I know how some of you think of Larry Elder... but close your objection for a sec and read the following with an open mind.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22911

Simply put, he is asking if guns would stop school shootings like the one in Cleveland recently. There are a number of instances where very apparently guns on premise stopped loss of life. Read...


Ok. This is probably going to get people up in arms... but here goes.


1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?

I doubt the Harris and Klebold's of the world would really give much thought to being shot at. You'll note they're dead. I think if you're messed up enough to go shoot up a school it's pretty likely there isn't anything that's going to dissuade you so the if they were armed sounds good on the first pass but falls apart within a few moments of reflection. Further a lot of the Quake, Halo, Call of Duty kids would probably LOVE to get into a REAL gun fight so... maybe this is a pretty bad idea on the whole.

However, if you want to put a few armed guards and a machine gun tower at every school I'm OK with that.
Makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Otherwise none.
There already are. In Tucson there's quite a few places you can't bring your gun - Swap Meets comes to mind. Probably should bring your gun to church, school, the bank, poker games, hospitals... oh the list goes on and on.

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

As if students going into kill poeple in a school are really doing a 2+2 equation scaring them with the thought that someone besides themselves wil have a gun? Evan Ramsey was arguably the first of the school shooters in this country, as far as the reporting trend goes (do a google search, add Alaska) - and most folks are armed in the village. No one had the time to get thier gun, and teachers shouldn't have to 'be packin" in the classroom with a sidearm at the ready- do ya think?

I am not really comfortable with some gomer with a gun and a "make my day' attitude come out blazing in "self protection" in a school zone really.

I know a fair amount of poeple that got concealed permit carries (you no longer need even that in the state of AK) that shouldn't be allowed to breed, much less tote a gun.

Interesting anecdote- I graduated from High school in 1982. In 1981, I was driving, legal and all that- and I was going moose hunting with a couple teachers, the princepal, and a few other students. The principle met me in the hallway saying "hey, you brought your guns to school, right? I mean, we aren't going to have to waste time stopping by your house? And you brought lots of ammo? I anticipate some practise, so you should have enough with you to start a war Ha ha" - my have attitudes changed!

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

I am not quite sure- except to produce more charges if someone is thwarted before opening fire?

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?

Schools, public facilities of any type (like federal buildings, town hall etc) Bars (except for the owner and employees) , hospitals and mental institutions.

We make the cops check in weapons at most of those places, some bar owners won't let officers in the door without checking thier gun in thier car as well.

But did you read the stories?

Funny enough, in more than one case (that the media will never discuss), people stopped the loss of life at gun point.

Take VA tech for instance. What if there were kids in adjacent rooms that had guns in the parking lot? What if they'd have gone outside, picked up a 9mm, and come back into stop the carnage?

I think the problem with silly laws about "packin'" is that it only stops people who obey the law. You mention some people who shouldn't have guns, but do they drive? Which kills more people in the US, gun accidents or car accidents?

It's obvious from the anecdotes that even if the kids wouldn't be deterred, they might be stopped before more people are killed. All of the cases show that once armed resistance showed up, the shooting stopped. How do you argue that?

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

I would hazard a guess that most school shootings are emotionally driven, so I don't expect guns will stop the initial shooting but that, just like in the stories, they could help prevent further death. My concern is that unqualified people will received guns, and accidents will increase, or that such an "empowered" staff member may become drunk with authority.


2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

To demonstrate the difference between wishful thinking and actual enforcement.


3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?

No, because if such violent acts can take place anywhere, then a qualified, armed person should be able to defend themselves anywhere. Such bans are not generally enforcable anyway, except by government officials, and serve only as a way to avoid liability.

Of course. This is so simple that there is no argument. But a teacher suggesting this was just suspended and will have to get a “mental exam” . How stupid is that.


Allows criminals to feel safe and secure that thir gun will be the only one in the area.




No

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

Probably not a one. There's a little problem with each of the stories -- had shootouts occured, the lawsuits would have come down like a blizzard. Don't know what the ultimate solution might be, but encouraging shootouts seems to be going in the wrong direction.

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

Nothing if not enforced.

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?

They were allowing this in Colorado Springs City Hall, then changed the rules. No more guns. This one joker kept showing up with a pump 12-gauge.

Last time I went into Teller Cty. Court House for jury duty, they held onto my pocket knife, 2" blade.

You probably don't want to take your gun on your next flight.

Maybe church would be okay, keep that preacher honest, eh?

I've never heard about a shooting at a public library. Wonder why that is? Everyone would throw really thick hardcover books at the perp? Too much actual thinking going on? The reference desk librarian -- mean old woman with glasses on a chain, she might hush the perp with undue brutality. Or is it the No Noise Zone and silencers are too expensive?

Oh, and BTW, one cannot read these stories without quite a bit of doubt as to their honesty. The guy is promoting his documentary. He might be fudging and fibbing, which is to be expected during a sales pitch. I shall maintain my skepticism, as I don't want to open my mind so far that my brains leak out.

I am all for gun rights and ownership- however, I would like there to be a tiered licensing similar to Germany's driving licenses. Too many idiots with guns out there, and a "rambo" state of mind. I would be more afraid of the dirty harry wanna be in most situations, popping up for a gun fight at the OK corral than any crazed shooter.

