So the panic has begun...

[hellokitty]

DH just got a call from another family from school and cub scouts. The husband called and his wife wants a gun of her own. He asked DH where they should buy one locally (my DH owns guns and has taken this other guy to the shooting range with him before). I did not really think about this as the reaction some ppl would have, but when ppl are scared, they do stupid and impulsive things. Now there will probably be a deluge of ppl trying to buy guns. We already live in an area where more ppl own guns, than not, but still. I am thinking that this is pushing some ppl who were on the fence about it before, over the fence into getting a gun. DH also said that gun and ammo prices are going to be going up soon, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a crazy spike in gun sales in the next week as a reaction to what happened last wk.

[brittone2]

I know what you mean.

A few weeks ago there was an armed break in near BIL/SIL's rural home. BIL was freaked out beyond words. He got on the phone with MIL, who babysits his sons, and was like "(wife) and I have been talking about what you would do if someone came to the door with a gun while you were watching the kids. Do you know how to shoot a gun? Can I teach you?" MIL was telling us this like...WTH do they want me to do?

MIL is in her mid 60s. There's no way she's suddenly going to hone her nonexistent sharp shooting skills. Moreover, DH and I immediately said to MIL, he does realize that it is far more dangerous to have a gun in his home with the kids around, and probably far more likely his children would injure themselves with HIS gun, vs. the extraordinarily unlikely possibility MIL will successfully scare off a potential attacker? I mean, MIL is just not going to be able to drop what she's doing, find a gun, load it (or would it be loaded already and waiting? Gah!) and shoot with a 2.5 yo and a newborn in the house!

But this made perfect sense to them at the time.

SOmetimes DH and I scratch our heads.

[wellyes]

Lots of talk about limiting gun sales after the tragedy. So, I'm sure the gun sellers are having a fantastic week from panic buyers.

Have you seen this gun ad right next to a story about the shooting? It was an honest mistake, apologized for, but still. So very telling about our society. Gun violence, photos of terrified people fleeing a gunman, Santa Claus and the big word "SALE!" next to a bunch of guns. That have nothing to do with hunting. http://hypervocal.com/news/2012/rhherald-gun-ad-newtown/ (http://cheezburger.com/6887503360)

[kijip]

Michael Moore's tweet said it all on this topic. Something to the effect of:

If only Adam Lanza's mother had owned a gun. Then she could have stopped this all before it started.

[Fairy]

Michael Moore's tweet said it all on this topic. Something to the effect of:

If only Adam Lanza's mother had owned a gun. Then she could have stopped this all before it started.

That's brillilant.

[crl]

Michael Moore's tweet said it all on this topic. Something to the effect of:

If only Adam Lanza's mother had owned a gun. Then she could have stopped this all before it started.

So right.

Catherine

[Momit]

Michael Moore's tweet said it all on this topic. Something to the effect of:

If only Adam Lanza's mother had owned a gun. Then she could have stopped this all before it started.

Exactly.

[hellokitty]

Michael Moore's tweet said it all on this topic. Something to the effect of:

If only Adam Lanza's mother had owned a gun. Then she could have stopped this all before it started.

Yeah, that is exactly why I am a little bit surprised by ppl thinking that buying a gun and increasing chances of more guns falling in the hands of ppl would be the solution to what happened.

[Momit]

It seems that some people overestimate their potential to be the hero in a dangerous situation. I remember people arguing after the Colorado movie theatre shooting that if more people in the audience had concealed weapons that surely one of them would have been able to gun down the shooter before anyone got hurt. I tend to think the flip side - even more casualties - is probably more likely if more inexperienced people carry guns.

[Twoboos]

It is making me crazy to hear people saying teachers should be armed with guns in school. Let's take a step back, people.

[StantonHyde]

Here's the thing--I can think of 3 mass shootings in states where there are plenty of people with concealed carry permits---Colorado theatre, Gabby Giffords in AZ, and mass shooting here in Utah around Valentines day several years ago. IN the Utah case, there was an off duty police officer with a gun who did help take out the gunman and save people. But nobody else did.

Do not tell me that people in those situations did not have weapons on them. They did. They chose not to use them. So adding more mess to the fire is not going to help. We already have plenty of armed people where I live (Utah has some of the, if not the, most lenient concealed carry permit laws in the country). So it is UNTRUE to think that there were not people there with guns. Just throwing more guns at a problem does not solve it!!!

[AnnieW625]

.......If only Adam Lanza's mother had owned a gun. Then she could have stopped this all before it started.

