Gun Free Zones

[Evil Semp]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

Oddly, the only thing that could have stood up to the Sandy Hook shooter is the thread policy followed all the way through, which would be to have an armed officer on campus who most certainly would be able to confront the shooter 2-3-4-5-6 minutes faster than the first 'outside' armed officer.

If you are against having an armed officer on campus to prevent the shooting in a school, then what is the point of calling an armed officer from outside the school? Why do you want a good gun to show up only after a certain amount of murder has been committed?

Let's try this, does anyone disagree that in the case of a school shooting, and armed officer should get to the shooting location as quick as possible? And that those minutes between the first shot from the shooter and the first appearance of an armed officer are crucial?

I'm not against having an armed police officer on a school campus. Has anyone in this thread said it's a bad idea?

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say 'police' officers in school specifically. Although I am quite sure a high % of any kind of armed guard/officer would be off-duty or ex police.

However, if you glance at the poll, you will see most people are against having an armed 'professional' on campus...

Scotty you are great at twisting words so why not make it clear in your poll armed police officer.

[Phatscotty]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

Oddly, the only thing that could have stood up to the Sandy Hook shooter is the thread policy followed all the way through, which would be to have an armed officer on campus who most certainly would be able to confront the shooter 2-3-4-5-6 minutes faster than the first 'outside' armed officer.

If you are against having an armed officer on campus to prevent the shooting in a school, then what is the point of calling an armed officer from outside the school? Why do you want a good gun to show up only after a certain amount of murder has been committed?

Let's try this, does anyone disagree that in the case of a school shooting, and armed officer should get to the shooting location as quick as possible? And that those minutes between the first shot from the shooter and the first appearance of an armed officer are crucial?

I'm not against having an armed police officer on a school campus. Has anyone in this thread said it's a bad idea?

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say 'police' officers in school specifically. Although I am quite sure a high % of any kind of armed guard/officer would be off-duty or ex police.

However, if you glance at the poll, you will see most people are against having an armed 'professional' on campus...

Scotty you are great at twisting words so why not make it clear in your poll armed police officer.

The poll has been the same since day 1. It's already been clear. I'm not twisting anything. You are trying to cover Mets twisting.

As you very well know, in this thread we have been talking about teachers, principles, guards, officers, someone even brought up a custodian....ANYONE who is a professional meaning they have gotten the proper training and qualify for the job. Nowhere has anyone said or implied only a police officer is able to do the job, certainly I never have. Mets probably believes that, I would bet you do too. And that's why you are unable to see Mets twisting. Pay attention to his and Lootifer's responses to me, they do it a lot.

[Evil Semp]

The poll has been the same since day 1. It's already been clear. I'm not twisting anything. You are trying to cover Mets twisting.

As you very well know, in this thread we have been talking about teachers, principles, guards, officers, someone even brought up a custodian....ANYONE who is a professional meaning they have gotten the proper training and qualify for the job. Nowhere has anyone said or implied only a police officer is able to do the job, certainly I never have. Mets probably believes that, I would bet you do too. And that's why you are unable to see Mets twisting. Pay attention to his and Lootifer's responses to me, they do it a lot.

I voted no in your poll because I don't consider a teacher, principle, or guard to be professional when it comes to carrying a weapon. A police officer yes but a teacher with a conceal carry permit NO.

[Phatscotty]

The poll has been the same since day 1. It's already been clear. I'm not twisting anything. You are trying to cover Mets twisting.

As you very well know, in this thread we have been talking about teachers, principles, guards, officers, someone even brought up a custodian....ANYONE who is a professional meaning they have gotten the proper training and qualify for the job. Nowhere has anyone said or implied only a police officer is able to do the job, certainly I never have. Mets probably believes that, I would bet you do too. And that's why you are unable to see Mets twisting. Pay attention to his and Lootifer's responses to me, they do it a lot.

I voted no in your poll because I don't consider a teacher, principle, or guard to be professional when it comes to carrying a weapon. A police officer yes but a teacher with a conceal carry permit NO.

Wait, why do you think that a conceal carry permit is enough qualification or training to guard an entire school? Has someone said that, or is that what you really think??