In fact, I don't think about 50% of the poeple I see at a gun show should be allowed to own guns- wingnuts and whacko as they come.

I have always been more than a bit leary of those that claim they need it for "home protection"- if you want home protection, really, buy a dog.

But do we need to have a bunch of guns in the school so we can have a gun fight when need be? That pretty much goes to the "insanity meter" of gun nut extremists.

I own a fair number of guns, a couple that are collectors items, the rest for, you know, food gathering.

My brother obtained one a concealed carry permit back when you still needed one in the state, because he plowed snow at very late times of the night, in potentially dangerous apartment complexes.

Unless you are moving cash around, or work late at night in bad areas- well, I do know of some instances where the "good guys" won- but they are far outnumbered by the criminals that get the jump on the "good guys" and take THIER guns too.

Remember this factoid- more cops are killed with thier own gun than any other line of duty death. Okay- if a person, trained and armed and expecting danger at all times may have a problem with that gun- why should some untrained yahoo with a napolean complex need one?

I do find it interesting that no one in this nation with military training and talents have never "went postal" on anyone .(with the possible exception of Timothy McViegh) My brother and I were always #1 or 2 in every shooting competition we ever entered- yet niether of us have ever commited a crime.

I do wonder why none of the highly trained types have popped a gasket and shot up a bunch of poeple.

But it is pretty stupid to have a bunch of guns in a school or any other public venue, without some sort of authorization (such as the security guard) - and some very clear rules of engagement, when to pull it out, with the police knowing or having on file the names of these armed poeple.

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?
Levels of armed resistance have little to do with it IMO. Quite simply they have already left sanity behind and probably hope to go down that way. Add the fact that way too many folks WITH firearms are p poor shots and all you do is open the door for accidental casualties (collateral damage)-- although for some in the GOP I guess that is acceptable. I also know too many people who would feel justified in using the fact they are armed to intimidate those they disagree with -- all in the name of public safety and moral decency of course, throw in some tempers and the problems begin. I would say something about how it would be beneficial by cleansing the gene pool of such mouth breathers but unfortunately in life it is the innocent who pay the cost of such arrogance and conceit. The mouth breathers get national award dinners or run for congress.
Throw in the rarity of such things and I see no actual reason for alarm -- the rapture or the meteor will get me first.

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?The aforementioned mouth breathers come to mind. I go to restaurants and movies and have yet to EVER feel threatened, EVER. As a matter of fact I regularly spend much time in really bad parts of cities during the course of my career and have never been threatened in any significant manner that eyeballing the fool didn't end. I hear more about accidental deaths by firearms than I do about armed crazies.
I might support women being required to carry firearms with the caveat that they get to shoot anyone who starts a sentence with "Hey Baby".

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm? Schools and bars come to mind. Anywhere my children are is another.


Oh wouldn't it be sweet to take away the ability of some people to drive. You have my support for this idea.
Make the test for driving a long and difficult process with a testing routine that borders on obscenely difficult and needs to be repeated every 4 years, fail it twice in a row and you cannot reapply for 10 more years. Idiots in cars and idiots with beer cause much more actual harm that the rare shooters.

Read John Lott and see how wrong you are. Certainly the fool at VA Tech would have not gotten far if he faced armed resistance. And since he was certainly the only person standing (and shooting) as he made his deadly rounds an armed teacher could have killed this fool imo.

http://www.johnlott.org/





Let me guess you are 6’2 and weigh 240. Now the average person (old, young or women) don’t have the same intimidation factor – or maybe the eyeball. The fact is too many become victims and many die.

But in cities where “right to carry” laws are passed theses crimes drop - guess why.

Would you care to provide a source to back this up?



Let me guess, Ted. You are the guy who gets sand kicked in his face at the beach.

Ok. This is probably going to get people up in arms... but here goes.

Interesting choice of words . . .


1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings?

School shootings, as tragic as they are, are very rare, so I doubt that this is much of a factor one way or another.

In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

How many students go to shoot up a school? Very, very few. Those who do are, I hope you will agree, not the most rational people in the world. I doubt they consider the situation into which they are going very much at all. The idea that they might is as unlikely, in my opinion, as the notion that these few mentally ill individuals can be prevented from engaging in violence by posting the Ten Commandments in public places.

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

Prevention of accidents and sudden acts of violent passion from otherwise sane individuals.

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?

Where alcohol and other brain-altering substances are used, since these can transform normal people into violent monsters. Any place where there is already strong security. (As already said, aboard airplanes.)

I am not denying the right of responsible individuals to carry and use firearms when appropriate. The important word here is "responsible." How many people are truly capable of assuming the extraordinary responsibility of carrrying a deadly weapon? (I certainly am not.) Therefore, individuals who wish to defend themselves with such weapons must be given extensive training and testing in firearm safety; must be free from the slightest hint of mental instability; and must be held to a very high level of legal responsibility for their actions. In a high school, for example, the vast majority of students cannot meet such a high standard, so it would not seem to be a good idea to have them armed. Properly trained and qualified professionals, certainly. Joe Six-Pack, perhaps not so much.

Do you have some kind of source to back this up? I find it very, very hard to believe.

