Can the US arm its schools, as the NRA suggests?
The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre is speaking currently about the shootings in Connecticut and his central policy suggestion is a massive expansion of government and policing.
He proposes adding security personnel to all of the country’s approximately 100,000 public schools.
I assume that most public schools would require a number of officers to protect facilities from early morning until afterschool activities end.
Some facilities are also large enough that a single officer would likely be ineffectual at protecting hundreds, or thousands, of young students.
So we’re talking about adding between 100,000 and 200,000 people to the government payroll at some level, at the very least.
There would also be administrative personnel and other costs. LaPierre acknowledged that police, school and other local government budgets are already strained.
And he proposed no new Federal taxes to fund the initiative.
So what do In Boxers think? The NRA obviously opposes any new restrictions on the availability of the kind of assault rifle that was used in the Connecticut massacre.
Is this kind of increased security — as an alternative — workable, or affordable? Do you like the idea of a school that has a significant security presence? Do we live in a world where that’s necessary?
Comments welcome.
Brian,
Why bother asking for comments if you’re so certain of what we should do? Is it possible that you only want posts from people who generally agree with you? Also, why do you say nothing when one of your acolytes makes a derogatory remark? Referring to the NRA as Murder Incorporated is kind of inflammatory, don’t you think? Maybe it doesn’t count if one says just kidding afterwards. I’ll remember that.
Bad people carry guns, and if you want to behave like them…..go for it, but bad people carry guns.
There are kind of two things going on.
There is the disturbed young men who want to go to school and kill innocents and usually themselves these are more common than we would like and are horrible.
Then there is the common use of guns out of fear, malice and intentional crime.
The second is much more common. The first may have unique solutions such as armed guards or upgraded security.
I think both would be lowered even if only a little by an assault weapons ban.
Mervel-
In the followup to last Friday, I believe I read, and noted, that the FBI considers a “mass killing” to be four or more, and that the numbers of them, in and out of schools, have been flat since the 90’s, while the regular murder rate has rather drastically declined. But that’s not counting 2012, which, I think will see a substantial bump. Alas. But Newtown was a freak incident, not part of a trend, and should be so treated in spite of our desperate need to “do something.”
Not that guns and dangerous people shouldn’t be better monitored and controlled.
A single officer minutes away is better than an officer miles away. One per school. It’s better than what we have.
Having an armed “good guy” present in that school may well have resulted in one more dead guy.
“A single officer… One per school.”
Again, this does nothing for our mall shootings, our parking lot shootings, our movie theater shootings, etc. (Incidentally, aren’t there already armed security guards in most malls?)
But also, there a thousands of very small schools in the country. One officer in a school of five thousand students is a pretty negligible added expense. In a school of two hundred students, it’s a big deal. Lay off a teacher to hire a cop. Great.
Once we start getting armed security guards in the schools people are going to start worrying that pedophiles will be getting those jobs.
The militia has little to do with the 2nd Amend as the courts have recognized repeatedly. But if that’s your belief, fine, I’ll join a militia if it makes you feel better. Current violations of our rights already in place do not support the theory that further violations are right. Confiscation is wrong. Chipping away endlessly at a right eventually destroys it. Is your fear so great that you can’t see it? More from the Democrats, The Party of No- no rights, no fiscal discipline, no common sense.
Bad people carry guns? Really Mike? Is that all you have? Wow! And blondes are dumb and women in short skits are asking to get raped? Nonsense.
Walker, those of us over here are wondering how people like you can claim to have any patriotism at all when you are willing to shred our rights. What you propose is treason.
I’m going to steal Rancid Crabtrees post from the other thread here. It makes sense.
“I don’t mean to bump in here but what part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand? If I follow your logic then free speech means the government can restrict my free speech to speaking in an empty room only. Or that my freedom from unreasonable search means as long as they don’t do a full body cavity search on Tuesdays between noon and 2PM. Or that freedom of assembly means as long as it’s in groups of not more than 3 with permits that cost $5000.00. Your argument ignores the idea of fundamental rights. I’m afraid if you start restricting or in essence abolishing one right then theres no reason to think any other will not go the same way and be restricted into ineffectiveness. Why stop at bolt action rifles? Why not make it muzzle loaders only and that the powder has to be kept at the local police station and balls at the Courthouse? Make them pay a fee for every shot fired too. How ridiculous do you want to get?”
I propose that we limit gun ownership to the types and styles of personal firearms commonly available at the time the Second Amendment was written. Have all the smooth bore muzzle loaders you want. No questions asked.
