Problem much deeper than just guns in school

Society has been screaming for help with the mentally ill for a long time. When something is found to work, the educational bureaucracies refuse to acknowledge it's effectiveness. For some reason, these bureaucracies refuse to deal with bad individuals and the choices they make, instead referring as a societal problem.

And, is that an advertisement for Project Blackout on the right side? Could that be a root cause of much of today's violence?

@CPB Are you trying to say FPS games are the cause of the increase in violence over the years? The data tells a different story, you can look it up there have been many studies on this.

Gazette Staff

Thank you for providing this article and allowing the community to express their opinions on this issue. Keep up the good work -- your efforts to keep us informed is appreciated by all.

20 States legally allow Physical/Corporal Punishment, where school employees hit children with wooden boards to deliberately inflict physical pain as punishment in 21st Century American classrooms! Schoolchildren are the ONLY GROUP OF PEOPLE LEGALLY SUBJECTED TO PHYSICAL PAIN AS PUNISHMENT! Some "School Paddling States" have "Teacher Immunity Laws" to protect school employees from criminal/civil action! There is no argument in support of physical/corporal punishment of children in schools and our nation's most trusted Children's Health and Education Organizations have issued Official Position Statements Opposing Corporal Punishment in Schools as it is harmful to the healthy development of children and an impairment to the learning environment which has resulted in injuries to schoolchildren. DEMAND U.S. CONGRESS ENACT H.R. 5628 "Ending Physical/Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Schools Act" IMMEDIATELY, already ILLEGAL IN SCHOOLS IN 30 STATES!

Allowing Teachers to carry firearms for personal protection within school buildings is like storing your mower gas next to your wood stove - it is an accident waiting to happen. If we are going to travel down that road then we better make changes in educational requirements for our teachers to reflect their new responsibilities - from educating our children, to protecting them from deadly threat. There is a huge separation in those responsibilities -- being educated in one field of study does not translate into being educated in the other field of study.

Well Damu, let us see;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ns/technology_and_science-games/

not convinced;

http://www.pamf.org/preteen/parents/videogames.html

still not convinced;

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1723

We must also remember, this is the work of Sen. Christensen. Read the headlines, react to spontaneously, listen to voters, retract bill.

This proposed legislation tops Mark's Stripper Bill from a few years back. If you think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel be careful it might be a train.

The following is my opinion, and mine alone:

Everyone has the right to defend their own life against the aggression of others.

Schools have automated fire sprinklers, fire alarms, and lighting that makes fire exits easy to find. No one questions this. When was the last time you heard of a fatal school fire?

From the description provided, this bill would simply allow the SCHOOL BOARD to make the decision, whereas they are currently prohibited from doing so. I would think that the school board could impose whatever restrictions they deemed fit. A sensible restriction, in my opinion, would be to require such staff to obtain a Nebraska Concealed Handgun Permit. (Assuming that there is not ALREADY such a requirement within the bill)

@CPB

http://www.livescience.com/technology/051204_video_violence.html

The studies that do show links are casual at best.

@Geezer I would hope that if they were to pass such a bill they would require that any teacher carrying firearms in the school would have to take a mandatory safety/training class.

Owen & Damu

Normally weapons are only carried routinely by those working in a law enforcement capacity - local, county, state, and federal positions. They are justified in that capacity.

The individuals Right to Bear Arms does not carry with it the right to enforce the law, only the right to defend oneself and only if can be done without injury to others.

What do you think would be the public reaction the first time 4 or 5 kids jumped the teacher, took their weapon and began shooting? Or a teacher finally fed up with life decided to go out in a blaze of glory?

The best policy is to try and keep weapons out of the schools and thereby eliminate the whole threat of firearms. The big question is how.

Geezer, I don't believe there IS a way to keep weapons out of the schools. Let me explain:

The only way to be CERTAIN would be to have metal detectors at every access point. Those metal detectors would have to be manned. Naturally, if the detector alarmed, the operator would investigate. If the alarm WAS due to a person carrying a weapon with ill intent, rather than a wristwatch or keys, that miscreant would likely launch his attack at that point. This, then, necessitates that the detector operator be armed for both his own protection and the protection of others, leading directly back to your swarm-o-delinquents conundrum.