Edited to add:

Per the topic, I don't see the need for guns in schools. I think that would cause more harm than good...passion killings would likely increase for one. University massacres are incredibly rare, and I can't imagine anyone supports the "right" of teens to carry guns into their highschool classrooms. Such places might have some trouble recruiting teachers. And teachers with guns? No thanks, nearly everything I owned was stolen out of my desk every week when I was teaching...they'd have to watch their back, front, desk, side...forget about minds on their lesson planning.

The only zone that is currently 'gun-free' which I think should not be is (ironically) a military base. Every soldier should be permitted to hold a sidearm on base. But on that note, I have a friend who is a tanker pilot and he strongly disagreed with a new policy that would require him to carry a gun in flight...he explained there have been times he might have had to use it in the past (at least as a threat...when his crew didn't want to refuel in certain areas over dangerous ground, for instance). The absence of a gun made the situation never escalate to that level, and they always worked it out non-violently.

But I do strongly support right to carry laws (with the proper guidelines and licensing to carry) in general, in public areas, as a well-documented deterent to crime.

I am sorry I cant find you a net source right off hand Mrs P- but my own department e-mailed this to me, part of some FBI compiled statistics, and was part of my one and only class we used to need for concealed permit carry-

More than 14,859 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty.
(Over 6,000 officers killed since 1960). There are approx., 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers now serving in the U.S. About 14 per cent of those officers are female.

Every year between 150 and 165 law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.
(Approx., 300 children of police officers will need assistance in dealing with the grief of losing a parent.)

Every 54 hours somewhere in America a law enforcement dies in service to the community.
From 1986-1995, 197 convicts murdered a police officer while out on parole, probation, or early prison release. More than 100 police killers during that period were under 18 years of age.
An average murderer spends 5.5 years in prison... a "life" sentence averages 7.7 years...and 3 out of 4 convicted criminals don't go to jail at all.
Two police officers are shot every day in the United States.
Most officers are killed during arrest situations, disturbances and car crashes.
Most officers are killed between 4:01 P.M. and Midnight
25% of officers killed are killed with their own weapon.
Most officers are killed within 60 seconds of contact with suspect. 40% of the time the officer is alone or has no backup available.

More than 189 police officers are assaulted every day in the U.S. (62,000 assaulted yearly) and rising (that is one out of every nine), with 21,000 injured. Many are permently disabled.

The FBI reports that on yearly average: 380 officers are the targets of unprovoked attacks by ambush, resulting in 21 law enforcement deaths.



the 25% is the total of all police deaths- if you just figure deaths where they are killed by a gun, factor out traffic accidents (which is the #1 cause of death in the line of duty for cops) then the main way you get killed as a LEO is by your own gun.

I will look for original source material Mrs P-



if you also notice-the police officers killed by unprovoked ambush- that actually has even more to do with this subject matter- you see, the criminal knows the EXACT time and place he is going to kill someone- he/she has the element of suprise- even with everyone being armed- it is still more likely that the one with the element of suprise will simply shoot the other person with a gun and take that gun too.

I deal with hard core assualts at least every week, sometimes every day. I work in a very, very violent setting. I am prepared for it, have done it for 20 years now- and, even with all my training and experiance, every once in a while, someone still gets me by suprise.

How someone, that has never dealt with a real violent situation can make a good judgement call with a gun, is supposed to make the right decision in these school shooting situations- well, that is just plain ignorant and stupid.

I would rather take my risks with the school shooter.

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

Looking over this thread, one common response that pops up is that school shooters aren't thinking rationally and therefore aren't likely to be deterred by the presence of arms among their intended victims. That being the case, one wonders why there aren't mass shootings at police stations and military bases.

It's a common meme in our society that whenever someone does something really heinous and awful, he therefore "isn't rational". But that's really just denial talking. People don't want to face up to the unsavory truth that in many cases, evil people are "rational" - they calculate, they plot, they plan ahead. They may act according to a different sort of rationality than we're accustomed to, but there is a method to their madness. It may take different forms, but it all centers around one theme: preying on the weak, and having ultimate power over them. Give their victims the means to fight back, and you'll take away much of that draw for these turds. And the links that aevans176 provided (which none of the critics of his position has really addressed, curiously enough) show that even when it doesn't create a deterrent, it still saves innocent lives.

Another response that's appeared in a couple of places on this thread is that some people shouldn't be carrying guns because they're too stupid or too inclined to act out of some momentary passion or something. Question for all those raising this argument: How often does this happen? It's not like there wouldn't be plenty of opportunities, given that some states have no restrictions on who can carry weapons. So where are all these tragic cases of someone who legally owns his weapon, all of the sudden getting up and going crazy with it? If it were to happen in a place where weapons are commonplace, I'd wager such a person wouldn't get very far.



Horse manure.


Link

Now that's just 5% of those killed with firearms, which is a real far cry from your bogus 25% of those killed from all causes.

Are you saying there were only 60 officers, in every LEO capacity in the US, killed in the US, in 2001?

I noticed, oddly enough - you picked 2001- you do realize that in 2001, the single deadliest incident to police in the US happened in 2001, you know, 9/11 and all that- it killed 70 officers in one incident.

So, um, what the heck are you talking about? There were 66 killed by being shot to death. I find no listing of, that year, of how many were shot by thier own gun- you could very be right- that year. Some years are better than others.