I am probably the only one who thinks this here, but even though the gun was the mother's gun she is still a victim in all of this as well and it is unfortunate we will never know what the mother did or could have done to talk her son out of doing what he did (or if she had done something in the past if the suspect had a long brewing mental illness or other issue that finally just made him go over the edge) or what really happened. The suspect in his own mind knew what he was doing by killing himself; ie: no one will ever know.


It seems that some people overestimate their potential to be the hero in a dangerous situation. I remember people arguing after the Colorado movie theatre shooting that if more people in the audience had concealed weapons that surely one of them would have been able to gun down the shooter before anyone got hurt. I tend to think the flip side - even more casualties - is probably more likely if more inexperienced people carry guns.

My DH and I were talking about this this AM. He says that these people look for gun free areas on purpose. The Aurora shooting happened in a non conceal and carry city and he is pretty sure the suspect knew this and that is why he chose that area because he'd have less resistance. We will never know for sure because we aren't the suspect, and we weren't in that movie theater. No idea about the C&C law in CT, but the suspect probably knew he'd receive little resistance by shooting people at a school, but if he also had outstanding issues with an education he received as a child I am sure that could have played some part as well (not saying that is true, but after reading Liza Long's article it sounds like it could have been a possibility although we really know nothing about Adam Lanza although that his parents were divorced).

I am not defending this shooter at all, but it truly does make sense and again the shooter that killed the people at the Sikh he knew no one there would have a gun either. Same thing with the mall the other day, no one but some security gaurd could potentially stop him.

[brittone2]

I know the pro-gun folks had issues with this 20/20 piece, but I remember when it aired after the Virginia Tech shootings.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1#.UM9rjYVXjcE

[crl]

It seems that some people overestimate their potential to be the hero in a dangerous situation. I remember people arguing after the Colorado movie theatre shooting that if more people in the audience had concealed weapons that surely one of them would have been able to gun down the shooter before anyone got hurt. I tend to think the flip side - even more casualties - is probably more likely if more inexperienced people carry guns.

I completely agree. Dh was a military police officer. He was specifically trained for this kind of situation. He found it noteworthy at the time how badly his fellow Marines did on target courses that simulated these kinds of situations--moving targets, lots of victims acting in irrational ways, just general chaos. They seldom hit the "bad guy" and often took out victims. He actually scored extremely well on those courses--generally in the top two of his class. But when this came up after the Colorado theater shooting, he was very clear that he would have found it impossible to make a shot in those circumstances now. He is long out of practice. He said, maybe, but only maybe, would he have been able to make that shot when he was in training. He wasn't at all sure he would have had an opportunity and wasn't at all sure he would have succeeded.

So, in my view, the odds are extremely small that an armed civilian would do any good in this kind of situation. And far outweighed by the increased risk of yet another gun being around to be accidentally fired or used improperly.

Catherine

[wellyes]

I absolutely see the killer's mother as a victim. I don't think the quote necessarily blames her. It just speaks to the futility of the typical pro-gun argument in these cases.
My DH and I were talking about this this AM. He says that these people look for gun free areas on purpose. The Aurora shooting happened in a non conceal and carry city and he is pretty sure the suspect knew this and that is why he chose that area because he'd have less resistance.

The Aurora killer was a schizophrenic who killed people in the town he went to school in & (I believe) lived right next to. The Virginia Tech killer was a schizophrenic who killed people at his school & where he lived. This killer, we don't know his psych issues, but he chose victims in his own town. I am not seeing any pattern of targeting cities with lax gun laws.

[maestramommy]

Over thanksgiving weekend there was a break-in in my town. The family came home to find the intruder still there. Both beaten severely, the husband was critical, but now recovering. 2yo was unharmed. This is a small town where "not much happens" and people were very shaken. In the town paper this weekend the police chief said more than 25 permits for guns were sought since the break-in.

Dh jokingly asked me, "So do you want a gun now?" I looked at him like he was nuts. NO WAY do I want something like that in my house, with 3 nosy persistent kids. I would also have to take a lot of time to learn how to use them properly, something I know I don't have right now. I feel better keeping my house locked up tight with an alarm, lighting, and a dog.

[AngB]

My DH and I were talking about this this AM. He says that these people look for gun free areas on purpose.


How about the shooting at Ft.Hood ? The guy killed 13 people and wounded 29 (per Wikipedia) on a MILITARY BASE. When you drive on base, you have to show your military ID to armed security forces. I don't think crazy people who plan massacres care too much if there is someone with a gun where they are or not. I'm not sure if schools in other states still have the DARE program, but ours do, so there easily could have been an armed police office on an elementary school campus at any given time.