I say that this would be the ONLY way because the measures typically in use involve no actual barriers, but mere words - laws and signs. When it comes right down to it, those stop only the law-abiding. Criminals are, by definition, those who disobey laws.

There is, however, one thing you may not have considered. Concealed means CONCEALED. If the students don't know about the concealed firearm, they cannot attempt to seize it.

Also, the problem is not so much whether or not there are weapons in schools, as whose hands the weapons are in. A peaceful person does not become a murderer simply because he is armed, any more than a murderer becomes a peaceful person simply because he is disarmed.

Again, this is my opinion, and mine alone.

Owen - Good Morning

Good comments.

I ran across a recent article which discusses the pro's and con's including how the second amendment is interpreted by recent rulings in the Supreme Court. It is worth taking a look at.

http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=3106

Tell me, Geezer, what does the Brady Campaign - an organization that desires to ban guns - have to do with a bill to allow school boards to authorize school staff to carry firearms?

Here's the bill, by the way:

http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB516.pdf

It DOES require a CHP.

AGAIN!!!!!

A coherent, respectful argument with reasoned arguments from both sides of the issue. Well done folks; please continue in the same vein.

Your statement is very misleading Owen. The Brady Campaign is an effort to control gun violence, not guns -- the Second Amendment guarantees our gun rights. What is being disputed here is the right of educators to assume the role of law enforcement officials, by arming themselves with guns.

Geezer, I do not see any indication that the intent is to cause "educators to assume the role of law enforcement officials", any more than the people who ALREADY HAVE a Concealed Handgun Permit have assumed the role of law enforcement officials.

.....or do you believe that only the police and military should be armed?

Owen, then what is the purpose of letting Teachers pack firearms into our schools if it is not to enforce the law by addressing other peoples adverse actions that they have determined to be a violation of the law (a personal violent threat or otherwise)?

I believe that we have the right to bear arms within the definition of the Second Amendment -- but I do not believe that the right to bear arms is interchangeable with the right to enforce the laws of our land. That right should remain vested in those specifically chosen for that purpose based on their knowledge of those laws and their training in the proper methods to enforce them -- my opinion

@Geezer I'm not entirely sure that they would in effect be enforcing the law of the land. In my vision it would be more so protecting their students.

I believe that having the teachers armed like that works on two levels. The students know some teachers are armed. Thus making the actual execution of any kind of malicious deeds more difficult.

The other side is if a student or adult were to begin shooting inside a school a trained teacher could feasibly put an end to the violence. Instead of the student wandering the halls unchecked until emergency personal were able to arrive and intervene.

Damu - I just don't buy that argument. I respect your and Owens opinion but I don't agree with it.

If the conditions in our schools get so bad that we have to let teachers pack weapons to provide safety for our children, we have far greater problems than what our Teachers can solve.

Thanks for the conversation guys!!

Geezer:

I take pride in getting to where I need to be as quickly as possible. That being said, even one or two minutes is an eternity for someone at the pointy end of an emergency. And the laws of physics - specifically with regards to speed, distance and time - are inviolable.

The help that's ten, five, or even ONE block away may not get there fast enough to defend them against harm.

But the help that's in the SAME ROOM, or the one next door, very well might.

And thank you, Damu, for explaining that.

(opinions are mine, and mine alone, for anyone wondering or keeping track)

Owen

What about the School Districts that decide to not allow guns within their buildings, grounds, etc.?

Are we going to demand them to either have teachers with guns or we won't allow our students to particpate in their activities?

What about Field Trips, FFA conventions, etc?

Should all Bus Drivers be required to carry Firearms?

What will you do if none of the teachers in school want the responsibility of carrying a firearm? Will that then become a mandate for the hiring of teachers? Will we lose a lot of quality teaching professionals by implementing a policy like this?

Who will be held liable for any accidental deaths relating from the policy - individuals or School Districts? Will this cause School District insurance rates to escalate?

There are a lot of issues to consider.