[Evil Semp]

The poll has been the same since day 1. It's already been clear. I'm not twisting anything. You are trying to cover Mets twisting.

As you very well know, in this thread we have been talking about teachers, principles, guards, officers, someone even brought up a custodian....ANYONE who is a professional meaning they have gotten the proper training and qualify for the job. Nowhere has anyone said or implied only a police officer is able to do the job, certainly I never have. Mets probably believes that, I would bet you do too. And that's why you are unable to see Mets twisting. Pay attention to his and Lootifer's responses to me, they do it a lot.

I voted no in your poll because I don't consider a teacher, principle, or guard to be professional when it comes to carrying a weapon. A police officer yes but a teacher with a conceal carry permit NO.

Wait, why do you think that a conceal carry permit is enough qualification or training to guard an entire school? Has someone said that, or is that what you really think??

That is my point about twisting words scotty.

[mrswdk]

So you admit that the point of your post is to twist Phatscotty's words?

[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.

Statistically, not many students, way below 1%. Statistically, not many people but more than students, while still far below 1%.

The issue is blown out of hand, as districts are using the issue to spend billions of dollars turning schools into fortified prisons.

An armed officer of some sort, on the other hand, is a common sense response, and the cheapest too. I do not seek to force this down anyone's throat, I only seek to persuade(unlike million dollar security renovations). I can't force everyone else to pay for any of it, which is why I'm not addressing any of your gaming posts. Your points just aren't accurate and playing those games takes you out of your element and only fudges the conversation.

I think the answer to the first question is something like 10 or 15 a year if that. The answer to the second question is way more than that.

And no, I'm not willing to spend a significant amount of tax dollars to fund armed guards in every US public school to protect potentially 10 to 15 deaths in a given year.

.....10-15% of people are killed by handguns every year??? You might want to double check that one

and that's perfectly okay. I'm not going to get mad at you, call you dirty names, or blame you for students dying, or carry this issue into some other issue.

But I will continue to firmly believe that in it's simplest form even a sign posted that says an armed officer is on campus, even if there really isn't one, will prevent some school shootings. Not to mention it's a fact that this most recent guy with 150 bullets was only able to get off a single shot (besides the one he fired on himself) because he was immediately confronted by an armed professional who was on campus. You don't have to agree that's worth spending money on, but you cannot disagree that it worked just as described here so many times before.

It's common sense

Not percent. And not handguns. Here are the actual statistics:

Mass shootings (i.e. school shootings) have represented 1% of all gun deaths in the United States between 1980 and 2008 (28 years).
In 2005, there were 10,100 gun homicides, 75% of which were committed by a hand gun.

If we extrapolate these (which I really shouldn't do) and assume that 10,100 people are killed by guns each year, then in a 28 year period 282,800 people have been killed by guns. Of these, 212,100 have been killed by hand guns compared to 2,828 killed in mass shootings, not all of which occurred in schools.

I may agree with you that an armed guard would prevent a school shooting, but it's not worth it to me when 1% of all gun deaths in a 28 year period were mass shootings (not all of which were school shootings). I would prefer to spend time and expense on something else.

[thegreekdog]

Like I said, millions (if not billions) are being spent right now on bulletproof windows and metal detectors and gun registries and gun buy back programs. And these expenses do not directly confront the problem either. I understand a lot of disagreement is because Phatscotty says it, but the billions ARE being spent right now all across the country turning our schools into prisons. Just don't spend too much energy arguing against cost of something that works but is barely being attempted and not enough energy arguing against cost of something that does not really work and is being attempted in reality.

I have no beef with anyone who wants to spend their own money to feel more secure. I do have a beef with school districts and states and the federal government taking my tax money and spending it on bullet proof glass and armed security for public schools when those are reponses that are completely out of proportion with the actual threat. Like I said earlier (in this thread or another one maybe), there was an accident on a highway the other day. An inappropriate response might be to outlaw cars. Another inappropriate response might be for the government to take tax dollars and outfit all vehicles with rubber to make them impervious. We don't do that sort of thing, but we flip the f*ck out over this issue. I blame the media.

[notyou2]

What if they banned metal?

That would solve bullet problem and car problem.

[2dimes]

What if they banned metal?

