood of failure in addressing this problem via the medical system is demonstrated by the fact that the Aurora, CO murderer was being treated prior to committing his crime.
Given the medical system will fail in living up to the task of preventing mass murders perpetrated by mentally ill people, then the only possible solution is to keep weapons out of their hands. Yet anything can be a weapon. So the next best solution is to limit the availability of the most lethal weapons. Perhaps it’s best to start with weapons that can shoot enough bullets in just a few minutes to kill 28 people, or 33 people, or wound and kill 71 people. After all, does anyone need to be able to fire 100s of bullets in a few minutes when hunting, target shooting, or even for home defense?
I agree, but we also need to be honest and admit that allowing CCW permit holders to carry on school property won’t prevent all school shootings. Not many gun owners routinely carry, so it’s quite possible that no one will be carrying at the school even if it’s legal. And it’s also possible the armed CCW permit holder will be shot and killed before he/she can stop the maniac.
Allowing CCW just insures that schools won’t automatically be seen as completely defenseless targets. But since people who shoot up schools are usually students who have a grudge against the school, I’m not sure how much deterrent value allowing CCW will actually have.
You really have that low an opinion of the impulse control of most people? Let me ask you, would you suddenly murder someone in a fit of anger if you happened to have a gun within reach?
The problem is that ANY gun suitable for hunting, target shooting, or home defense is capable of shooting hundreds of bullets in just a few minutes. These killers aren’t using special, extra-deadly guns, but ordinary firearms identical to what hunters, target shooters, and defenders (including the police) use. They’re not using machine guns.
I’ll salute your post; I don’t think there’s any doubt that the way the media covers these shootings is making things worse. But if the media isn’t willing to self-regulate in this matter (HAH!), I don’t see any way to change that. I don’t think most people will support First Ammendment restrictions (I certainly wouldn’t, even though I know the First Ammendment costs lives).
For all I know I would. The nature of guns makes it very easy to kill. Having guns around you greatly increases the chance of you committing murder or suicide, and I’m not arrogant enough to think I’m the exception.
you cannot ‘prevent’ school shootings - you can, however, take steps to minimize damage caused -
I would propose funding that radically increased security measures at all schools - bullet proof glass, doors, locks - electronic locks that are lockable from a central location in case a lockdown is needed and ‘safe rooms’ where people that might be caught in the hall can get to in short order. Increased funding for properly armed gaurds with appropriate training in areas more susceptible - minimum of 2 per school - maximum of 2 per entry/exit.
If we’re not willing to pay for security/protection measures - then all the rest is just handwaving.
One concern I’d have about implementing your proposals simster, quite apart from the cost, is what it would do to the psyche of children to be educated in what amounts to a locked-down prison. Would they come to feel that such a tight level of security is normal for public places?
Done correctly - the children won’t know the difference - many of our schools today act like prison’s with the metal detectors and ‘zero tolerance’ policies - this just adds another layer of physical security and methods to prevent/minimize an action such as what just happened.
Someone online (can’t remember where) suggested a three-tiered lobby entry system. Your business at the school would determine which entry you would do your business in. I thought that was a good idea. During the teaching hours only staff and students would be within the inner tier.
Has anyone mentioned demographics? Most violent gun crime is committed by teen-agers. I would favor no guns for anyone under the age of thirty. That gives a decade for maturity. Exceptions for special cases could be made.
I doubt it. You can find a few measures like these (metal detectors, guards) in schools that have severe violence problems, but doing them in every school in the country from K-12 is the definition of overkill. Like I said, it’d be extremely expensive and disruptive and (since schools already do drills and have procedures for events like these) I’m not sure it would make anybody any safer. I don’t see why those measures would have changed anything about the course of the Newtown shooting, for example. This is a textbook example of the kind of response that needs to be avoided after a shocking but incredibly rare event: the one that costs a lot of money and whose primary appeal is making you feel like you’ve done something. The obvious comparison here would be airport security measures. What makes more sense here: doing what we can to identify people who might be prone to violence and trying to keep guns out of their hands, or buying bulletproof glass and centralized lockdown systems for every school in the country?