However- it may be a local or regional quote I recieved on e-mail, because on my own research- I find one in six being shot by thier own gun 16% -

http://www.news.com/2100-1001-962895.html

this was conducted over a 10 year period, so I will take this one on good standing.

Within law enforcement, there is a sense of urgency to find a way to protect officers from their own firearms. A review conducted over a 10-year period looking at how law enforcement officers were killed found that one in six was shot to death by their own firearm after being disarmed by a suspect. The report, dubbed the "FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Uniform Crime Report," also found that 113 firearms were stolen from police officers during that period.

Okay- beyond that- Blackstone- you probably drive to work. You see lots of idiots on the hiway, doing crazy things, right? They have a license and had to be tested for competancy and ability to see before getting behind the wheel of that car.

Okay- do you want that person making life and death decision over you and your loved ones in a shoot out?

Stupid poeple are in the majority, and those that would carry a firearm into a school are complete morons- and I don't want THAT kind of protection for my kids, any more than I want some Rambo type on an airplane with a loaded gun to take out "tarrarists" in case of a hijacking.

If yoiu want some kind of increased protection in our schools from these events- hire more in school police officers.

That I wouldn't mind. I just don't want some joe-blow off the street thinking they can take control of the situation themselves.

All you gotta do is read the section I posted. 60 were killed using firearms. So the 5% figure was just of those killed using firearms. It stands to reason that it would represent a much smaller percentage of the total number of officers killed in the line of duty that year.


Either cops all over the country were having a really bad decade during that study period, or this article isn't quite representing the report with exact 100% accuracy. I'd wager that far closer to the truth is that of every six officers who were disarmed by a suspect, one was murdered by the suspect. Again, here are some more FBI stats (PDF). Table 11, on page 16, shows that for the decaded 1994-2003, the number of officers killed with firearms was 616, while that of officers killed with their own weapons was 35. And again, that's just over 5%, and that's 5% of only those killed with firearms, not 5% of those killed in the line of duty.


As opposed to having a killer walk into a place with no one there who can counter him? That's not really that tough a call, especially since you can't point to any incidents of the sort I asked you for.

Nearly all people, including "Rambo-type morons" who like to talk and act tough, have a hard-wired natural aversion to killing people. The small few for whom that inhibition breaks down can be easily handled by the many if everyone's on equal footing with each other.


The link posted by aevans176 show instances where some joe-blows off the street had taken control of the situation themselves, and where innocent lives would most certainly have been lost if it hadn't been for them.

I will take my chances with the school shooter vs poeple with guns in the school walking around. The school shootings make big story- but are as rare as hen's teeth. I would much rather roll the dice of that one in 33million chance that someone shoots up the school vs allowing any joe blow with a gun walk into the school.

It is just insane to think that having hundreds of guns in a school is going to make my child safer from the one in a gazzillion chance that some disgruntled student is going to shoot up the place.

You know- I am all for right to bear arms and such- but arguments like "oh hey, if we let everyone have guns in school, they would be so much safer" is so asinine, no wonder so many poeple have a bad image of the gun owner/collector/hunter.

You know- if there were some kind of common sense tiered licensing for gun ownership- I might have a different thought on it. If not just anyone off the street could own one- I might give it another thought- but there is no restriction whatsoever as to who can buy a gun, except for felons and the mentally ill.

I read the Larry Elder column. All of it. Nothing in it changed my opinion. He's still an idiot.

In the recent Cleveland school shooting there were portable metal detectors that are moved from school-to-school and were elsewhere when Asa Coon went on his rampage. There was an armed security guard at the front desk, but that does not mean it should be assumed the guard was also competent and well-trained.

The last thing I want to see in schools are more guns. There is no reason to expect if the principal or football coach or Home Economics teacher are walking around cocked, locked and ready to rock that will discourage some troubled kid from going off. BoF was an educator. Does that also mean he would have been an ace marksman? If anything, if you know the teacher is carrying a .38, you bring a .357 or a sawed-off shotgun and change the odds with superior firepower. No, the solution to school shootings is not to be found in turning them into free-fire zones.

What would have stopped Asa Coon's shooting spree? Connecting the dots and following up might have helped.

From his hospital bed at MetroHealth Medical Center, where he is recovering from the damage the bullet did to his pancreas and spleen, Grassie told NEWSWEEK that he was "not shocked" Coon had gone on a shooting spree, wounding another teacher and two students before killing himself. "It was obvious from day one that he was troubled," he said.

Coon wasn't one of those quietly suffering kids who inexplicably "fall through the cracks." Nearly everyone who came in contact with him recognized that he was in serious need of help. Raised by a single mother, at one point he lived in a house filled with garbage, according to government records. When he was 7 years old, social workers who saw the boy found his arms covered in fleabites. His violent older brother was in and out of prison, and Asa himself was brought up on juvenile charges last year when he punched his mother in the eye. Though Coon was a good student who won a citywide chess tournament last year, he was also socially awkward and a target of ridicule. He threatened other students, and days before the shootings was disciplined for a fistfight.

It was all too easy for a 14-year-old to get his hands on a gun. Last week alone, three other kids in schools around Cleveland were caught with firearms, including a special-education student who had a semiautomatic rifle in a duffel bag. He told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer that he didn't know how it got there. "Let's get real about this: the problem is guns," says Dr. Jeffrey Claridge, the trauma surgeon who operated on Grassie. "If he had a knife, he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did so quickly."

