Gun Free Zones

[Metsfanmax]

Any accidental or intentional shootings because of these guns would ensure the guilty party being held fully accountable.

School shootings usually result in the guilty party being held fully accountable. That's not really the point; we want to minimize the total number of school shootings.

One aspect I'm seriously concerned about is that, of course, if you have a gun you're more likely to use it, which can just escalate a situation. For example, what if a teacher decides he needs to pull his gun to stop a school fight? I don't see that as being acceptable.

Do you know off hand if this has been tried anywhere? I don't and I haven't really looked for it. Most of these shooters are cowards that tend to choose gun free zones, if we can eliminate that aspect, I would assume this would make such a heinous crime even more rare.

Utah allows concealed carry for teachers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States - There have been no shootings in Utah schools. Do you know if there are any other states? If not, perhaps this should be tried in a few other states as well?

I'm fine with trial and error on something as difficult as the gun control issue, but there's a huge issue of correlation versus causation here. It's difficult to know whether it's the very liberal concealed carry law that is responsible for preventing the school shootings.

I don't think anyone with a conceal & carry permit would ever pull a gun to stop a fight between two other individuals (especially minors!) unless they were feeling that their own life was in danger. I assume you have not taken the CCW course, this is very much ingrained into it. If the teacher did pull it in this situation, they would be overreacting and should be fired immediately.

The Utah concealed carry course takes four hours and requires no actual hands-on training. You basically just have to pay them, and show up. There's not much guarantee that teachers have any real weapons training. This leads to a host of complications, like the fact that students can be unintentionally hit by stray shots. And there's plenty of other issues too -- what if a student goes for a teacher's gun?

[patrickaa317]

Any accidental or intentional shootings because of these guns would ensure the guilty party being held fully accountable.

School shootings usually result in the guilty party being held fully accountable. That's not really the point; we want to minimize the total number of school shootings.

One aspect I'm seriously concerned about is that, of course, if you have a gun you're more likely to use it, which can just escalate a situation. For example, what if a teacher decides he needs to pull his gun to stop a school fight? I don't see that as being acceptable.

Do you know off hand if this has been tried anywhere? I don't and I haven't really looked for it. Most of these shooters are cowards that tend to choose gun free zones, if we can eliminate that aspect, I would assume this would make such a heinous crime even more rare.

Utah allows concealed carry for teachers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States - There have been no shootings in Utah schools. Do you know if there are any other states? If not, perhaps this should be tried in a few other states as well?

I'm fine with trial and error on something as difficult as the gun control issue, but there's a huge issue of correlation versus causation here. It's difficult to know whether it's the very liberal concealed carry law that is responsible for preventing the school shootings.

I don't think anyone with a conceal & carry permit would ever pull a gun to stop a fight between two other individuals (especially minors!) unless they were feeling that their own life was in danger. I assume you have not taken the CCW course, this is very much ingrained into it. If the teacher did pull it in this situation, they would be overreacting and should be fired immediately.

The Utah concealed carry course takes four hours and requires no actual hands-on training. You basically just have to pay them, and show up. There's not much guarantee that teachers have any real weapons training. This leads to a host of complications, like the fact that students can be unintentionally hit by stray shots. And there's plenty of other issues too -- what if a student goes for a teacher's gun?

You are correct that there is no guarantee in that but if these teachers that want to protect the kids, just show up and not pay attention to training, what would that even say about their ability to teach? If a teacher won't listen to an instructor of a different kind, why should any pupil in his/her class listen to him???? I'd give any teacher willing to take this class more credit than you are.

The stray shots comment is kinda ridiculous as your alternative solution is to have noone armed and allow the coward shooter free reign. The point of some armed teachers is that most cowards who commit these horrific crimes choose a place to have a lot of easy targets. If there is a chance that 10% of the teachers are carrying and trained for the situation, it may likely be a giant deterrent. Kind of like the people who don't drive away drunk from the bar adjacent to the cop shop.

[mrswdk]

The bank I used to visit in Uganda had a sign outside saying no firearms (featuring a little picture of an assault rife with a red band across it). During my time in that city, I never heard of any shootings in that bank.

[Metsfanmax]

You are correct that there is no guarantee in that but if these teachers that want to protect the kids, just show up and not pay attention to training, what would that even say about their ability to teach? If a teacher won't listen to an instructor of a different kind, why should any pupil in his/her class listen to him???? I'd give any teacher willing to take this class more credit than you are.

You're likely giving them too much credit for their ability to think clearly and act rationally during a shooting situation. I'm not saying they don't have good intentions -- just that you don't have to be a professional with your weapon to be able to wield one. And people will probably overestimate their ability to actually do something about an active shooter.