[chlobo]

I thought I read at the time of the theater shooting that there *were* people in the audience with weapons and none of them were able to get off a shot b/c of the confusion and mayhem factor. Plus it was dark.

[kijip]

1.)I am probably the only one who thinks this here, but even though the gun was the mother's gun she is still a victim in all of this as well and it is unfortunate we will never know what the mother did or could have done to talk her son ...

2.)My DH and I were talking about this this AM. He says that these people look for gun free areas on purpose.

I've numbered the two thing I want to respond to.

1- OF COURSE Nancy Lanza is a victim. Who would ever say she wasn't? The woman was shot dead, in her face. I don't care if she did or didn't know or help her son effectively. I don't care if she owned a militias worth of arms. I don't care if she abused him as a child (well I do but its not a justification for shooting someone in the face.) NO ONE should be murdered. The point is that her being a gun owner did ZERO to save her.

2.) I don't know of any evidence to support your husband's assertion about would be mass killers looking for places where few people have guns. Most such killers seem to start shooting around their homes, wherever that might be. The states with the highest RATES of gun deaths tend to be the states with the least restrictions on gun ownership. Colorado, Virginia and Arizona are all sites of relatively recent mass shootings and are all hardly states where few people own guns. Frankly, the idea that they look for places without guns sounds more like a rationalization of how it is "better" to own guns than not. Safety statistics do not seem to back that rationalization up. Lastly most mass gunmen seem intent on suicide, be it by their own hand or by cop. If someone is planning to die, then they hardly will be deterred by weapons!

[Mikey0709]

Going back to the original post - my town actually had a gun show/sale at the Expo center this weekend. This was something planned well in advance - - but they had RECORD crowds this weekend - - so much that the lines to get in made all local news....and comments from the newscaster how many entire families were there with children.

[LizLemon]

DH just got a call from another family from school and cub scouts. The husband called and his wife wants a gun of her own. He asked DH where they should buy one locally (my DH owns guns and has taken this other guy to the shooting range with him before). I did not really think about this as the reaction some ppl would have, but when ppl are scared, they do stupid and impulsive things. Now there will probably be a deluge of ppl trying to buy guns. We already live in an area where more ppl own guns, than not, but still. I am thinking that this is pushing some ppl who were on the fence about it before, over the fence into getting a gun. DH also said that gun and ammo prices are going to be going up soon, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a crazy spike in gun sales in the next week as a reaction to what happened last wk.

So this woman's takeaway message from this tragedy is that this country needs more guns, starting with her family? People's response to this event (the pro-gun crowd) seriously has me wondering if we need to move outside the US. It just seems like it is going to get more and more unsafe here.

[bisous]

Not usually a Michael Moore fan but that quote is spot on. I have a nice mix in my facebook friends. Half say this is a call to ban guns. The other half say it is time to arm ourselves. They divide pretty evenly on ideological lines.

[niccig]

I have to agree with Michael Moore - Nancy Lanza has several guns in her house and they didn't save her.

Statistics are higher that your own gun will be used against you, and this is another proof of that.

[AnnieW625]

I absolutely see the killer's mother as a victim. I don't think the quote necessarily blames her. It just speaks to the futility of the typical pro-gun argument in these cases.

The Aurora killer was a schizophrenic who killed people in the town he went to school in & (I believe) lived right next to. The Virginia Tech killer was a schizophrenic who killed people at his school & where he lived. This killer, we don't know his psych issues, but he chose victims in his own town. I am not seeing any pattern of targeting cities with lax gun laws.

No it is the opposite of lax gun laws, no they often target cities with strict gun laws. In Aurora you cannot carry a loaded weapon in public. Even though the shooter lived in Aurora my DH was saying that he could have been met with more resistance had he targeted another city in a near by city that allows people to carry concealed hand guns.

I also get that most of the shootings take place at somewhere familiar to the shooter's home area, and they coincidentally were gun free zones.

Not sure if anyone will agree but this is an interesting read:
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?&pageType=sundaymorning&catid=57491081&feed_id=35&nb_splitPage=0

[kijip]

No it is the opposite of lax gun laws, no they often target cities with strict gun laws. In Aurora you cannot carry a loaded weapon in public. Even though the shooter lived in Aurora my DH was saying that he could have been met with more resistance had he targeted another city in a near by city that allows people to carry concealed hand guns.

I also get that most of the shootings take place at somewhere familiar to the shooter's home area, and they coincidentally were gun free zones.

Not sure if anyone will agree but this is an interesting read:
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?&pageType=sundaymorning&catid=57491081&feed_id=35&nb_splitPage=0

I am sorry but thinking that way does not mean it is true.