Geezer,

I don't know how to make this any more clear:

There is NOTHING in the bill which REQUIRES any person or organization to do ANYTHING.

When it comes right down to it, this bill simply creates an exception within the existing law prohibiting possession of firearms on school grounds, and delegates authority to the governing school board to make such decisions.

Regarding your "what if" questions, has it occurred to you yet that you are describing the situation as it CURRENTLY exists?

Here's how I see this playing out: school boards will decide whether or not to permit CCW by licensed staff in their schools. Most will simply do nothing, thereby leaving matters EXACTLY as they are right now. A few will approve of it, and establish policy which would ALLOW it, upon board approval on a case-by-case basis, and then do nothing further until a staff member REQUESTS to be allowed to CCW.

The home guard will be an all-volunteer force. And very likely a very, VERY small one, due to the predominant ideology within America's education profession.

The would-be mass murderer, however, can never be sure under which shell the pea will be, though, which is what would still make it an effective deterrent. Currently, each shell is empty, and everyone knows it.

(My opinion, and mine alone)

Owen, I like the way you laid that out. It makes since to me BUT, I feel it would be much better to have qualified security agents toting the weapons, the ones that have had extensive training in regard to live action split second decision making certified training like police officers would, rather than just put a gun in the hands of people that have passed a background check but have no real life training on self defense. To me it seems like putting guns into school for a savvy would be student shooter to take. This smells of some violent middle eastern county to me.

I know some people good with a pistol, but throw them into the chaos of screaming students, bullets flying, and general moral breakdown and I'm here to tell you, that gun becomes more of a liability than an asset.

This bill concerns me greatly.

Geezer, Nick and other doubters, I'd like you to answer one question...where we have seen incidents of mass murder by one gunman, how many other people in that location were also armed?

The answer, of course, is NONE.

This is because murderous madmen are not too stupid to read the "No Guns Allowed" signs we use to advertise those places where it is safe to commit mass murder.

If we, instead, advertised that every school district has an unknown number of responsible adults carrying concealed weapons, the number of mass gun murders in schools would drop through the floor...whether or not any teachers were actually armed.

You would find the same result at malls, hospitals and other areas that advertise themselves as being safe places for mass murder. As soon as you advertise your intention to protect the people in those areas, the "fun" of trying to shoot them suddenly isn't "fun," it's dangerous.

Just for review, try to remember the last time you heard about someone shooting a bunch of people at a gun show...where almost everyone could be armed.

Or recall the case of the church in Colorado, where the gunman foolishly assumed no one would shoot back. OOOPS!!

Mrs. Smith,

I will be grouped with the "Doubters". To be sure, I UNDERSTAND the concept of the idea. It's quite sound. My issue is: What happens when the rubber meets the road? If there are responsible adults carrying weapons in school, will they be prepared to use them in such a manner that will be conducive of a positive outcome? Remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Responsible adults aren't necessarily indicative of being prepared and experienced adults that can keep a cool head in a high pressure moment. I have spoken to some friends that were in Iraq as soldiers. One of my friends which will forever remain nameless out of respect for his service to his country, confided in me. "I froze up... all I could do is listen and hope the gun fire would stop." This was an American trained soldier speaking of his first experience of live enemy rounds being shot at him. This man was trained in such a fashion that should have made him "Prepared" for the event and yet he froze. I suspect that this was not an isolated incident among new soldiers. A man that was put under duress daily to prep him for such a thing.

What responsible adults which have gone through a one week course once maybe twice a year are going to be prepared for a child pointing a gun at them or another student and act flawlessly?

To respond to your comment about the gunmen not being affected by the "No Guns Allowed" signs... I believe that the Columbine gunmen left suicide letters, the more recent Lincoln shooter also left a "just in case" note. These people go in expecting to not make it out alive.

How many children do you have in the school system right now if you don't mind me asking? Not how many do you care about, I would hope that you care about them all. How many do you have? There is a difference. I currently have 6 children in the school system with one more two years away.