Anything else would require background checks, strict storage rules, and yearly inspections that proper storage rules are being followed. Removal from storage for any reason would require self-certification like they do for firewood transport. If a person’s firearm is used in a crime the person would be cited for improper storage, at a minimum. If convicted of 3 improper storage violations or one criminal improper storage citation the person would lose the right to own firearms just like people convicted of other crimes can lose the right to vote or own weapons.
“Losing” a weapon, or having a weapon “stolen” would be a mandatory improper storage violation citation. Talk to the judge.
If those rules were implemented we would be a much safer nation as a whole and police would would be much safer in doing their jobs.
Well, gosh, how about stationing a squadron of M1 Abrams tanks outside every entrance/exit of every school in the nation? But even that might not be enough for the NRA’s leadership.
“The militia has little to do with the 2nd Amend as the courts have recognized repeatedly”
Um, except that it is specifically written into the Constitution. Somehow the great defenders of original intent must think the Founders had a typo on that one.
Do they still teach diagraming sentences in school? You know, with subject and verb put together and independent clauses and all?
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
For homework diagram that sentence and throw out all the words that the Founders didn’t really think were necessary but put into the Amendment as filler to make it sound fancy.
Sorry, noun and verb. Oh well, there goes my 100% on the quiz.
Still have not seen the answer to the question – have the security programs in urban schools decreased the incidence of gun violence? Like I said above much of the press I have seen on the NRAs idea is that this is an insane gun toting suggestion. Yet the idea appears to comes from mostly liberal, mostly urban “blue” areas? But that doesn’t really matter (like I also said I don’t really care who is being hypocritical) does it work? Again let’s worry about how to pay for it later. The assault weapons bans will have a negligible future effect. We should do it for the long term but do we want to do something to stop this in the short term. Maybe not this but what else???
Paul, the outrage isn’t about whether security has uses or not. It is the hypocrisy of the suggestion and the lack of any self-reflection by the gun rights crowd.
“Again let’s worry about how to pay for it later.” Come on, be serious. Who are the people who came up with the mantra “tax and spend, tax and spend?”
Complete and utter hypocrisy.
Here are a couple of simple solution to the gun control problem without actually banning guns.
Do require a background check for the purchase of every single gun purchase and add a requirement that the person pass a mental exam prior to the purchase.
Before purchasing a gun, the purchaser must purchase liability insurance for each gun purchased. This requirement would clear a lot of guns off the street and in the woods because law enforcement would be required to ask for proof of insurance when stopping someone who has a gun.
Insurance companies would love this.
Lastly and this doesn’t effect gun ownership in the least, ban the sale and possession of body armor to civilians.
Knuck, Again I am not concerned with who is being hypocritical. In this case there appears to be plenty to go around (as usual). What matters is what might work. Once you can convince someone that something will work then you move on to convincing them that they need to figure out how to pay for it. Like I said I think a good assault weapons ban, to have any kind of impact, will require a buy back program. First you convince folks that it will work then you figure out how to pay for it. In my opinion that is the “serious” way to deal with it. I don’t care about the “outrage” I care about the answer to the problem.
I didn’t realize this till this morning, but did you know that both Columbine and VA Tech had armed guards on campus?
So not only is this a terrible idea for lots of other reasons, it also apparently doesn’t do much to prevent these things from happening.
Arlo, the trouble with Rancid’s “what part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand” post is that the right to bear arms has been restricted for ages– at least since tommy guns were outlawed. Note that “arms” is absolutely wide open– the entire arms industry falls under the term “arms.”
So you guys have been absolutely fine with how the 2nd has been interpreted for the last fifty years, and now, all of a sudden you’re having a conniption over the idea of an assault weapons ban that was already in effect from ’94 to 2004 without the sky falling in. And now you’re calling the proposal to reinstate the ban “treason”. Talk about hyperventilating! Sheese!!!
Did it ever occur to you that your extreme reaction is something that the gun manufacturers have spent big money to get you to think? This ain’t your daddy’s NRA, not by a long shot.
Newt you have a good point. The data do not indicate increasing rates of murder or mass shootings.
“So not only is this a terrible idea for lots of other reasons, it also apparently doesn’t do much to prevent these things from happening.”
Dave, like I said earlier I seriously doubt that this approach would do much of anything to prevent a mass shooting. The question I am curious about; is this sort of thing effective at preventing other types of gun violence at schools? It appears that many urban (and often liberal for lack of a better term) very much approve of this type of security at their schools.
The charge is to protect our school children. Preventing mass shootings is part of that.