[PLAYER57832]

Like I said, millions (if not billions) are being spent right now on bulletproof windows and metal detectors and gun registries and gun buy back programs. And these expenses do not directly confront the problem either. I understand a lot of disagreement is because Phatscotty says it, but the billions ARE being spent right now all across the country turning our schools into prisons. Just don't spend too much energy arguing against cost of something that works but is barely being attempted and not enough energy arguing against cost of something that does not really work and is being attempted in reality.

I have no beef with anyone who wants to spend their own money to feel more secure. I do have a beef with school districts and states and the federal government taking my tax money and spending it on bullet proof glass and armed security for public schools when those are reponses that are completely out of proportion with the actual threat. Like I said earlier (in this thread or another one maybe), there was an accident on a highway the other day. An inappropriate response might be to outlaw cars. Another inappropriate response might be for the government to take tax dollars and outfit all vehicles with rubber to make them impervious. We don't do that sort of thing, but we flip the f*ck out over this issue. I blame the media.

The media makes money off of sensationalizing everything, but they are followers. If they put forward too many ideas people disagree with today, folks will just turn elsewhere.

The ORIGINATORS of this problem are the NRA and the many who see tragedy and immediately want to launch into very personal attacks on guns. There is a whole mindset that blames guns for violance in ways they would never blame anything else.

I would contrast it, not with banning cars, but the issue of drunk driving and historical prohibition. Prohibition was an unreasonable response to a real problem.

Further, the irony here is that guns are on the verge of becoming anacronisms for protection. (not in general, but as a means of personal protection)

[Phatscotty]

Let's keep things in perspective

[Metsfanmax]

Let's keep things in perspective

[PLAYER57832]

Let's keep things in perspective

Actually, neither are as dangerous as many would like to pretend, nor as safe as others with to assert.


Each of these has potential to cause serious harm. How do we keep that harm from happening? First, by not pretending as if there is any either/or here. We need responsible gun use,responsible vehicle use and responsible drug use. And, we ALL need to work together, (or seperately, but with the uniform goal) to the extent we can, to fix these things.

[mrswdk]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

My point was more that the killers are already fairly committed to their murdering by the time they arrive at the school. It isn't like these guys are just walking past a school with a bunch of guns and run in on the spur of the moment - they plan in advance. An armed guard just means they have to take something else into consideration during their planning.

You also have to consider whether you really want your kids to walk past 'NOTICE: ARMED GUARD INSIDE' signs every day on their way into school. Not the best atmosphere.

[isaiah40]

We should also ban insecticide's that can be used as flame throwers and bombs in school zones as well. The worst school massacre in US history was in on May 18 1927 , when former school board member Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58. Kehoe killed himself and the superintendent by blowing up his own vehicle.

The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting comprising two separate attacks about two hours apart on April 16, 2007, on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many more, before committing suicide, making it the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.

August 1, 1966 : University of Texas Clock Tower Shootings. After killing his wife and mother, Charles Whitman pointed a rifle from the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin’s Tower and began shooting in a homicidal rampage that went on for 96 minutes. He killed fifteen people and wounded 31 others before being shot dead by police. David Gunby was wounded in the shooting but died 35 years later after ceasing dialysis.

April 20, 1999 : Two students stormed Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado and murdered 12 other students aged 14 to 18 as well as a teacher. A further 24 people were injured before the attackers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed themselves.

These are the worst school massacres in the US. So allowing guns on school grounds may have prevented many of the deaths.

[Metsfanmax]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

You also have to consider whether you really want your kids to walk past 'NOTICE: ARMED GUARD INSIDE' signs every day on their way into school. Not the best atmosphere.

I would not, for the same reason I'd be completely opposed to allowing open carry in schools.

[PLAYER57832]

The answer was eluded to earlier, but I have not seen anyone outright say it.

The fact is that most schools are very safe places. The exceptions are where the community at large is just not safe. Even then, the school is often safer than the neighborhoods. after all, most violance really doesn't just spring from nowhere. The biggest dangers for most schools are gangs and drugs. Where those things are a problem, having armed police officers or similarly trained gaurds (better, more specially trained, if possible) are warranted.

