WE: After school shooting in Connecticut, Piers Morgan blasts America’s ‘gun madness’

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm fine with armed security. But there is no need for teachers to have guns in school. That's a horrible idea.

I agree...unless we tighten up the screening process, putting more guns in these environments just increases the odds of arming the individual who is going to crack and conduct a massacre. The problem right now isn't that we don't have more people armed to minimize the damage of these events. It's the fact that these events take place and our current process has no way of knowing who is likely to carry them out.

[Corcaigh]

Here's the problem with this though. It's not about whether or not you want them to grow up in that world, it's the reality of the world we are already living in. We are living in "that world." The evidence is all around us. There are a lot of good people that live in this world, much more so than the bad, but the bad ARE here. The nuts ARE here. The evil-doers ARE here, and they are not going away. I'm not happy about it, pardon the pun, but "don't shoot the messenger." I'm not saying the teacher's themselves carrying the guns is necessarily the answer either, but what is wrong with seriously entertaining the idea of ramping up and in some cases adding for the first time armed security personnel in all American public schools. We have it at courthouses and other government buildings. We have it at our airports and train stations. Name me one other public institituion in this country where security is as practically non-existant as it is with our schools? We wouldn't allow somebody to march right into our court rooms and open fire would we? There are safe guards. Are the kids not as important? We all know the answer to that.

Armed security in public schools is a much more realistic and attainable solution than any other I have heard.

We don't have armed security at libraries, bus stations, swimming pools or many other places people gather either. Recent shootings have taken place at malls and places of worship too. Must they all have armed security? We have it at courthouses because those places are an obvious focus for violent criminals.

If militarization of all aspects of civilian society is your answer I think you are looking in the wrong place.

[Duckus]

Anyone advocating for arming teachers is an idiot. Sorry, but it is just such a terrible and impractical solution with so many problems that it is not a legitimate topic to even consider.

[Painkiller]

We don't have armed security at libraries, bus stations, swimming pools or many other places people gather either. Recent shootings have taken place at malls and places of worship too. Must they all have armed security? We have it at courthouses because those places are an obvious focus for violent criminals.

If militarization of all aspects of civilian society is your answer I think you are looking in the wrong place.

Predominantly these things are happening in schools, but fair enough. I just think that anyone who has the goal of erradication of guns is just not living in the reality. And how do you define militarization? Armed security personnel manning doors is "militarization?" What do you think it would take to disarm the population? Harsh language? Pretty please with sugar on top...turn in your 'assault' rifle?

There are millions of guns already out here. Millions of high capcity magazines. Millions of multiple gun households. Placing tougher restrictions on certain types of guns now is topical. It's not going to get rid of what is already here, it's not a real solution. As I said earlier, the cat is already out of the bag. It's like trying to uninvent the atom bomb.

Edit: and to answer your original statement. I said "public insititution" Millions of children attend public school. Thousands of those schools have thousands of students. There are maybe 50 to 100 in any library in the country at a given time. Malls have thousands depending on the time of day and year...but most malls have armed security.

[sacase]

I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of people who do not know how to use them or are mentally unfit.

I grew up in a small town in Kansas, I have been around guns my whole life. From 16 to 18 I used to keep my shotgun in a friends car so he could pick me up after football practice and we could do a little dove hunting. I think back and realize that if that had happened now, we both would have been suspended or in jail for having our shotguns on school grounds. Back then no one cared. I stopped hunting when I was 18 and I don't have any real interest in it anymore, however I always had a love for firearms. Not because they could kill, but to me they were works of art. It was fun to take one out to the country and see how well we could shoot. See which guns were better at shooting at different ranges, etc. Almost like driving that new sports car, let's open it up and see what it can do.

When I joined the Army I was given an additional duty of unit Armorer. I learned how to perform second level maintenence on pretty much every man portable weapon the army had. Once again, it was fun learning about the different ways the weapons were engeineered and operated. So as you can see I have no fear of guns. I am entirely comfortable around them and with them, it is people that are the problems. Most gun owners I know are responsible people, they have a love of the firearm, just like other have love for cars. They respect it and take safety seriously. I keep a loaded .45 next to my bed. When I have been in serious relationships I have taught my significant other how to take it apart, clean it, and shoot it. I don't want someone around a firearm that has no clue of how to operate it safely.