Also, it is difficult to determine if this kind of security may have prevented an incident just because it there. But if Columbine had this in place and was doing a good job of controlling access to the school it looks like it didn’t work. Again it doesn’t surprise me. I lived in Denver when that happened it was a shock. A friend of ours had a son that went to that school then and luckily he was not there that day.
Also, I think some stats are important and some are not. We have to just decide that we want to do something to change OUR situation.
Because if you do a per capita comparison probably the most likely place to be killed in a mass shooting over maybe even the last 50 years is in Norway. And they have some pretty tight gun laws.
“Norway… [has] …some pretty tight gun laws.” Well, maybe not so much:
He also bought 10 30-round magazines for the rifle from a United States supplier, and 6 magazines for the pistol (including 4 30-round magazines) in Norway.
I guess they could have used tighter controls on large capacity magazines!
Having an armed “good guy” present in that school may well have resulted in one more dead guy.
Again, this does nothing for our mall shootings, our parking lot shootings, our movie theater shootings, etc. (Incidentally, aren’t there already armed security guards in most malls?)
You have to start somewhere.
Maybe someone would think twice of entering a school where there is an armed security guard. Maybe there would be more mall shootings if there weren’t armed security guards.
There will always be guns no matter what regulations or laws are in place. If a gun isn’t used, criminals will use something else.
The argument of making it harder to acquire them doesn’t work. Every man on this forum would protect and defend his home and family. You might have a security system in place but if a criminal still broke in, you wouldn’t think twice of defending yourself. That is exactly what needs to be done in the schools.
Kathy, Breivik killed 69 children and youths using semi-automatic weapons and 16 large capacity magazines, loaded with more than 420 rounds. You really think there’s no point at all in trying to reduce the availability of large capacity magazines?
It’s interesting– I’d be willing to bet that the simple fact that women still manage to have abortions even when abortions are illegal wouldn’t convince you that there’s no point in making abortions illegal. But when it comes to guns, you’re ready to say “they’ll still manage to get something to kill with, so why try gun any control measures.” Why?
“You have to start somewhere.”
Kathy, yes you have to start somewhere. That doesn’t mean we start anywhere.
Armed guards in schools have not prevented these killings (Columbine, VA Tech)… gun free zones and security systems have not prevented these killings (Newton)… private citizens with guns have not prevented these killings (Tucson)… expertly trained and armed people have not prevented these killings (Fort Hood)
A lot of what you and other pro-gun apologists are suggesting we do, have already been tried, and have failed.
It is because you keep “starting” in the wrong place.
We know how to reduce these crimes. Others have done it. Australia has had a 50% reduction in gun deaths following their buyback program and have had NO more mass gun killings.
“If a gun isn’t used, criminals will use something else.”
Right. Like the guy in China who recently attacked a school there with a knife. The result? Lots of cuts. No deaths. Tragic, for sure, but wouldn’t you rather deal with that aftermath than the parade of funerals now going on in Newton?
“Every man on this forum would protect and defend his home and family.”
Having to defend my family from someone with a military style assault weapon is something I’d like to avoid – so I consider getting rid of these things a step toward defending my family.
Proponents of pro-choice are fine when it appeals to their agendas.
If it’s about choice and freedom then it should be for everyone – certainly what the Constitution protects under the second amendment. And please don’t tell me the Founders didn’t think we’d be using guns for mass shootings, because I don’t think they thought abortions would be legal either.
There is more here than meets the eye. The agenda is anti-gun. Period. It’s been in the works for many years.
Why don’t we start taking other freedoms away that may hurt or hinder? Why isn’t liquor outlawed? It’s causing alot of deaths, isn’t it? Because it doesn’t work.
I understand the severity of military style assault weapons and the reason it seems sensible to prohibit them. But I guarantee that it is going to go much further and this is where I have the problem. “NRA” is fighting words with alot of liberals.
Armed guards in schools have not prevented these killings…
So we scrap it? Maybe there would have been more killings prevented which we are not aware of because of armed security. That’s like saying my security system failed to protect my house so I will turn it off.
Like the guy in China who recently attacked a school there with a knife.
People who wish to do harm can us a bomb, too.
But when it comes to guns, you’re ready to say “they’ll still manage to get something to kill with, so why try gun any control measures. Why?
Because you don’t see this as I do. Gun control measures is not the issue with me. It’s the paradigm of creating a “better world” with taking away our freedoms.
Mayor Bloomberg got some air time when he prohibited super sized soda in his city but look how easily everyone falls in line. Ludicrous!
The armed Deputy at Columbine did shoot at at least one of the shooters. A 60 yards shot with a pistol, not easy to do. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm Had he been closer the massacre might have been averted. He tried, what would you do? Run?