The stray shots comment is kinda ridiculous as your alternative solution is to have noone armed and allow the coward shooter free reign.

First of all, that is not necessarily my alternative solution (cf. the earlier discussion about having only armed professionals on the school campus). Second, you're again ignoring the possibility that teachers having guns will escalate the situation instead of bringing it closure. For example, what if someone takes a student hostage with a firearm but doesn't have a serious intention of hurting anyone? There are a number of circumstances one can imagine where pulling a gun on the shooter will result in death where there didn't need to be. It's hard to know whether these would happen more or less often than the actual school shooting massacres.

The point of some armed teachers is that most cowards who commit these horrific crimes choose a place to have a lot of easy targets.

Some do, sure. Can you provide evidence that "most" is accurate? I've seen a number of school shooting examples where there was a specific grudge (e.g. Columbine) rather than just the intention to look for easy targets.

If there is a chance that 10% of the teachers are carrying and trained for the situation, it may likely be a giant deterrent.

Yes, that's true. I don't necessarily accept the conclusion you're drawing though: if someone is really intent on killing a bunch of people (like Adam Lanza) then if we deter someone from shooting up a school, they'll just select a different target instead (like a hospital), and people will still die. So the law may not have actually saved lives (which is what we're trying to do here).

[patrickaa317]

You are correct that there is no guarantee in that but if these teachers that want to protect the kids, just show up and not pay attention to training, what would that even say about their ability to teach? If a teacher won't listen to an instructor of a different kind, why should any pupil in his/her class listen to him???? I'd give any teacher willing to take this class more credit than you are.

You're likely giving them too much credit for their ability to think clearly and act rationally during a shooting situation. I'm not saying they don't have good intentions -- just that you don't have to be a professional with your weapon to be able to wield one. And people will probably overestimate their ability to actually do something about an active shooter.

The stray shots comment is kinda ridiculous as your alternative solution is to have noone armed and allow the coward shooter free reign.

First of all, that is not necessarily my alternative solution (cf. the earlier discussion about having only armed professionals on the school campus). Second, you're again ignoring the possibility that teachers having guns will escalate the situation instead of bringing it closure. For example, what if someone takes a student hostage with a firearm but doesn't have a serious intention of hurting anyone? There are a number of circumstances one can imagine where pulling a gun on the shooter will result in death where there didn't need to be. It's hard to know whether these would happen more or less often than the actual school shooting massacres.

The point of some armed teachers is that most cowards who commit these horrific crimes choose a place to have a lot of easy targets.

Some do, sure. Can you provide evidence that "most" is accurate? I've seen a number of school shooting examples where there was a specific grudge (e.g. Columbine) rather than just the intention to look for easy targets.

If there is a chance that 10% of the teachers are carrying and trained for the situation, it may likely be a giant deterrent.

Yes, that's true. I don't necessarily accept the conclusion you're drawing though: if someone is really intent on killing a bunch of people (like Adam Lanza) then if we deter someone from shooting up a school, they'll just select a different target instead (like a hospital), and people will still die. So the law may not have actually saved lives (which is what we're trying to do here).

If they cannot think or act clearly in the situation, they should not be conceal and carrying. The course is quite eye opening, I suggest you take it so you can familiarize yourself with it. I personally do not carry because I am not willing to accept the responsibility that comes with that right, this was due to information I realized during the course. I never had great intention on carrying but thought it would be nice to have as a "just in case I feel like" situation.

I'm paraphrasing but you said earlier there was no budget for armed guards and that every school couldn't afford a militia. Something like that anyway. Again anyone who has taken the conceal & carry class should know when a situation needs to be escalated. Same with your hostage situation. How many times has a student been taken hostage by gunpoint with no intention of killing them? Again, these are intelligent teachers, not just schmucks off the street. Give them some credit, they are the ones teaching our kids after all.

You want me to providence evidence to help me prove a point with three other subjective words in it? Either way, Columbine is a good example. If a teacher nearby had been armed and prepared, there could have definitely been less lives lost. Unfortunately for those injured or killed, this was not the case.

[Metsfanmax]

You want me to providence evidence to help me prove a point with three other subjective words in it? Either way, Columbine is a good example. If a teacher nearby had been armed and prepared, there could have definitely been less lives lost. Unfortunately for those injured or killed, this was not the case.