People who commit atrocious acts out of nowhere are not often met with a ton of resistance. Time after time people report acting in a totally different way than they thought they would in a crisis situation. A someone said on a different post, people greatly overestimate their ability to be the hero, gun in hand or not. My friends who are police officers all say they see this play out again and again. Research backs their anecdotes up pretty well. People don't just flee or fight. Oftentimes they are paralyzed with fear. Also while Aurora Colorado *technically* has a ban on CC, the State of Colorado subsequently overrode that law making CC legal by permit regardless of local ordinances. As far as I know, Colorado has a pretty lax set of gun laws and is one of the easiest states to get a CC permit in.

[wellyes]

Sorry, I meant strict gun laws, not lax. I believe your husband is attributing a great deal more rationality than is deserved by these men. They all killed in their own neighborhoods.

[StantonHyde]

An 11 year old boy brought a gun and ammunition to a local elementary school yesterday--so he could defend himself. The news is all over the fact that he will be charged. Where the he!! are the parents? How did he get this hand gun????? I know I am being presumptious, but I can hear his dad now--If the teacher would have had a gun, this couldn't have happened. And this is the result. sigh.

Mind you, it is legal in Utah for a concealed weapons permit holder to carry their gun onto any school grounds--including K-12. We are 1 of only 2 states in the nation where this is allowed. Makes me sick.

[ang79]

I can't believe how many people are jumping on board with this thought process "If only the teachers in CT were armed, this never would have been so bad, they would have saved more kids". DH said his FB page is covered w/ messages from friends and relatives with that mindset (as well as the one about now needing to buy a gun to protect themselves). I just do not understand the reasoning that more guns are going to keep us safer and prevent more deaths. With all the guns that are currently in the US, why then are still so many people still being killed and hurt by gunfire? And why, where in countries where there are tighter controls on who can own a gun, is there less gun violence? People from Australia, Japan, Europe, must seriously be shaking their heads at the US right now, wondering where our common sense has gone.

As a former elem. teacher I never would have been comfortable if part of my job description was to have a gun in my classroom. Probably wouldn't have stayed at that job because to me, that just opens up the door for an accidental shooting between students, from angry staff, etc. And if our school district were to ever move to that requirement, my kids would be pulled out ASAP and home schooled.

[LizLemon]

An 11 year old boy brought a gun and ammunition to a local elementary school yesterday--so he could defend himself. The news is all over the fact that he will be charged. Where the he!! are the parents? How did he get this hand gun????? I know I am being presumptious, but I can hear his dad now--If the teacher would have had a gun, this couldn't have happened. And this is the result. sigh.

Mind you, it is legal in Utah for a concealed weapons permit holder to carry their gun onto any school grounds--including K-12. We are 1 of only 2 states in the nation where this is allowed. Makes me sick.

This is just one of the reasons I think gun laws need to be severely tightened. Working with families, I know that a lot of families have guns that are not secure or only nominally so. And parental supervision is often pretty poor. I have had multiple cases of kindy and younger aged kids getting access to the gun. It is often then blamed on the young child, showing where the parents are in terms of responsibility and general awareness. We are all at risk, our children are all at risk from the irresponsible parents.

[edurnemk]

People's response to this event (the pro-gun crowd) seriously has me wondering if we need to move outside the US. It just seems like it is going to get more and more unsafe here.

We currently live abroad, but DH is interviewing for a couple of positions, two in Europe, one back n the US. I am now seriously having reservations about moving back to the US, because of the more frequent shootings and also because CWP freak me out and the thought that more people around me and my kids may have guns scares the h3ll out of me.


People from Australia, Japan, Europe, must seriously be shaking their heads at the US right now, wondering where are common sense has gone.


Yes they are, people all over the world stare in disbelief at this issue. Both for the frequency of mass shootings and America's inexplicable love for their guns in spite of them. That's pretty much what people around here comment.

[abh5e8]

Here's the thing--I can think of 3 mass shootings in states where there are plenty of people with concealed carry permits---Colorado theatre, Gabby Giffords in AZ, and mass shooting here in Utah around Valentines day several years ago. IN the Utah case, there was an off duty police officer with a gun who did help take out the gunman and save people. But nobody else did.