On the 2nd and the milita argument- http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.html Please read it and understand that the 2nd has little to do, really nothing to do, with the militia as most today understand it- the standing Federal Army or National Guard. To paraphrase the Conclusion-
The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state.The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the “disquietude” both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.
Read that last line again- ” The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.”
Ignorance. Good word that.
So, looking through the last weeks posts this is what I see-
Police in schools will not deter or be able to respond effectively to an active shooter situation. This of course begs the question, then why do we call the police at all?
Armed teachers or other staff not only will be unable to stop an active shooter, but they are a danger in themselves.
Neither teachers or school staff or police can be depended on not to “snap” and start shooting the school up themselves.
Any one with a gun is a bad person. This evidently includes police officers, FBI, Secret Service, USBP, Army, Navy, Marines, hunters, target shooters, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Sgt York, George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Audie Murphy.
Guns have no use other than killing people.
With the exception of myself, those who own guns here or who have owned guns in the past are normal, well adjusted individuals who can see the clear and present danger guns pose…well not THEIR guns, but other peoples guns because no one but them is trustworthy with a gun. I’m a gun nut/bad person.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says if we don’t want it to, unless we do want it to because it supports our position…..or not.
Just because a Governor proposes confiscation of private property specifically recognized in the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct does not mean he’s proposing an unlawful act.
Multiple illegal acts by a gov’t set the precedent proving that such acts are legal.
On a personal note, I think I’ve about worn out my welcome using my neighbors wireless connection. He says not, but he also says “I told you so”. He told me this place would get my blood boiling. Mrs Rancid told me the same thing. I can’t repeat what Mr. Rancid told me. He’s a good neighbor to all of us, but he was right. Now I understand why he stopped posting here.
Ooops, forgot-
The only possible answer to the violence problem is to outlaw what ever gun we’re most scared of at the moment.
Mental health issues are too hard to deal with.
Costs only matter when it’s something that doesn’t fit your agenda.
Mr. Ledbetter, you’d make a great president!
Well all of this discussion seems to be taking place without data. Do armed security guards work? Ancidotal accounts are interesting but what does the data tell us? A lot of schools have armed guards a lot do not seems like something that would not be that hard to study. The same goes for different gun control laws s couple of countries don’t answer the question. Yes we have Austalia but we also have Mexico and Switzerland. I just think we need to really look at all of these ideas without preconceived ideas.
For those of you who like isolated examples haw about this one:
Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Mervel, this discussion wouldn’t be happening at all if we had continued the assault weapons ban. I don’t need data to tell me that if we legalized RPG’s there would be some people who would insist that RPG’s are a popular sporting weapon and great for target shooting.
Do we really need studies to tell us that Mexico, which has stringent weapons laws, is getting lots of small arms illegally from across the border in the US? And Switzerland has a higher rate of gun deaths than any western industrialized nation except for US, Canada, and Finland. Even though their rate is about a third of our gun-death rate they are about double the rate of Israel and 14 times the rate in the UK.
And Finland; what about Finland? Well, it turns out that Finland has a gun culture much like the US and while its gun laws are tougher than ours they are less restrictive than other European nations.
“A government study in 2002 found 14 percent of homicides in Finland are gun-related. In the United States, nearly 67 percent of murders reported to police in the same year were committed with a firearm, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-23-238953446_x.htm
Guess what? Finland has had its own problem with shootings at schools.
You want statistics? How about this website?
Time Line of Worldwide School and Mass Shootings
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
I dont know if this list is comprehensive but I did a quick count of individual shooting events at schools that it lists.
Scotland, Yemen, the Netherlands, Sweden, Bosnia, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Norway, and France have each had one school shooting situation (in which various numbers of people may have been shot) since 1996.
Finland and Canada have had 2 each.
Germany has had 4.
The US has had 61, if I counted correctly.
61!
More on the gun lobby; did you know they have firm roots in Newtown?
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Newtown Gun Lobby, Keeps Military-Style Guns Legal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/national-shooting-sports-foundation-newtown_n_2348465.html
And why are the gun lobby people such cowards? NRA took days before they dared to show their face and the National Shooting Sports Foundation is in hiding.
“Since the Sandy Hook massacre, the NSSF has stated publicly that it will not respond to media requests, and attempts to reach Steve Sanetti, the president, were unsuccessful. Nor did anyone answer at two publicly listed numbers for Painter, the former president. In a statement posted on its website, the group acknowledged the NSSF’s proximity to the school, saying, “there are not many degrees of separation in small communities like Newtown, and so, not surprisingly, we had family, friends and acquaintances that were affected.”