However, the danger to most students doesn't warrent the expense of a gaurd, particularly if you bring up issues like Sandy Hook, etc. There comes a point when, well -- a meteor might well hit our schools, but I think we are better spending money on fire safety than meteor-proof roofs. As tragic as these few incidents are, they are almost impossible to predict and prevent. Meteors are much more predictable.

Gaurds can cause a lot more trouble than they solve particularly today when the idea of a cloased record at 18 is no longer always true ... and many high school students are 18 or older,though not necessarily really as mature as those who have graduated.

That said, the issue in the title was should schools be "gun free" zones? Then the question is why the guns? If you are talking competition trap leagues, target shooting (doubt it,but anyway), then I would say GREAT! In fact, I would like to see more,for many reasons. If you are talking basic "safety",then we get back to the basic issue,are guns really and effective means of self defense, defense of others. The answer there is "ONLY if you are a highly trained individual AND even then, only is some circumstances".

Looking at why violance happens in schools, the fact that its mostly gangs and drugs, then the idea that guns in most schools would make them safer is ridiculous.

The answer to stemming incidents like those in Colorado and Sandy Hook come well outside the schools and (or) well beforehand.

My personal feeling is that not allowing boys,in particular to be in ANY way aggressive, not allowing them to, well, be boys (but within limits) along with the intense pressue to meet specific outside "criteria" are a big part of the origination of the problem. Kids need a variety of physical outlets and too many schools don't provide that any more. No mamby-pamby psychologist will combat that lack. And, yes, the kinds of psychologists most schools are able to hire are pertty "mamby-pamby' They would do far better in putting that money to a good gym program. (OK,maybe not really, but....)

[mrswdk]

You should start adding executive summaries to some of these posts.

[PLAYER57832]

You should start adding executive summaries to some of these posts.

Well, if people cannot read more than 3 paragraphs even in a debate, then humanities' ability to think in the future really IS doomed. No gun will fix that!

[40kguy]

If my teachers had guns, one of them will probably shoot me

[mrswdk]

You should start adding executive summaries to some of these posts.

Well, if people cannot read more than 3 paragraphs even in a debate, then humanities' ability to think in the future really IS doomed. No gun will fix that!

I have end of semester papers to write and this is an internet debate about gun control in the US. Would it kill you to be concise?

[thegreekdog]

Like I said, millions (if not billions) are being spent right now on bulletproof windows and metal detectors and gun registries and gun buy back programs. And these expenses do not directly confront the problem either. I understand a lot of disagreement is because Phatscotty says it, but the billions ARE being spent right now all across the country turning our schools into prisons. Just don't spend too much energy arguing against cost of something that works but is barely being attempted and not enough energy arguing against cost of something that does not really work and is being attempted in reality.

I have no beef with anyone who wants to spend their own money to feel more secure. I do have a beef with school districts and states and the federal government taking my tax money and spending it on bullet proof glass and armed security for public schools when those are reponses that are completely out of proportion with the actual threat. Like I said earlier (in this thread or another one maybe), there was an accident on a highway the other day. An inappropriate response might be to outlaw cars. Another inappropriate response might be for the government to take tax dollars and outfit all vehicles with rubber to make them impervious. We don't do that sort of thing, but we flip the f*ck out over this issue. I blame the media.

The media makes money off of sensationalizing everything, but they are followers. If they put forward too many ideas people disagree with today, folks will just turn elsewhere.

The ORIGINATORS of this problem are the NRA and the many who see tragedy and immediately want to launch into very personal attacks on guns. There is a whole mindset that blames guns for violance in ways they would never blame anything else.

I would contrast it, not with banning cars, but the issue of drunk driving and historical prohibition. Prohibition was an unreasonable response to a real problem.

Further, the irony here is that guns are on the verge of becoming anacronisms for protection. (not in general, but as a means of personal protection)

I agree with this up until prohibition and drunk driving.

[Phatscotty]

This issue hits home for me, as the University of Minnesota campus is ripe pickins lately for a gang or rapes and robberies and disappearances. But it's a gun-free zone. Clearly, it's not making anyone safer, and as I have always argued, it makes students less safe. And Greek, homicides are not the only crime committed on school grounds that students could protect themselves from.