Grassie, who believes the system (himself included) let Coon down, says that some teachers at SuccessTech wanted to send the boy to another school so "some other teachers, some other students would have to deal with him. That wouldn't have helped the schools, the other students or this young man." link

There are thousands of Asa Coons ticking like bombs until they finally go off in a spasm of violence. Elder advocates a solution that is heavy-handed and likely to call most harm than good. Put more guns into the schools? That's being reactive, not proactive. Maybe catching potential killers BEFORE they pass the point of no return is less exciting than a shoot-out in the school cafeteria, but I bet it's more effective.

Since the editing window has closed, I should have said boar hog, rather than "bore" hog. Aren't some of you glad I discovered my own error before you did?

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

I know such has not been tested past the idea that the students know the police will respond, which means gunfight unless they surrender, but then again they could kill someone and still surrender to armed resistance in all reality. Nations with sophisticated “wmds” happen to go to war killing hundreds of thousands, and if the reality that guns happen to be plentiful don’t deter crime, even when a person killed by a criminal has a gun, like a cop, I Don’t see arming the schools as anything that’s going to do away with school shootings.

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

It attempts to reduce or rid school zones of firearms.

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?

I don’t know, it would depend on the person. Many people that never commit crimes through their adult lives have ended up using that personal piece to blow away a spouse or what not, so I don’t think you can get so accurate is so much chaos.

How about a whole book full of data BoF?

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl






Obviously you would not allow someone who is not capable of using a gun to carry one in school – that said I bet there are plenty of teachers who wish they could carry given the ludicrous violence so common in many schools – much of it directed at teachers.

As a minimum you would want an “armed school patrol” capable of responding to trouble.

PS – I agree lets not arm BoF!

Ted, I have never heard of this book before, so that puts on equal footing, since I doubt you’ve read it.

According to a New England Journal of Medicine review, Lott doesn’t satisfactorily answer the question involved. Your link is to an advertisement for the book by the University of Chicago book. The blurbs are like those on a dust jacket – designed to sell books.



http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime...2807&sr=1-4



The last two schools I worked in had armed police presence on campus at all times. In addition, there were a number of campus monnitors with radios, who could could contact the police officer at a moment's notice. This was in addition to metal detectors and gun sniffing dogs.

Zero tolerance is a better policy than guns on campus.



BTW: BoF has never wanted to be armed so your "point" is pointless

Actually I have the book and have read it. Needless to say NEJM and others discount it. The book is a county by county look at the change in crime rates and the type of crime in each after the passage of “right to Carry” laws.

Lott shows that crime drops where the laws are liberalized most and he is an economist who is heavy into the statistics.

Needless to say the left wing anti gun crowd has only grudgingly accepted his data and he has written other books in response. You can look them up. Enjoy.

To say “Unfortunately, Lott's results do not provide credible evidence one way or the other.” Is just plain crap. Look at his numbers and see. Lets define “credible”.



Zero tolerance is a better policy than guns on campus


Good for them. That is all I think is needed – armed guards able to respond and a zero tolerance policy.


BoF has never wanted to be armed so your "point" is pointless

Didn’t think so my friend. Only joking.

Why hasn't anyone addressed the examples in the beginning of the thread?

What would've happened had there not been armed men at the time of these shootings? Would MORE people have died?

How does a "policy" stop someone with a gun? How would a metal detector stopped someone with a gun, barring the person at the metal detector had a gun to stop him/her?



NT, your little blurb doesn't address any of the examples I used and that were in the article. Insulting Larry Elder doesn't make your point. I'd be surprised if he didn't think you were an idiot as well. Does that prove anything? Not at all.

How do policies and procedures, and arguing "we should be nicer to kids who are troubled" stop the immediate threat?

None of the examples even showed that there was a need for a "well trained" or "crack shot" deterrent.

What I'm saying is that if there are other firearms in someone's hands, obviously in the cases presented at least, lives are most likely saved.

Name one, just one case, where there was a gun on campus prior to the "crazed shooter" appearing that caused more harm than good. I'd love to see this.

I don't think there should be an armed presence of teachers. That's not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that there should be a rule allowing teachers who are licensed and qualified to carry, at least in their vehicles. Many if not most schools prohibit this.

What the article shows on more than one occasion is that the simple presence of a competing firearm stopped the violence. How do you argue that this wouldn't happen more often than not? (please use examples)

It may be that no one else worked in an urban school district after Columbine. Perhaps people aren't aware of the security at public schools. I can only speak regarding Fort Worth, of course.

BTW: I do know that TCU and North Texas Health Science Center (TCOM) have police forces. I don't know about TWU (Texas Wesleyan University; not Texas Woman's University in Denton). My point is that is security should be handled by designated professionals not amateurs.

BoF:

A start for you:

http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~mcalhoun/BB/Lessons.html

And please note that Cheney had a problem with the "zone[s] of fire" and knowing where everyone was. Guess that he missed that lesson.



BoF and the rest:

Cops dying by their own guns after being disarmed. Think about that next time someone resists and the cops use force that you might otherwise believe to be excessive [not always, but maybe sometimes some just don't want to risk being disarmed and I can't say that I blame those some].