However, like many have said, it is easy to get a firearm. I actually like it being easy. When I was in VA I could fill out a form, and in a couple hours get approval to take my gun home. In california, I have to jump through hoops to get one, I guess it is meant to prevent people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights. One thing I think that needs to be done with reguards to firearm sales is that the person demonstrates a basic level of knowledge and safety about the firearm they are purchasing. Take it apart in the store, put it back together, know how to charge the weapon and unload it, know where the safety is, and most of all know your living situation so you can keep your weapon out of the hands of those who are not qualified to handle it. The CT shooting may have been avoidable if the mother practiced good firearm safety. If she would have had her weapons in a safe which her son did not have access to this tragedy may have been avoided. One thing that stands out to me in all these mass killings is not the fact that a gun was used, it was that these people all had severe mental problems. We need to look at ways to keep firearms out of their hands and to teach better firearm safety and security.

When people like Joe Lauria (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-la...f=barack-obama) are quick to talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights so easily you have to wonder what else can be repealed because "things have changed" or because the notion is a "relic". A vast Majority of American who excercise their 2nd amendment rights have no intent to harm the fellow citizen. They are gun enthusiasts or keep them for home or personal protection. Banning guns only targets these law abiding American's, it does nothing for the criminal element. If we cannot keep illegal aliens or illegal drugs out of our country, why do we think that we can keep illegal guns out, especially when we have so many already? We would simply create a black market for guns and ammo, similar to prohibition. How did that work out for us?

Its time to address the mental health problems that many of our citizens have that go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed and help ensure that they do not have the ablity to inflict harm on their fellow citizens. That is the real problem.

[DjTj]

Armed security in public schools is a much more realistic and attainable solution than any other I have heard.

Who is going to pay for it? I think I would invest my tax dollars in better mental health support services before I would hire a security guard for every single elementary school in the country. A security guard may have been able to prevent this incident (or he may have just been the first person killed at the school, since the killer apparently was wearing a bulletproof vest and shot through a glass door to get into the school), but 99.9% of security guards are just going to be sitting on their butts all day at elementary schools. High schools and maybe middle schools have security issues on a reasonably regular basis, but elementary school security guard just seems like it would be one of the most boring jobs in the world. And someone who is used to sitting around all day doing nothing might not even be that prepared for the one day when they have to take action.

A factor of five reduction in murder rate isn't so bad.

I would definitely a trade a large increase in knife crime for an 80% reduction in the total number of murders.

Restricting (or banning) guns isn't an attempt to end all violent crime. It's just an attempt to reduce it, and to limit its damage (in the case of banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines).

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Anyone advocating for arming teachers is an idiot. Sorry, but it is just such a terrible and impractical solution with so many problems that it is not a legitimate topic to even consider.

This was my point above, but you were certainly more direct.

What's that? You have an issue with random massacres? Well here, let's permit more people to carry guns into these situations without any concept of how to screen who is a potential nutjob.

[Corcaigh]

Anyone advocating for arming teachers is a complete nut job.

Yes - it would be completely nuts to stop half way. Arm the librarians, the pastors, the lifeguards, the school crossing guards and bus drivers too. Until everyone is packing heat, there will be soft targets.

[Jumbo]

Sure - some people will turn to another weapon, but it will limit their effectiveness. I don't think anyone is claiming that restricting legal access to certain weapons will result in school massacres being replaced with global peace and unicorns farting rainbows.

Of course, I sure didn't. I went to length to make that clear (not that it matters in here with certain types of posters) and outline what the contentions really were. sacase's post was a questionable response IMO. The article, while no "big deal", wasn't dumb.

---------- Post added December-17th-2012 at 01:08 PM ----------

IIts time to address the mental health problems that many of our citizens have that go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed and help ensure that they do not have the ablity to inflict harm on their fellow citizens. That is the real problem.

I have long been aware of your background, which you've shared before, and respect it, and this is another one of the main (and more important) areas I outlined in my list of admittedly-unsatisfying ideas to better these matters.

[Corcaigh]

What do you think it would take to disarm the population?

I'm not arguing for that. It doesn't have to be total elimination to reduce likelihood of massacres. Every dangerous gun off the streets reduces risk a little.

But it's more than just restrictions on certain weapons. Better policies on mental health is essential too.

[CTskins]

I think you misunderstood my question. BASED on what you believe (gun ownership is a priviledge) do you think it needs to be re-written? Furthermore, I agreed with you - just curious as to how to proceed in your view.