Question: Is there anyone out there who truly believes a gun ban on college campuses in this nation would stop a mentally unstable student who wants to kill people from walking on to the campus with a gun and carrying out his mission?
Why is it so difficult for gun control advocates to understand that criminals and crazies DO NO ABIDE BY THE RULES?
Weapons bans ONLY affect law abiding people and leave them defenseless.
Studies have shown that the presence of concealed weapons lowers the risk of violent crime

Statistically, a rape occurs every 21 hours on college campuses throughout the United States.

Students can carry at the University of Utah where reported sexual assault is 58 percent less than the national average.
According to research, out of 4,000-plus colleges and universities in America, only 25 allow concealed handguns on campus.
Only six states allow licensed students to carry concealed while on school grounds.

The latest ill conceived anti gun effort in Colorado is being promoted by a group called Safe Campus Colorado. The group says it is seeking to put an initiative on the November 2014 ballot banning concealed carry on-campus much like a law that already restricts concealed carry at K-12 schools in the state.

Safe Campus Colorado apparently prefers students to be defenseless targets for robbers and rapists.
This push is being met head on by pro gun students who do not want to be stripped of their rights to defend their lives with a firearm.

“I want the opportunity to fight back,” said Katherine Whitney, a third year law student at CU Boulder who carries a concealed handgun and opposes the proposed ballot initiative. “We don’t carry because we expect anything to happen. It’s just that, if something does happen, we want to be prepared.”

Whitney has never been a victim of violence, but she has a close friend who was raped on a college campus in Nevada where concealed weapons are banned.

“Amanda was raped at gunpoint by someone who illegally possessed a firearm on a college campus,” she said. “The gun ban did not keep him away. The man came up, pressed a pistol to her head and proceeded to brutally rape her. (He) didn’t care about the campus gun ban.”

A bit of history on the Colorado Guns on Campus debate: Since 2003, Colorado was one of the states that allowed students with permits to conceal carry on campus.
In March 2012, the Colorado Supreme Court found the University of Colorado had been in violation of the state’s 2003 Concealed Carry Act.
Students at the University of Colorado did not even get to enjoy their freedom for an entire year.
The Colorado House then passed a bill that would ban weapons from state college campuses. In defense of the bill, Representative Joe Salizar said, “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles.”

Of course,…. we know how effective those call for help boxes are on college campuses. A female being attacked is expected to be able to reach one of these phones and call for help when someone twice her size is on her with a knife?
What is one to do when these call boxes are out of order…??

Safe zones didn’t help Amanda Collins. Amanda was a student at the University of Nevada in Reno in 2007 when she was raped. A concealed carry permit holder, Amanda wasn’t carrying that night. The University of Nevada at Reno is a safe zone. Guns aren’t allowed on campus. Knowing that she could lose her permit, get expelled from school and even face jail time, Amanda followed her school rules and left her gun at home. In an interview with the NRA’s Cam Edwards, Amanda said that safe zones “ensure the perpetrator that they’re going to be unmatched when they pick a victim.”
A gun that night would have saved Amanda from being the victim of a brutal attack. The National Crime Survey—from 1979 to 1985—found victims that physically resisted an attempted rape with a weapon were far less likely to be raped. In fact, when women resisted an attempted rape with a gun, only 0.1 percent of victims report the rape being completed. The 2000 Journal of Criminal Justice report found women were four times more likely to escape an attempted rape uninjured when they used a gun in self-defense.

As for the case for guns on campus, the Students for Concealed Carry found that since Colorado Springs University allowed students to conceal carry there was a 90 percent drop in sexual assaults on campus.

There are over 207,000 sexual assault victims each year and 1 in 5 women attending college will be raped while in school. Colleges attempt to keep their students safe by suggesting ways to prevent rape. But, the steps you often read essentially tell young women they have no choice, penalize them for being independent, and make them believe they are at fault.

Safe Campus Colorado is helmed by an anti-liberty Democrat named Ken Toltz
Toltz has two college-age daughters.
Apparently he prefers them to use the options of peeing or vomiting on attackers rather than carrying a gun.
I would be willing to bet that if either of his girls was a victim of violent crime, he would probably change his position..
Why is it some people can’t see the forest for the trees?

Read more at http://janmorganmedia.com/2014/01/color ... lBeuYPc.99