Re the questions, why assume that it has to be some more lethal weapon. A well placed BB shot to the eye will do the job, or maybe simply a "face shot" [or a "neck shot"] so that there's just enough of that momentary distraction to allow some others to rush the one bent on homicide and/or run away as the circumstance dictates [see: http://catalog.nucleusinc.com/generateexhibit.php?ID=3370 ]. If someone gets "wacko" with the BB gun, one can either flee, and the risk of the most serious injury, to the eye, should be near non-existent as you'll be running away, or you might trying rushing the bum while wearing your safety glasses and holding that metal trash can lid in front of your head [you know the general location and you can bash the bum with the trash can lid when you get there]. Re teachers, well, at least those in public schools, the state might actually exercise its police and parens patriae power[s] and qualify our teachers to shoot as good as your average cop does. And, BoF, that's nothing for you to fear, and if an 80 year old can be perfect with the .22... And while I don't expect you to carry, a few appropriate weapons secured in a rather secure location would allow your fellows to come to your rescue should you be the one caught unarmed between that rock and a hard place. Re the appropriate weapons, since we don't want you to go Rambo on us:

http://www.gundirectory.com/more.asp?gid=2...&gun=Pistol [and maybe a select few of these as well: http://cellular.co.za/phones/gunphone/gun-phone.htm [you can ask if he wants to make a phone call and then do your thing when you approach to hand over the phone]

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/instant_classic/

After keeping the rifle unloaded and otherwise secure, that padlock is our next line of defense.

Lastly, for why some don't want to come all that close to some others, with some resistance only serving to heighten the tension, see the table here re distance between victim officer and offender:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RF...ual/ai_n7639615

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

I don't believe so. Lack of guns is not the reason for the increase of school shootings. I believe the problem is a bit more complicated than that.

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

Protects people from guns to the extent possible. I see your argument and must admit that there is an upside to America being more armed, but I also feel the potential down side is something we need to look at too. All it would take is one 7th Grader to get hold of his/her teacher’s gun and shoot someone to prove my point.

Police are trained legally when where and how to use their weapons, the general public does not understand all of the legality of when it is justified to shoot, and when it would be Manslaughter to shoot. I think in some situations a fine line divides the two.

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?


Sure, places like church.

Well, to be honest, your examples seem (ironically) in a very similar spirit to the ones used by anti-gun advocates to try to confiscate weapons. It provides three instances, several years between each, and tries to make the case that students are being shot routinely and "gee...wouldn't it be great if the teachers packed heat to stop that?"

Place this into perspective. School shootings are extremely rare. Out of the tens of thousands of schools in this country with millions of students, they happen a couple of times per year. Millions go to school unharmed by guns (many more than the ostensibly "safer" Israel example provided in this article) so I see no need to pretend that 'gun-free school zones' are a problem that needs fixing. And there are very sound reasons for not introducing weapons into an environment that doesn't need them (escalation of violence, stealing of weapons, ect).

Funny enough, anti-gun advocates never argue the fact that most weapons used in crime aren't obtained legally.

Do gun sniffing dogs, metal detectors, or other "policies" stop gun related crime on campuses?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266368,00.html

Look at the link. It's interesting. it seems more widespread than you'd imagine.

Do "policies" stop people from shooting students outside the school?

My question, which seemingly everyone has avoided, is that obviously in some cases the presence of an armed resistance stopped the gunmen. Why would a gun in a "football coach's" truck be a problem?

In my opinion, growing up in the south, we carried firearms in our trucks all the time during hunting season. Was it a problem? Of course not. However- had there been a gunmen at our HS, he'd have made it all of 5 minutes (if that) before being taken down in a hailstorm of steel and/or lead.

Now, "gun free zones" don't even allow a teacher who has been "background checked", etc to carry in their vehicle. I think it's absurd and doesn't serve any positive purpose, other than appeasing silly anti-gun liberals. There has been no argument against what issues a gun in a professor's or teacher's vehicle would cause. It figures.

If more security is needed in middle schools and high schools, and in spite of these anecdotes, I am not sure that in general there is, it should be provided by trained security guards, and not by amateurs with fantasies of Die Hard-like "armed resistance." The vast majority of people who carry arms for this purpose will not be able to use them effectively in the exceedingly rare case that they are called upon to do so, and much more often, either will not shoot or will shoot wildly, with significantly increased risk to everyone present. There is the further problem that an untrained person may fire too readily at what he imagines to be an evil-doer, only to discover that the situation was not as he perceived (remember the Japanese exchange student who was looking for a Halloween party, and was gunned down by someone who thought he was a prowler?)

Moreover, by the time you have personal firearms in such wide circulation, you have the increased risk of violent misdeeds by the occasional "armed resister" who becomes enraged by someone else's perceived misdeed and draws his weapon. And the risk that these arms will be more accessible to really bad people, for example, by means of theft.

It would be much better for the public safety -- not, I admit, for the gun dealers that thrive on people's fantasies of becoming like John McClane -- if the provision of security were left to trained professionals.



I would like to see your source for that.



Yes, that's why these policies are instituted. What these policies do not guarantee is that there will be absolutely no incidents of egregious violence, either in the schools or elsewhere. In a nation of 300 million, we will often, unfortunately, have to read of such terrible events somewhere. That doesn't imply that rational policy designed to prevent such incidents isn't effective.