Do not tell me that people in those situations did not have weapons on them. They did. They chose not to use them. So adding more mess to the fire is not going to help. We already have plenty of armed people where I live (Utah has some of the, if not the, most lenient concealed carry permit laws in the country). So it is UNTRUE to think that there were not people there with guns. Just throwing more guns at a problem does not solve it!!!

nope...the movie theater in CO was the only one, of 8 theaters, within 20 mins of the shooters home that posted a no concealed weapons allowed sign. and of all the mass random shootings in the past 30 years, all with the exception of AZ occurred in "gun free" zones. (ie. schools, churches, businesses with posted signs)

[abh5e8]

I also get that most of the shootings take place at somewhere familiar to the shooter's home area, and they coincidentally were gun free zones.

many would say its no coincidence. the CO shooting was in the only theater of 8, within 20 mins of the shooters home to post a no concealed weapons sign.

i'm certainly not for arming teachers, but i do think have an active duty police officer in each school would go a long long way, in protecting our children and those that work with them.

[abh5e8]

As far as I know, Colorado has a pretty lax set of gun laws and is one of the easiest states to get a CC permit in.

yeah, and something like 4% of all CO citizens have a cc permit. the point is, the guns are already out there. > 300 million legal, registered in the US.

[AnnieW625]

Thanks Abh, that was my DH's point. All of the shooting we could think of took place in a gun free zone, except the AZ one, and the one at Ft. Hood, although I assume that military offices could be in free (I honestly don't know).

KJLIP, I missed your response to the Michael Moore tweet, but I found it kind if insulting to her. Turns out I read later on yesterday that they believe she was killed in her sleep.

[kijip]

nope...the movie theater in CO was the only one, of 8 theaters, within 20 mins of the shooters home that posted a no concealed weapons allowed sign. and of all the mass random shootings in the past 30 years, all with the exception of AZ occurred in "gun free" zones. (ie. schools, churches, businesses with posted signs)

Do you seriously think aggrieved and ready to kill students who want to die would go after a different school than their own if it was not a weapon free zone?! Most business place shootings involve the place where the shooter or their spouse worked. Sign or not people in that position ready to shoot will shoot. Why the heck should we make it easier to kill?

Far more frequent than mass shootings are individual homicides and suicides. Both of these go up with more guns available on a state by state level.

If you overlay gun laws and per capita gun deaths a pattern emerges in the IS by state that is totally out of sync with the oft repeated but largely inaccurate talking points of the gun lobby. Take a look:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

The idea that more people owning and carrying guns around makes people safer is wishful thinking. And as body counts pile up daily and monthly I personally consider it not only a false concept but a dangerous concept. No one should die because of faulty and politic arguments and sound-bytes promulgated by those with a financial and personal interest in the sale of a many weapons as possible.

[StantonHyde]

nope...the movie theater in CO was the only one, of 8 theaters, within 20 mins of the shooters home that posted a no concealed weapons allowed sign. and of all the mass random shootings in the past 30 years, all with the exception of AZ occurred in "gun free" zones. (ie. schools, churches, businesses with posted signs)

No--in Utah, there was a Valentines Day massacre within the last 5-10 years at the Trolley Square Mall. Where plenty of people had guns. The only person who responded was an off duty police officer.

Also--in Utah, you can carry your weapon into any daycare, any church, any K-12 school unless there is a sign saying they aren't allowed. But then--there is my point below.

Also--how many concealed weapons holders notice the no weapons sign? Seriously, EVERY year we have at least three people trying to check bags at the Salt Lake City airport and lo and behold, there's a gun in that bag. They say they forgot they put one there. (apparently they have multiple guns--sort of like I have sun glasses). And it's not like the management is going to be checking them if the gun is concealed. People just wear them out of habit. Heck, we can't get police officers to give up their weapons when they walk into our psych hospital. So, no, I'm not buying it.

[kara97210]

The idea that more people owning and carrying guns around makes people safer is wishful thinking. And as body counts pile up daily and monthly I personally consider it not only a false concept but a dangerous concept. No one should die because of faulty and politic arguments and sound-bytes promulgated by those with a financial and personal interest in the sale of a many weapons as possible.

I thought it was interesting that I had never heard of the idea of arming teachers before, even after all the other (many, many) school shootings so I did a quick news search this afternooon. This idea is all over conservative talk radio this week with the exact same talking points (gun free zones are targeted, etc.). It definitely feels like a concentrated effort to set a new narrative, something the gun lobby has been good at doing before, rather than finding real solutions.

I also think it's interesting that these are the same interests that, in the last election, wanted to cut government down to the core. My husband is a businessman and yesterday he tried to do a rough estimate of how much it would cost to insert weapons into schools. It would be billlions (and billions) of dollars. Buying guns, training teachers, securing weapons, increased liability coverage (both for school districts and likely the individual teachers), costs associated with accidental shootings, etc. Most school districts are maxed out as it is, where is the funding for this supposed to come from?