The problem I have with a statement like this is that people too often ignore the unintended consequences. For example, people often make the related statement that citizens should be allowed to keep guns in their homes because it allows them to defend their property. While this is true, one study suggests that having a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide (by a family member) by nearly a factor of three (though criticism of Kellerman's work is abundant, of course. Another of his suggests that for every instance of firing a gun in self-defense, there were 22 instances of either accidental shootings, suicide attempts, or criminal assaults with the gun.). So given evidence like that, why should we be so confident that teachers having guns will actually make students coilectively safer? One should be very cautious of making statements like that, and base it only on the evidence if possible.

[patrickaa317]

You want me to providence evidence to help me prove a point with three other subjective words in it? Either way, Columbine is a good example. If a teacher nearby had been armed and prepared, there could have definitely been less lives lost. Unfortunately for those injured or killed, this was not the case.

The problem I have with a statement like this is that people too often ignore the unintended consequences. For example, people often make the related statement that citizens should be allowed to keep guns in their homes because it allows them to defend their property. While this is true, one study suggests that having a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide (by a family member) by nearly a factor of three (though criticism of Kellerman's work is abundant, of course. Another of his suggests that for every instance of firing a gun in self-defense, there were 22 instances of either accidental shootings, suicide attempts, or criminal assaults with the gun.). So given evidence like that, why should we be so confident that teachers having guns will actually make students coilectively safer? One should be very cautious of making statements like that, and base it only on the evidence if possible.

This was done over 20 years ago from three counties out of 3144 in the US. Most of the data used came from during or before Ronald Reagan's presidency. Do you have any recent studies with a sample size larger than 0.095% of the US? In other words, your limited study was written before Meatloaf's "I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" hit number one on the billboard.

Also, do you have any studies of how many unarmed people were purposely shot when not being able to defend themselves?

[Metsfanmax]

This was done over 20 years ago from three counties out of 3144 in the US. Most of the data used came from during or before Ronald Reagan's presidency. Do you have any recent studies with a sample size larger than 0.095% of the US? In other words, your limited study was written before Meatloaf's "I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" hit number one on the billboard.

Sample size is not the problem. That sample is large enough for the standard error of the mean to be fairly low (think about the fact that election polls usually only use 1000 people -- 0.0003% of the population). If anything, the problem with the sample is not the size, but whether those three counties are a fair representation of the average American population (they're probably not, so strictly speaking the best you could say is that in those three locations, a gun does not make you safer. In fact, some of the criticism of Kellerman's work centers on the fact that he chose urban locations (presumably because they're easier to collect data from).) There is more recent work done on this issue as well, though I don't think your comment is a meaningful criticism -- if it was true 30 years ago, it's not obvious why it would be different now unless crime characteristics and the way the average person uses weapons is have changed. You can look to some of Kellerman's later work if you want. There's also plenty of literature on the subject of suicide -- half of all gun deaths in America are suicides.

Also, do you have any studies of how many unarmed people were purposely shot when not being able to defend themselves?

I have not looked up something like that. The point of the above studies is that most of the time, a gun makes you less safe instead of more safe. So even though some innocent people will be killed because they cannot defend themselves, more innocent people will be killed when they try to defend themselves.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... perhaps the solution is to mandate that all people above a certain age own a gun and provide mandatory training and licensing (the alternative being imprisonment). That should solve lots of the problems associated with not knowing how to effectively operate a gun and would like also cut down on things like the Knockout Game.

[patrickaa317]

This was done over 20 years ago from three counties out of 3144 in the US. Most of the data used came from during or before Ronald Reagan's presidency. Do you have any recent studies with a sample size larger than 0.095% of the US? In other words, your limited study was written before Meatloaf's "I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" hit number one on the billboard.

Sample size is not the problem. That sample is large enough for the standard error of the mean to be fairly low (think about the fact that election polls usually only use 1000 people -- 0.0003% of the population). If anything, the problem with the sample is not the size, but whether those three counties are a fair representation of the average American population (they're probably not, so strictly speaking the best you could say is that in those three locations, a gun does not make you safer. In fact, some of the criticism of Kellerman's work centers on the fact that he chose urban locations (presumably because they're easier to collect data from).) There is more recent work done on this issue as well, though I don't think your comment is a meaningful criticism -- if it was true 30 years ago, it's not obvious why it would be different now unless crime characteristics and the way the average person uses weapons is have changed. You can look to some of Kellerman's later work if you want. There's also plenty of literature on the subject of suicide -- half of all gun deaths in America are suicides.

Also, do you have any studies of how many unarmed people were purposely shot when not being able to defend themselves?

I have not looked up something like that. The point of the above studies is that most of the time, a gun makes you less safe instead of more safe. So even though some innocent people will be killed because they cannot defend themselves, more innocent people will be killed when they try to defend themselves.

Presidential polls also use a lot of known historical data when presenting results. Anyway, that's getting off topic.