By analogy, there is the occasional terrible plane crash; that doesn't mean that regulations and procedures designed to prevent these crashes aren't effective.



Such ridiculous fantasies are often entertained by gun enthusiasts, of course. I respectfully submit that if Seung-Hui Cho had walked into your high school algebra class carrying two fully loaded Glock Nines, you would very likely be dead now, notwithstanding your undoubtedly superior courage, manhood, U.S. infantry marksmanship badge, hard-bitten personal defense skills, advanced Karate training, Airborne and Ranger qualifications, and the availability of a 16-ga. Remington in your Southron good-ole-boy pickup truck, parked outside.

Simple. If it is known that "coach" has a shotgun in his truck, what is to keep "raving lunatic just kicked off the football team" from smashing a helmet into said truck, grabbing the shotgun and going on a rage infested shooting spree? What doesn't get addressed in your example is the simple equation of (more guns on campus) = (more opportunity for incidents of gun violence). Teachers packing is an even less desirable option, especially in high schools. Kids are big enough at that age, especially in numbers, to overwhelm any pistol packing teacher and acquire the gun without so much as having to go home and shop for one. Then you add the element of rage/passion and the situation just gets uglier.

You are correct that a properly trained armed guard might offer some hope of controlling a violent situation once it occurs. I'm not necessarily opposed to that option being more available if appropriate security can be obtained.

More guns on campus isn't the solution to guns coming on campus and killing people. In the end, the lives saved by controlling a Columbine tragedy will be offset by the additional gun violence that is now possible due to guns being readily available.

1. Is our lack of armed resistance a contributing factor to school shootings? In other words, how many students go to shoot up a school knowing that they'll enter a gun fight?

2. What purpose does a "gun free zone" really serve?

3. Are there places in the US where a licensed and legal permit carrying American gun owner should not be able to carry the firearm?


1) To some degree, it probably is.

2) This gives the law a way to arrest folks for an act of status--carrying a gun--before someone actually vbrandishes or uses the gun, which is what is usually required for a crime to be committed.

3) In my state, the typical carry permit does not allow firearms at places that serve alcohol, in govt buildings, in schools, and at organzied sporting events other than organized shooting events.

The problem is greater than the guns--it's the schools themselves. If people went to small schools, like say two rooms--one for elementary, one for high school--and each of elem and high school had 20 people, for a grand total of 40 students, with two elem teachers and two high school teachers present at all times, you'd be very unlikely to see any gun crimes. People will be so aware of their neighbors and what they are doing that you are unlikely to ever have this kind of problem.

When any institution gets large enough, it becomes impersonal. Kids in their teenage years are growing into womanhood and manhood, it is very difficult, and it creates stress, both institutionally and interpersonally. In a large, impersonal institution, these stresses can fester and then explode.

I'll bet you'll find, if you did the research, that these incidents occur at larger schools, not at tiny ones with very small classes.

Could we go back to smaller schools? Unlikely, but I'll bet it would work. I am active in the home school movement, and even when groups of kids get together for study--say 10 or 12 kids--in a home school academy, the usual stresses are exposed so much earlier than in other situations, they just do not have time to fester.

That would be considered a matter of opinion....



Any evidence that the school system would hire an incompetent and poorly trained security guard?



I don't think anyone is suggesting to make the school free-fire zones, but thanks for the extreme over-reaction. What is being suggested is to allow competent staff to be trained in the use and handling of a firearm to protect the youth. I don't think anyone wants to give everyone in the school, to include the children a semi-automatic handgun.


How do you suggest we accomplish this?

Teachers and adminsitrators already have full plates. The Rambo syndrome, exhibited by some in this thread, should be replaced with the idea that security should be handled by metal detectors, trained dogs and trained security personnel who's only job is safety of the campus.

It's worked in Fort Worth.

More extreme measures are just more of the bunker mentality some people have adopted since 9/11 with certain politicians fanning the flames for electoral gain.

I think we are seeing something relatively new in American culture - macho drive fueled by fear.

So what's your suggestion, Ted? Teachers should not only have a certificate to prove they are educators, but a separate one to show they are certified marksmen? I'll see your bet and raise it, because I bet there are far more teachers who want to teach schoolchildren, not shoot them.

There are effective and efficient ways to reduce violence in the classroom without Miss Jones walking in strapped to the max
and looking like Dirty Harriet.




The difference is I don't care what Larry Elder thinks of my opinion and suggesting the solution to gun violence in the schools is MORE GUNS in the school is a idiotic suggestion. It is absolutely absurd to assert the answer is for the teachers to kill their students before their students kill them!

For those of you with short-term memory loss, remember the shooting of four Amish schoolgirls last year? Are you seriously suggesting if the teacher had a firearm stashed in their horse-drawn buggy they could have at least returned fire?



Perhaps because silly pro-gun right-wing nuts want to use a tactical nuclear strike to kill a housefly. It's more likely that a student is going to get killed at home by a family member with a handgun than they are at school by a classmate.

Gun nuts like Larry Elder hate being called "gun nuts" but when their "solution" to a complicated problem is to suggest, "Let's arm the teachers so they can kill their students!" they're begging not to be taken seriously. I have no problem in doing so.