If I was to hear about a gunman in a random school I would be very concerned, on the edge of my seat. If I heard that there was a gunman in one of THEIR schools I would fight tooth and nail myself to go in and rectify the situation. BIG DIFFERENCE. My point is this..... I would gladly pay more in taxes to support an experienced security guard in the school knowing that the likelihood of him or her squeezing off a shot will be more likely to do the job than hope that a moderately trained teacher won't send a stray bullet into a crowd of innocent children. If the message is supposed to be "We Shoot Back" then "ARMED SECURITY" should do the trick. If it doesn't then it wasn't going to anyway.

Owen, as a police officer I would certainly hope to think that you wouldn't want untrained or undertrained adults to pick up a role as vigilante. You of all people should recognize the constant training it takes to be prepared for such an atrocity. You CAN'T have a good teacher AND a good security guard at the same time. Both require constant training. Going it half way isn't good enough, not for a man with 7 children at risk. SORRY, but believe me.... I HAVE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH.

Self defense, or defense of others, is hardly vigilantism.

In order to obtain a Nebraska CHP, training and testing must be satisfactorily completed.

@damu:

"On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an assault on Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, murdering 13 and wounding 23 before turning the guns on themselves. Although nothing is for certain as to why these boys did what they did, we do know that Harris and Klebold both enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks Internet hate groups, found in its archives a copy of Harris' web site with a version of Doom. He had customized it so that there were two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammunition, and the other people in the game could not fight back. For a class project, Harris and Klebold made a videotape that was similar to their customized version of Doom. In the video, Harris and Klebold were dressed in trench coats, carried guns, and killed school athletes. They acted out their videotaped performance in real life less than a year later... (3)"

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1723

HEY.... I can do that too. All of your "links" to internet articles are nothing but a single sided glimpse of an opinion.

Firstly, I will guarantee that when you are out to prove a point you Google what you want the response or findings to be.

Secondly, I will further guarantee that you have found links that opposed your views and opinions and we NEVER see you post up those links.

Thirdly, and I've said this before, if you find it on the internet, there is probably less fact in it than the information you find in the Enquirer.

You seem to like Wikipedia, give me 20 minutes and I'll have an article on Wiki that states the moon is certifiably made of cheese, hair growth is directly related to the kind of trees grown in Southern Europe, and studies show that cows can succumb to arthritis in their toes. How will I do it? BECAUSE I CAN POST THE ARTICLE, without having to prove anything.

I'm sure that there are those that read your opinions and because you give a link to a sight that supports your ideas, they just say "WOW, I didn't know that." Then they go out and make a$$e$ of themselves repeating your information. I hope that people don't take that stuff seriously.

By the way, it took me less than 15 seconds to find that article AND post it on this blog. Heck, I didn't even read it all. I 'm not trying to make a point with that article in relation to the point at hand, but rather show example that these links can and will say whatever you want and if they don't, Hey write a Wiki.

This is a topic that deserves some serious consideration and shouldn't be used as an argument table to show how intelligent and computer / internet savvy you are. Having fun while developing your opinions at the risk of stray bullets in a school lacks the intelligence that I know you have as I have seen you make good arguments. Video games DO consume people and even make them agitated and depressed. I know this first hand as I was out of commission with an injury with nothing to do, I picked up one of my children's Gameboys and after struggling to pass a level of "Shrek" and couldn't do it, I became quite agitated and couldn't focus on anything else until I succeeded. My daughter finally took it away from me and said "Dad, you have to put it down." How stupid huh? I think I went through withdrawals. Three days did that to me.

THAT, my friend, is evidence. When a child can see it happening, THAT'S EVIDENCE.

Owen, how comfortable are you having someone with moderate training carrying a gun down the street and helping the innocent in times of need. Further, if someone did such a thing and shot and killed a perpetrator in a 7-11 while holding up the store with a realistic looking water pistol, legally, I believe that a manslaughter charge would be put in motion. You as a police officer even have restrictions on how and when you can squeeze the trigger and if you don't follow protocol you will be held liable. I'm sure you consider that whenever you remove your sidearm from the holster. YOU have extensive training, ongoing training, specialized training. I'm sure that you not only have been specialized in firearm use and safety, but an even more important factor, I'm sure that prior to handing a weapon over to you, you went through a psychological evaluation, and again ongoing training on how to compose and collect yourself in high stress situations. That is something that education staff simply won't have time to do. As I said before, you can't be great at education AND security.