You were concerned about Utah's ability earlier to entirely represent the appropriate situations, where there have been no shootings and teachers are allowed to carry. Yet you are ok with data from three counties 30 years ago to represent your point.

Anyway, I digress. I've got some other things to take care of and we are obviously making no progress on this conversation.

[Phatscotty]

Very high, up there with food, shelter, and restrooms.

Cool. Then you can pay for it because there's no way I am.

haha, you are such a hypocrite.

It really is too bad you Progressives think that the only way to provide security is by paying them. If you used your brain or a bit of common sense, you would know there are thousands of people who already are and would continue provide security for free.

[Phatscotty]

It certainly seems that teaching is one of those professions that a lot of people think they can tell teachers how to do better without ever having stepped in front of a classroom.

What does teaching have to do with an armed guard at the school? I've always thought the best option would be to have capable teachers who are certified conceal/carry in school only if they desire. No student should know which teachers do or do not carry. But ensure they know that their ass is 100% on the line.

It has to do with what I was posting after that -- that you don't just get an armed guard for free. It costs money to increase school security, and many school districts just don't have the budgets to have the type of security they want (e.g. metal detectors in urban schools). My father is a school superintendent and I've discussed school budget issues with him at length, including this specific question after the Newtown shooting. School shootings are a tragedy but they are incredibly rare and it's just irresponsible to take away a teacher's job to hire an armed guard.

I fully expect that Phatscotty will not understand this perspective, for the same reason he'd be opposed to health care rationing. He is a poster child for the identifiable victim effect.

What about my thought on capable certified teachers being able to conceal and carry at school if they desire? That would add $0 to school budget.

It's based on a single anecdotal example of guns existing at a school without hurting anyone. Since school shootings are rare to begin with, it's not a strong argument. To justify allowing any teacher with a permit to concealed carry, you'd have to demonstrate that the benefit is greater than the harm (there would be fewer additional accidental -- or intentional -- shootings because of those guns, than shootings prevented by those guns).

Um, there is far more evidence that people who conceal n carry have saved lives in schools, and not just one time. You can be awfully full of it.

However, more to your point, what is your evidence a conceal carry permit holder has caused any harm in a school? We're gonna need to know that before we can demonstrate the harms compared to the benefits.

What are the harms?

???

[BigBallinStalin]

Very high, up there with food, shelter, and restrooms.

Cool. Then you can pay for it because there's no way I am.

haha, you are such a hypocrite.

It really is too bad you Progressives think that the only way to provide security is by paying them. If you used your brain or a bit of common sense, you would know there are thousands of people who already are and would continue provide security for free.

Security can be zeroprice, but it won't be free. You can always hire some volunteer good 'ol boy with a gun, but that's not costless. There's search costs, and there's also risk.

Not sure why you're mad at TGD for valuing security less than other goods for a school.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Here is how is where I live. Private schools don't have a police officer, but a high tech security system that runs 24/7. In the MAJOR public schools (where there are 1500+ kids) there are at least one, if not several, police officers on duty at the school.

[thegreekdog]

Very high, up there with food, shelter, and restrooms.

Cool. Then you can pay for it because there's no way I am.

haha, you are such a hypocrite.

It really is too bad you Progressives think that the only way to provide security is by paying them. If you used your brain or a bit of common sense, you would know there are thousands of people who already are and would continue provide security for free.

What in the actual f*ck are you talking about? Did you not type a few days ago that your local school districts paid (PAID!) for bullet proof glass?

Seriously dude, you're the hypocrit. You want the government to spend money (thus, by your definition of the term, you're a progressive) you just want the government to spend money on the stuff that you want (e.g. guns in schools, voter ID cards, drug testing for welfare recipients). Ironically, you're other stuff that's "up there" (food, shelter, restrooms), you don't want government to pay for.

But ignoring all that, it's kind of douche-baggy to steal my shit... from earlier in this thread:

Very high, up there with food, shelter, and restrooms.

Cool. Then you can pay for it because there's no way I am. Freaking progressive...

Where does it say in the Constitution that the governmetn can pay for guns in schools or for voter identification? Do you think the founders wanted those things to happen and if so, where is the evidence?

This is the problem with you; you pretend you're some small government conservative, but you're not. Stop it. At least be consistent like Night Strike is.

I'm looking forward to your next post where you don't address anything of substance and just cry about my "attitude" in this post.

[Phatscotty]

Very high, up there with food, shelter, and restrooms.

Cool. Then you can pay for it because there's no way I am.

haha, you are such a hypocrite.

It really is too bad you Progressives think that the only way to provide security is by paying them. If you used your brain or a bit of common sense, you would know there are thousands of people who already are and would continue provide security for free.