[BillK]

Not necessarily related to arming teachers but a good article nonetheless...from 2010.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

My small town is looking to do a downtown revitalization project in the next year or two that is going to cost over 8 million dollars and be paid for in full via grants. I would gladly scrap it in favor of putting one armed LEO in each of our district's schools.

[wellyes]

I thought it was interesting that I had never heard of the idea of arming teachers before, even after all the other (many, many) school shootings so I did a quick news search this afternooon. This idea is all over conservative talk radio this week with the exact same talking points (gun free zones are targeted, etc.). It definitely feels like a concentrated effort to set a new narrative, something the gun lobby has been good at doing before, rather than finding real solutions.

I also think it's interesting that these are the same interests that, in the last election, wanted to cut government down to the core. My husband is a businessman and yesterday he tried to do a rough estimate of how much it would cost to insert weapons into schools. It would be billlions (and billions) of dollars. Buying guns, training teachers, securing weapons, increased liability coverage (both for school districts and likely the individual teachers), costs associated with accidental shootings, etc. Most school districts are maxed out as it is, where is the funding for this supposed to come from?

I was thinking the same thing, about the cost. Putting armed police or security officers in all public schools would be a big expense.

My dad was a federal employee who worked with the public on sensitive financial matters. They put armed security guards in every office at some point in the 90s. That's 1-2 reasonably well paid additional employees in every small town. In the years that followed they drastically started cutting the number of employees to help people figure out their benefits due to complaints about bureaucratic bloat (especially during the Bush administration). Part of that was internet automation, but, we're talking about an office that serves elderly, disabled, and often functionally illiterate people understand complex benefits. The expense of those armed guards against armed intruders led to additional expense and decreased services. I can't see universal armed guards in schools having a different outcome.

All that is worth it if it was the key to keeping kids safe. But, how about fewer guns in the hands of mass murderers. I'm tired of people saying that if guns were illegal, the crazies would get them anyway. Guns used to kill lots of people are, in most cases, legally purchased. The statistic I saw was out of 61 mass shootings, 49 were done with legally purchased guns. Private sales (almost half of gun sales) do not require any background check.

[kara97210]

I was thinking the same thing, about the cost. Putting armed police or security officers in all public schools would be a big expense.

I was working in DC when the Oklahoma City bombing happened. There were all sorts of new security measures in the building I worked in (it was a federal building) after Oklahoma City. When I first moved to DC you could drive right past the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. This changed after the bombing.

So I did a couple of quick searches and found this GSA press release http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100607 from 2001 that says the federal gov’t had spent $1.2 billion in new programs to secure federal buildings since the bombing. There are about 9,000 federal buildings and the bombing was in 1995. If my math is right, that’s about $200 million/year to secure 9,000 buildings. There are more than 120,000 public K-12 schools in the US. That doesn't include any private schools, colleges, etc.

[maestramommy]

Not necessarily related to arming teachers but a good article nonetheless...from 2010.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

My small town is looking to do a downtown revitalization project in the next year or two that is going to cost over 8 million dollars and be paid for in full via grants. I would gladly scrap it in favor of putting one armed LEO in each of our district's schools.


While I agree with the point that teachers should be trained for lockdown, i find the tone of this article somewhat hysterical, esp when it goes on about Islamic fanatics coming after our children. What kind of site is this anyway? It's called policeone.com, but who's behind it?

[BillK]

While I agree with the point that teachers should be trained for lockdown, i find the tone of this article somewhat hysterical, esp when it goes on about Islamic fanatics coming after our children. What kind of site is this anyway? It's called policeone.com, but who's behind it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis - Can't happen here?

I'd guess the people in Russia would have found the idea of 4 large passenger jets being hijacked and crashing into various Russian landmarks hysterical too - prior to 911.

The fact is we spend our entire lives protecting our children and keeping them safe - yet 8 hours a day - many of us send them off to a place with next to no protection.

[daisymommy]

No background checks for private gun sales which account for roughly half of all gun sales?!

This jumped out at me. OMG! That is insane! What are we thinking?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vonfirmath]

I thought it was interesting that I had never heard of the idea of arming teachers before, even after all the other (many, many) school shootings so I did a quick news search this afternooon.

There is one school district in Texas that has had teachers armed since 2008. So you may not remember having heard it, but the idea has been out there.

[kara97210]

There is one school district in Texas that has had teachers armed since 2008. So you may not remember having heard it, but the idea has been out there.