Would you or would you not say that a posted Professional Security Officer is the best defense?

Mrs. Smith, you actually asked 2 question and then answered them yourself. Allow me to answer them.

Question #1:"where we have seen incidents of mass murder by one gunman".

Answer #1: Millard South High School, by a single gunman, Robert Butler Jr. (Perhaps not "mass murder" but if things went differently perhaps.)

Question #2: " how many other people in that location were also armed?"

Answer #2: Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I have seen several articles stating that there were security personnel on sight although I don't recall ever hearing if they were armed, one might suspect that security personnel would be carrying weapons. This man went in after researching lethal injection. I would say he didn't expect to get away scott free.

I'm not sure how your answer of "NONE" would even seem correct. How about the multiple presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations? How about the stories of convenience store clerks pulling out a shotgun in response to an armed robbery. NONE? Really? Where are you going with this?

teachers with guns. cant spank em but keep a gun handy?

I stand corrected, the training doesn't require a one week course twice a year but an 8 to 16 hour training course, period, where the applicants will learn, among other necessary things, "BASIC fundamentals of pistol shooting" and will in conclusion be required to achieve a minimum 70% on the final test which is a 30 question multiple choice exam.

THAT..... doesn't make me feel any better at all. Of all the knowledge gained during that training, what 30% is acceptable NOT TO KNOW when it comes to protecting hundreds of children in a school?

I expect no less than As in school from my children with a B from time to time, I don't think I'll lower my standards for the teachers.

Nebraska CHP source: http://www.hatfirearmstraining.com/Class_Outline.html

I'm starting to look like damu with these links.

well i guess thats the end of that debate. that chp website really didnt impress me either. i hope thats not the kind of training that the police get. sounds weak and aimed at helping people get the permit insted of making sure they are capable of handleling a weapon.

BTWinecleff:

Try this one:

http://statepatrol.nebraska.gov/forms/ccw/CCW_Course_Objectives.pdf

And if that's not enough to satisfy you, with respect to ordinary citizens carrying guns to defend themselves, what would?

Yeah, that appears to be an extensive training course specifically for State Patrol and or Law Enforcement Officers. I'm not sure that is what the standard issue training will be for a teacher, IF they could get it at all. I'm certain that the police force take this course or one similar.... that's why I'm comfortable calling them to save my life.

I do appreciate all the Police Force and EMT/Fire Department do for us by the way.

PensiveObserver, that's NOT a course for law enforcement officers. That is what the State of Nebraska REQUIRES to be included in a course of instruction for Concealed Handgun Permit applicants, before NSP will approve the course to be taught.

What is meant by the term "schools" on the list of prohibited places?

The statute simply prohibits permit holders from carrying a concealed weapon in any "building, grounds, vehicle, or sponsored activity or athletic event of any public, private, denominational or parochial elementary, vocational, or secondary school, a private postsecondary career school as defined in section 85-1603, a community college, or a public or private college, junior college, or university". The debate on the legislation suggests that the Legislature intended to include trade schools, preschools, beauty schools, and "all types of educational enterprises".

This is from the site referenced by Owen. I realize that the passing of this bill will cause a change in this regulation but I find it interesting that it states this specifically to begin with. There MUST be a reason.

I would also like to point out that the site I referenced before is recognized by the Nebraska State Patrol which is to say, if someone wished to use that course, 30 questions, 70% or better, they could obtain a permit and things STILL HAVEN'T CHANGED. My question before was, "Of all the knowledge gained during that training, what 30% is acceptable NOT TO KNOW when it comes to protecting hundreds of children in a school?"

I realize that MY opinion doesn't mean a thing and won't sway Christensen; however, I would certainly not want to be the Would Be Hero that ricocheted a bullet and struck a child. What are acceptable losses due to friendly fire by government standards I wonder?

0% casualties in my book. i dont see that happening with untrained gunners protecting the schools.