Security can be zeroprice, but it won't be free. You can always hire some volunteer good 'ol boy with a gun, but that's not costless. There's search costs, and there's also risk.

Not sure why you're mad at TGD for valuing security less than other goods for a school.

I'm not mad at him. He got mad at me for my ranking. I asked him where he ranked it, he answered and ask me the same question, which I answered, and he didn't like my answer, you can tell by the dirty names he calls. Yes i calls names back (I lifted my self imposed ban on calling names)

[Phatscotty]

Very high, up there with food, shelter, and restrooms.

Cool. Then you can pay for it because there's no way I am.

haha, you are such a hypocrite.

It really is too bad you Progressives think that the only way to provide security is by paying them. If you used your brain or a bit of common sense, you would know there are thousands of people who already are and would continue provide security for free.

What in the actual f*ck are you talking about? Did you not type a few days ago that your local school districts paid (PAID!) for bullet proof glass?

Seriously dude, you're the hypocrit. You want the government to spend money (thus, by your definition of the term, you're a progressive) you just want the government to spend money on the stuff that you want (e.g. guns in schools, voter ID cards, drug testing for welfare recipients). Ironically, you're other stuff that's "up there" (food, shelter, restrooms), you don't want government to pay for.

But ignoring all that, it's kind of douche-baggy to steal my shit... from earlier in this thread:

Very high, up there with food, shelter, and restrooms.

Cool. Then you can pay for it because there's no way I am. Freaking progressive...

Where does it say in the Constitution that the governmetn can pay for guns in schools or for voter identification? Do you think the founders wanted those things to happen and if so, where is the evidence?

This is the problem with you; you pretend you're some small government conservative, but you're not. Stop it. At least be consistent like Night Strike is.

I'm looking forward to your next post where you don't address anything of substance and just cry about my "attitude" in this post.

Hate to break it to you, but security is the primary function of government. LOL everything every dollar is spent on must be written in the Constitution? \

I am a small government Conservative. You are just pulling a Woodruff pretending that anything I agree money should be spent on makes me a Progressive, which I would expect from Woodruff, and now I guess should expect from you. You are trying to corner me into being an Anarchist, or the small government conservatives are not able to ever find a single thing the government should spend money on. Would you say the same thing if the USA was attacked, and I suddenly supported increased spending on the military?? (probably)

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

[thegreekdog]

security is the primary function of government

Not domestic security.

everything every dollar is spent on must be written in the Constitution?

That seems to be your primary argument when you don't agree with how Congress spends money. It is apparent to me that it is no longer your primary argument when the money is being spent on something you agree with (like voter identification cards or this particular bullet-proof glass issue).

You are just pulling a Woodruff pretending that anything I agree money should be spent on makes me a Progressive, which I would expect from Woodruff, and now I guess should expect from you.

I'm looking forward to your next post where you don't address anything of substance and just cry about my "attitude" in this post.

Prophetic. By the way, you doing that convinces me that you are wrong and you know you're wrong. It's a bad tell for you, so you should stop doing that.

You are trying to corner me into being an Anarchist, or the small government conservatives are not able to ever find a single thing the government should spend money on.

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to do is get you to be consistent in your arguments. You aren't and it annoys me. You cannot, on the one hand, argue that the Affordable Care Act is an unconstitutional breach or that a federal gay marriage act is unconstitutional while at the same time arguing that voter identification or public school security is not. I don't really care about this particular issue because I just think it's dumb (see below), but it is problematic how inconsistent you are, especially given how much you participate in these sorts of threads.

Would you say the same thing if the USA was attacked, and I suddenly supported increased spending on the military?? (probably)

No.

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

Do you know how many children in schools are attacked by gunmen in a year?
Do you know how many people are killed by handguns in a year?

This issue is blown completely out of proportion. On the one hand, we have Congressional liberals trying to ban guns that are already banned or that weren't actually used in any of these kinds of crimes. On the other hand, we have the NRA (and you) calling for armed guards and bullet proof glass in schools. Why? Because these people have vested interests in their particular issues and are able to convince the easily manipulated that these are the best things to solve this virtually non-existant problem.

[thegreekdog]

By the way PS, you do have one "out" here. Let's see if you can get it.

[Evil Semp]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24718 ... igh-school

A student carried a shotgun into Arapahoe High School, asked where to find a specific teacher

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

I would disagree with this comment. Like this recent shooting I believe many of the shootings are not because the schools are gun free zones.

Now a question about the bullet proof glass that you are in support of scotty. I the glass intended to keep snipers from shooting up the schools or to keep the stray bullets inside the buildings from getting out?