I'm not here to pick fights. I'll escort myself out of this thread if it persists.

I apologize. I read a certain amount of condescension into your post, which probably was not intended…

My first feeling is yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment, as written, is outdated. In the age of muskets and muzzle loaded pistols, the framers of the Bill of Rights most likely did not foresee a repeating arm, let alone one which can empty a 30 round magazine in a matter of seconds. The bayonet probably did more damage in times of war and defense than a musket ball at 100 feet back then...

The irony is that we probably needed automatic weapons more back then and less so as time went on, but that apparently is not how progress works (more irony?)…Much of the nation was wilderness in their day, and without the technology to quickly deploy regular army, arms were absolutely necessary to bridge the gap until regular army arrived, sustain life via hunting, and defending the homestead (current laws and relative civility of today renders these somewhat moot, in my opinion). What this also means is that children grew up and were raised with the firearm back in the day and presumably taught proper practical safety and learned to respect its power akin to, say, an automobile of today (to wit, driving is a privilege, not a right.)

However I recognize that it is not nearly as simple as that and your point is a valid one…Who would update the intended meaning of a 221 year old amendment for modern application? My feeling is that the SCOTUS already screwed it up. It can’t be up to the POTUS, at least unilaterally. Can you add clarification to an amendment so seemingly simple, short, and sweet so that that the lawyers, most of Congress, won’t have a field day? Doubtful. Interpretation of the law has been skewed by so many since 1791 that one thing is for sure: It will not be an instant fix. What is your feeling?

[DjTj]

Banning guns only targets these law abiding American's, it does nothing for the criminal element. If we cannot keep illegal aliens or illegal drugs out of our country, why do we think that we can keep illegal guns out, especially when we have so many already? We would simply create a black market for guns and ammo, similar to prohibition. How did that work out for us?

Banning guns is clearly not feasible in the United States, but I don't think we're going to see any real legislation aiming to ban guns completely. We will see legislation restricting the purchase of guns, instituting mandatory waiting periods, implementing stronger background checks, and banning certain types of guns and/or magazines. I think those are reasonable steps to take. Some additional regulation can help, and if all it does is take a little bit of fun out of your life and the lives of other gun enthusiasts, I think that's a reasonable price to pay. We all have to give up something for public safety.

I also think it's interesting that a lot of your experience with guns comes from the military. In other "first world' countries with liberal gun laws, like Switzerland and Israel, they also have mandatory military service. So while there are many gun owners, they have all received some military training. There is a bit of a disconnect in America where people are free to buy guns with no real training. Perhaps if we are going to live in a country with an armed citizenry that can rise up and fight against the criminals, we should all go through some real training. Maybe we could form a well-regulated militia.

This was my point above, but you were certainly more direct.

What's that? You have an issue with random massacres? Well here, let's permit more people to carry guns into these situations without any concept of how to screen who is a potential nutjob.

We already know that many teachers have problems with self control. I'm not about to give them all guns.

[autoidiodyssey]

One of the "talking points" of any side in the matter that I actually appreciated being reminded of---given all the "armed responsible citizens can be a deterrent or "limiter" to these events" type of talk---is how there are outstandingly few examples, out of reams and reams of violent incidents, where an "armed citizen" even apparently provided any deterrent or limited any damage.

So in a smarter world we could at least bury that piece of blather.

It appears that someone with a concealed carry permit may have deterred the shooter in the recent Oregon mall shooting. Here is the link to the local Portland TV web story. There is also video of the news report with an interview.

The CCP holder drew his weapon while the shooter was trying to clear a jam. As he was preparing to shoot he caught a glimpse of someone running behind the shooter so he didn't fire. He was afraid a miss might hit the person behind the shooter. The shooter saw him and the CCP holder took cover in a nearby store. The shooter cleared the jam and shot himself.

[Jumbo]

Nice post, CT. You and DaGoonies are inspirations for me and for this thread lol

[Thiebear]

If there are teachers or administration personnel that are Ex-Police officer and trained.
would it be horrible to have them stay certified and allowed to store a regulated weapon in a near-safe location?
(this obviously doesn't cover every school, but it hardens those that can be with a simple rule of it only comes out for quarterly training and if rounds are already being fired in the school.)

we aren't going from 300 million guns to zero anytime soon.
and we arn't removing the villians names from being uttered or seen, so others will follow.