Skip to main content

View Diary: Arming teachers? First, don't shoot self or others in training. (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  semantics (3+ / 0-)

    not into "schools" either

    First, don't over react to any one tragedy to stampede in new programs, rules, etc., about arming every school without recognizing the risks, the real training requirements, etc.  Cops miss who they are shooting at on a very high level given their training.   Relatively untrained people, much more so.  Troop with high powered automatic and semiautomatic weapons have better 'kill rates', but how heavy do we mean to make their arms, how much do we expect  them to shoot and keep shooting, are they as good with small arms fire, will anybody even ask these questions.

    Given what we know about how people ignore issues with returning veterans, how people ignore mental health issues, deny PTSD, won't accept treatment for various reasons,  how do you develop that program in a couple of months.

    More passive means of protection with diligence to make sure they work for a kid smuggling a gun in.

    For the person with the firepower to shoot their way in?  Long term solutions,  you want to start at schools, emphasize anti-bullying programs, do more mental health screening for kids who are having trouble,  train the counselors, have a real professional in the system and the money to make sure kids who are at an age for onset of serious mental illness issues can be spotted and treated.  Stop the angry loner type before he or she gets quite so far.  The warning signs are there, there just doesn't seem to be a response.

    Limit semi-automatic weapons by not only decreasing legal magazine sizes,  go to all weapons transfer background checks, actually fund the programs and put some effort into enforcement, fund the CDC studies that will give us real data to work from.

    For years the school killings have been an issue, for years we get all outraged and make some minor tweaks, but the underlying problems don't get addressed.  Now people, without facts, with no effort to inform themselves and think through options are throwing more guns into the situation.  Hair of the dog doesn't actually cure a hangover, it just covers up the symptoms.  At some point one sobers up and faces the consequences. or one becomes an addict.

    •  My goodness. What an indictment list (0+ / 0-)

      you offer.  

      I like this, a lot:

      For the person with the firepower to shoot their way in?  Long term solutions,  you want to start at schools, emphasize anti-bullying programs, do more mental health screening for kids who are having trouble,  train the counselors, have a real professional in the system and the money to make sure kids who are at an age for onset of serious mental illness issues can be spotted and treated.  Stop the angry loner type before he or she gets quite so far.  The warning signs are there, there just doesn't seem to be a response.
      Of course, that's going to take time and effort and cost money, and we're seeing right now in the shadow of the sequester that, when it comes to government or public service, those three strikes are very hard to overcome.

      and while long-term solutions are needed ... how do we stop the Columbine / Newtown copycats while we're building up those solutions?

      I have myself advocated mandatory background checks for all sales of firearms.
      A straw purchase should be a felony with a mandatory jail sentence.

      But I'm not so inclined to bar vets from contact with kids, or kids from contact with vets -- we signed up to serve at least in part to make, or keep, the country we grew up in safe for those kids.

      I do think it's an absolutely positive alternative to the school having a PD to send kids to prison straight from the classroom.

      I also think it's a good alternative to veterans not being able to find jobs, and schools having to carve off money for campus security from their classroom budgets.

      And I wish we could re-examine "zero tolerance" and consider whether we're reacting out of some spinal reflex based on fear. When a school strip-searches a girl to make sure there's no OTC painkiller in her underwear, something's not right.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      YMMV.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:36:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and I didn't advocate any over the top (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        methods of search,  in fact I think I mentioned passive deterents and I don't think a strip search is passive at all.

        And I am not against vets being around kids, armed vets hired to patrol schools, out of a program thought up in a hurry, I just say that you need screening, retraining, etc.   If it is a vet 20 years out of service and already well integrated back into society, that's easier, but also maybe too rusty on weapons skills to be any more use than anyone else.

        Using the sequester to say we can't do what we should do is a diversion from the real issue.  You didn't ask me if I thought that Texas or the US Congress would do the right thing, stop trying to stop every social initiative with positive aspects, etc. would happen.

        I never advocated having kids sent to prison.  I think we've turned schools into prison farm schools too much already.  So stop supplying me with positions I don't hold and other strawmen.

        I am saying think before you leap, especially with guns, kids and recent returnee vets from a war.   Whatever the school problem is, it is not a war,  it is not even a high probability event.   It is a long term issue, and deserves real solutions that will work.

        •  What I'm suggesting is (0+ / 0-)

          we need to be careful not to put all our eggs in one basket.
          I happen to think that this program has positives.

          I understand that my outlook may not be agreeable to everybody.
          But the people working on this bill asked a really good question:

          "If we're willing to put armed guards around our money, but not our children, what does that say about our values?"

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:51:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the same problem (0+ / 0-)

            as worhipping their money and their prejudices by refusing to pay taxes or vote for politicians who won't tax and letting kids starve, face crappy schools and deprive parents of living wages so they might be able to provide decent housing, health care, etc.

            Why provide more guns if we won't provide for their mental health, their protection from bullying or try to stop people who shouldn't be getting guns from getting them?

            Why worship a gun more than your child?

    •  I'm about to stand and applaud ;-) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution, MRA NY

      Nicely stated.

      And there are too many addicts of the barbarism already.

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:54:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site