I just looked it up. It’s Harrold, Texas. The city has a population is 183 people (and dropping) http://www.bestplaces.net/zip-code/texas/harrold/76364. I can see why I managed to miss that news. :)

[kara97210]

One last point about arming teachers - one of my friends from high school is a police officer and he often says civilians acting like law enforcement, without the training (and continued training) cops go through, are very dangerous. This was a hot topic for him during the lead up to George Zimmerman being arrested.

There was a link in the article Bill attached for a story about a guy who did have a concealed weapon in the Portland mall during that shooting, but didn’t take a shot because he didn’t want to hit one of the other people he could see. What if he had shot and accidentally killed someone other than the shooter? Or with the school example, let’s say we arm teachers and law enforcement is called in. A police officer comes onto the scene and there are 2-3 people in the room with guns. How does that officer know who is the bad guy? And what if he shoots the armed teacher instead? My pastor growing up was the son of a cop who retired after he accidentally shot someone during a fairly routine call. His dad never went back because of emotional toll (he became extremely depressed) of killing someone who was completely innocent.

[BillK]

One last point about arming teachers - one of my friends from high school is a police officer and he often says civilians acting like law enforcement, without the training (and continued training) cops go through, are very dangerous. This was a hot topic for him during the lead up to George Zimmerman being arrested.

There was a link in the article Bill attached for a story about a guy who did have a concealed weapon in the Portland mall during that shooting, but didn’t take a shot because he didn’t want to hit one of the other people he could see. What if he had shot and accidentally killed someone other than the shooter? Or with the school example, let’s say we arm teachers and law enforcement is called in. A police officer comes onto the scene and there are 2-3 people in the room with guns. How does that officer know who is the bad guy? And what if he shoots the armed teacher instead? My pastor growing up was the son of a cop who retired after he accidentally shot someone during a fairly routine call. His dad never went back because of emotional toll (he became extremely depressed) of killing someone who was completely innocent.

Yep - there are always "what-if's" - what if Nick Meli (the concealed carry guy at the Portland Mall) had not been there - what if the shooter had not seen him, been able to clear his jammed rifle and continue his shooting spree rather than running and taking his own life after supposedly seeing an armed Nick Meli. Life is full of "what-if's" that none of us will never know the answer to. Generally - when a shooter sees "the good guys" - they take their own life (thankfully). What if Nick would have shot and hit a bystander - who knows - but I'd like to think that his being there possibly saved a lot of additional deaths.

I still stand by my opinion there should be a armed LEO in each and every school in this country. I'm not really on board with arming teachers unless there's some serious training involved.

[kara97210]

Yep - there are always "what-if's" - what if Nick Meli (the concealed carry guy at the Portland Mall) had not been there - what if the shooter had not seen him, been able to clear his jammed rifle and continue his shooting spree rather than running and taking his own life after supposedly seeing an armed Nick Meli. Life is full of "what-if's" that none of us will never know the answer to. Generally - when a shooter sees "the good guys" - they take their own life (thankfully). What if Nick would have shot and hit a bystander - who knows - but I'd like to think that his being there possibly saved a lot of additional deaths.

I still stand by my opinion there should be a armed LEO in each and every school in this country. I'm not really on board with arming teachers unless there's some serious training involved.

It’s not just what ifs, it’s looking at data and past examples and using that to draw conclusions. I have never heard of an example of an armed civilian stopping an armed gunman during a mass shooting. I have heard of several examples of shooters stopped because they are tackled by bystanders, but never with a gun. I’ve seen several examples (for example this Primetime segment http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540) of how, despite the bravado of some gun owners, people aren’t actually very accurate when put in a high stress situation. It’s not like the movies, despite what people would like to believe.

I’d be very comfortable with trained law enforcement in schools. I’d pay more in taxes to support that. It’s the leap to arming teachers that I think is irresponsible.

[AnnieW625]

Yep - there are always "what-if's" - what if Nick Meli (the concealed carry guy at the Portland Mall) had not been there - what if the shooter had not seen him, been able to clear his jammed rifle and continue his shooting spree rather than running and taking his own life after supposedly seeing an armed Nick Meli. Life is full of "what-if's" that none of us will never know the answer to. Generally - when a shooter sees "the good guys" - they take their own life (thankfully). What if Nick would have shot and hit a bystander - who knows - but I'd like to think that his being there possibly saved a lot of additional deaths.

I still stand by my opinion there should be a armed LEO in each and every school in this country. I'm not really on board with arming teachers unless there's some serious training involved.