Typical right-wing, knuckle-dragging response. Maybe school boards should hire Blackwater to protect the teachers? They sure did a bang-up job over in Iraq. You'll just need to hose the splattered blood and brain matter off the steps and hallways every day.

That was a list of nine University shootings in the course of forty-two years. I'd hardly call that widespread. By contrast, how many shootings outside of those Universities (non-"gun free" zones) in the past forty-two years? You are kind of defeating your own argument.

The reason I am against most measures for gun control are the cost to gains aspects. In a nation full of guns, you don't disarm the law abiding. However, cost to gains wise it is certainly possible to selectively have gun-free areas with high enforcement and low crime rates by comparison to the outside (public offices, schools, airports). And it's a good thing.

We're talking about guns in schools, not gun ownership in general. When it comes to that, I agree that the schools should excercise proper discretion as to who is and is not allowed to bring weapons onto the premises. You yourself mentioned the idea of having armed guards. Personally, I think having an armed teacher who goes through the proper training would work just as well if not better, given that guards usually don't have much to do all day and are therefore more inclined to hope for an excuse to do something.

Either way, though, the evidence is quite conclusive that guns in the right hands save lives. Yes, we have plenty of ugly and irrational fearmongering, stereotyping, hyperventilating, and hissy-fitting from liberals over the idea, but really nothing in the way of factual rebuttal to that point.

Isn't that what I said?





From the number of incompetent and poorly trained teachers school system hire, it's fairly safe to presume they aren't breaking the bank on security staff.



The extreme over-reaction is the ridiculous proposal that schools need "competent staff to be trained in the use and handling of a firearm." Define "competent staff." Is that whomever teaches gym? A janitor? The cafeteria workers? A educator with prior military or law-enforcement experience? What happens if the "competent staff" member happens to call in sick the day little Bobby brings Daddy's AK-47 to Show-and-Tell? Get specific.





By spending more time, money and resources on the identification and treatment of potentially violent students and alerting the proper authorities so corrective and preventive action can be taken. Which beats the hell out of your idea of going to the nearest gun store and loading up on guns and ammo.




As opposed to a teacher who may have a personal ax to grind against a specific student?



As opposed to the ugly, irrational, fearmongering, stereotyping, hyperventilating and hissy-fits you regularly engage in when someone proposes getting out of Iraq?

The evidence is also quite conclusive that guns in the wrong hands end lives. The job of teachers should be educating children, not shooting them.

I agree. However, what's wrong with a teacher being able to defend his or herself? If you're suggesting (which I think this is what you're saying) that most security at schools isn't going to win awards, how can a teacher guarantee their own safety? Did none of the schools in this thread have security?

Arguably, we don't want teachers as security guards, and maybe this debate wasn't well framed. All I'm advocating is that gun free zones are silly and useless as a rule, and that frankly if a teacher wants to be able to have a gun in the car it shouldn't cause him/her to lose a job or be imprisoned.

I'd rather have professionals within arms reach to secure our schools. This really isn't the case. In my opinion, the second best option would be a well armed and courageous man or woman with a legally licensed firearm. Honestly, I might prefer a seasoned deer or duck hunter over some of Dallas's finest.

I would like to see your source for that.


I would like to see your source for that.


My question to anyone that believes stricter gun control laws reduces crime is this: Why is it that Washington D.C., with some of the most strict gun laws, has in recent past been known as the murder captial of the U.S.? Why is it that in 2003, almost thrity years after the enactment of some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, D.C. had more murders per 100,000 people than New York, L.A. and Chicago combined? url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html]
Link
[/url]


After reading through most of the posts, a common objection seems to be that people don't want idiots with guns with the rambo mentality running through our schools. Another is that if the ones that come to shoot up the school are crazy enough to go through with it, they wouldn't be deterred because someone else will also have a gun.

First, there are restrictions to who can have a permit to carry. One of which is an age limit. I don't think anyone here or anywhere else is suggesting to give every kid in school a Sig to put in their back pack. I think the idea is to have school staff have the option to be trained to carry and handle weapons if they so choose. If you trust them to be competent enough to teach and supervise and care for your children, why not trust them enough to be competent enough to carry a conceled weapon?

You are right, though that knowing someone will be there with a gun when a kid decides to shoot the place up won't deter everyone. On the other hand, as has been pointed out by many, if someone does decide to open fire upon a group of people, having someone shooting back will end the killings much quicker than waiting until the shooter is done and offs himself. Yes, this does open the possibility that the person that is trying to stop the killings might hit someone in the background, but it doesn't mean that it will happen. By shooting the madman, the lives lost will be much lower than letting some idiot walk the halls and shoot everyone they want because no one can defend themselves.

Another objection I saw was that there isn't much someone with a handgun is going to do when the person shooting the place up comes with more and bigger firepower. Not necessarily true, but let's evaluate that notion. If I have a .22, and someone comes in and starts shooting with an AK-47 and also has a sawed off shotgun and three pistols and thousands of rounds of ammunition, I am outgunned, but that doesn't mean that I can't shoot at him and hit him. On the other side of the coin, if I have nothing and someone comes in with a .22, aren't I already outgunned? What sense does that make? Why make sure that the only one in the gunfight that has a gun is the bad guy? I am very confused by this logic.

Wow! If I can find anyone with more of a defeatist viewpoint on this issue, I will let you know, but so far, this one takes the cake!