These organizations are relying on their members to fight while the leaders hide. Ole tough guy Wayne was afraid to answer questions. Is that the problem here? That these people are cowards and that is why they are so desperate to keep their guns? Probably not. It is probably much more about money.
Knuck… it always comes down to money.
Welcome to Tea Party America:
“All new schools should be built next to a police station and any new police stations should be built next to a school. Panic buttons that are linked directly to police dispatch should be in all schools. Bullet proof shields should be in the closet of each classroom. Someone needs to be armed and maybe safe rooms should be built in all schools. Just restricting guns and increasing mental health treatment is not going to cut it. This is not as extreme as it sounds when you consider that 20 kindergarten kids were just mowed down by a madman. This is the reality we must face. Dw” (Tea Party Conservatives of America)
138 more gun deaths in the U.S. since Sandy Hook, as of 9am yesterday.
(Slate: How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?)
Arlo’s interpretation of last weeks posts sounds more like the typical exaggerated straw-man talking points spouted by a conservative windbag like Limbaugh (no offense Arlo) than what was really said here.
Can there be no discussion about restricting or banning assault weapons without the gun lobby getting apoplectic and making absurd characterizations and rationalizations?
Here’s an interesting article on guns, violence and society:
http://www.ianwelsh.net/on-killing-sprees/
OK. Someone’s going to take what follows as suggesting confiscation. It is not. I’m posting it as a counter to the idea that gun ownership equals freedom.
In Japan hardly anyone owns a gun. Most are illegal, and there are restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country’s infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns.
In 2008, when the U.S. had over 12,000 firearm-related homicides, Japan had 11. That same year, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally. (A Land Without Guns)
Gun deaths by homicide, suicide or accident peaked at 37,666 in 1993 before declining to a low of 28,393 in 2000, the data show. Since then the total has risen to 31,328 in 2010, an increase of 2,935, or eight more victims a day. (
American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015)
OK, so Japan is smaller than we are: those 11 deaths would be more like 26 if they were as big as the U.S. Still, our obsession with the “freedom” of gun ownership is costing a lot of us our lives.
People who are dead are not free.
And one more time, even the 300 million guns in the hands of The People would be no match for our military– the idea that the citizens could successfully resist tyranny using their home arsenals is a laughable fantasy.
“And one more time, even the 300 million guns in the hands of The People would be no match for our military– the idea that the citizens could successfully resist tyranny using their home arsenals is a laughable fantasy.”
Uh huh. Ask any soldier returning from Afghanistan about that. Or ask Assad in Syria. And of those 138 deaths reported this week how many were police shooting criminals how many were gang and drug related how many were legally owned guns? You don’t have the data do you? But you go with banning guns anyway. Enough.
Rancid, 2008’s 12,000 firearm-related homicides and 587 accidental gun deaths is good enough for me. That’s ignoring more than 18,000 firearm suicides.
By the way, Tunisia’s successful 2011 people’s revolution happened in a country with one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world.
And, Rancid, I explicitly said I am not in favor of a gun ban. Gun ownership does not equate to freedom. Period.
But Knuckle that is the point.
These lists are meaningless, they don’t take into account population sizes they don’t control for a variety of other variables etc. For every country or state with restrictive gun laws and low crime I can show you countries with liberal gun laws and low gun crime or countries with very restrictive gun laws and high gun crime.
Maybe armed guards do work? Like I said many schools have them out of the thousands of schools that do have them and the thousands that don’t we should be able to start to look at what really works or not. It seems to me that this is just another political discussion between those who like guns and those who don’t, another red state-blue state- liberal conservative rant against each other deal.
We have HAD an assault weapons ban in the US for 10 years, lets look at the data did it make a difference and if not why not? Was the law written poorly etc, or do those type of prohibitions work at all? I mean I have heard more than once on this board how outlawing things don’t work; how prohibition in the 30’s didn’t work, well we like guns at least as much as we like booze and pot in this country, so how well is prohibition going to work? But maybe it DOES work? We don’t know I do not have a pre-conceived view on the matter. From what I have seen the assault weapons ban did not make much of a statistical difference in gun violence, in fact gun violence has gone down since the assault weapons ban has been lifted.
My gut tells me that making something harder to obtain, assault weapons, large clips, would make a difference if it was enforced and also help us in our cultural battle against gratuitous violence. But I don’t know maybe the reasons we have high rates of gun crime compared to other developed countries has nothing to do with gun availability?