I agree with Bill on this one in regards to the CCW Meli in Portland, and for having LEOs makes more sense than armed teachers in the classroom (although I think districts should offer some extended safety training if teachers want to learn). LAPD already started adding regular officers to school on Monday, but they have more resources along with LA Unified Police as well so it is easy for them to already have an action plan of sorts in the works for tragedies like this.

[bcafe]

I have never heard of an example of an armed civilian stopping an armed gunman. I have heard of several examples of shooters stopped because they are tackled by bystanders, but never with a gun.
Here you go.
http://www.wisn.com/Customer-Stops-Grocery-Store-Robbery-By-Shooting-Suspect-Police-Say/-/9374034/10936560/-/dcpmr/-/index.html

[BillK]

Here you go.
http://www.wisn.com/Customer-Stops-Grocery-Store-Robbery-By-Shooting-Suspect-Police-Say/-/9374034/10936560/-/dcpmr/-/index.html

Actually it happens semi frequently - however the media elects to only report bad news as a general rule since that's what sells. If you Googled "Nick Meli" several days ago - there was exactly 1 news story about it. There a few more now since the CT shooting - but prior to that there was practically zero coverage.

[kijip]

Maybe my opinion is colored by the fact that our police department is under oversight from the DOJ in part due to a number of questionable and mishandled events here involving young people, poor people and minorities, but I can't help but think three things about placing officers in each school:

1. Tensions would run high in high schools over this. Fairly or unfairly, many totally non-criminal middle and high school students would feel less safe and quite worried about police in the school. I, like most middle class people have the privilege of feeling safe and protected for the most part my officers. But if police beat up your friend or sister (this happened here, part of the DOJ investigation), you don't have that same outlook. Quite apart from community-police relations (which I assume are better in many areas because it takes a lot for the DOJ to get involved), the presence of police gives all children the idea that there is something to live in fear of. Even with increasing school shootings, schools remain overwhelming safe.

2. Who pays and where does the money come from. My district is already on a greatly reduced budget and services. There are 97 schools in my district. Conservatively assuming $75k a year in salary, benefits and payroll taxes for each officer, that's $14.5 million on the low end. For my district that is a lot of money. Where would it be coming from? There is no room in the by school budget without firing 1.5 or more FTEs or cutting other needs more than they are already. Not attractive.

3. Our PD has too few officers already as far as I am concerned. What's the opportunity cost of placing police resources in relatively safe schools? Whose report goes un-followed up on? whose warrants don't get served? Adding 100 officers is not something small to mid size PDs can do quickly and immediately.

Certainly officers are better than arming teachers, which I think is a wackadoodle idea. What is to stop an aggressive big ms or hs student from overpowering a small or older teacher and shooting one or more people. More troubled students would have access to a gun than currently do at home. I know many teachers who simply would refuse to carry and some who frankly, I just wouldn't trust with a gun. If my kids were on a school that had armed teachers, they would not be returning. It just sounds like an inherently unsafe idea.

[niccig]

A Law Enforcement Officer in schools only helps if the shooting occurs at school.

What happens when your kid is in a movie theatre or shopping at the mall?

[kijip]

Not necessarily related to arming teachers but a good article nonetheless...from 2010.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/

My small town is looking to do a downtown revitalization project in the next year or two that is going to cost over 8 million dollars and be paid for in full via grants. I would gladly scrap it in favor of putting one armed LEO in each of our district's schools.

$8million in many districts would be less than the cost of placing an officer in each school for a ONE year.

[BillK]

I wish I had the answer. I just know I'd feel a lot better if a trained, armed LEO was in my kid's school every day.

Today was my youngest's kindergarten Christmas program. Like good, law abiding citizens we all lined up, waited in line, walked through the opened door to the sign in table (manned by 3 very nice women), showed our id's and went to the cafeteria filled with several hundred other people to watch about 60 kindergartners do their show for us.

All I could think was how incredibly easy it would be for someone with bad intentions to do something horrible. Cafeteria windows ajar, easy access via the doorway we entered to sign in and not a single person there able to neutralize a threat if one were to present itself.

What is more important than protecting our kids? There has to be something that can be done. Sorry for the ramble...

[LizLemon]

I wish I had the answer. I just know I'd feel a lot better if a trained, armed LEO was is my kid's school every day.

Today was my youngest's kindergarten Christmas program. Like good, law abiding citizens we all lined up, waited in line, walked through the opened door to the sign in table (manned by 3 very nice women), showed our id's and went to the cafeteria filled with several hundred other people to watch about 60 kindergartners do their show for us.

All I could think was how incredibly easy it would be for someone with bad intentions to do something horrible. Cafeteria windows ajar, easy access via the doorway we entered to sign in and not a single person there able to neutralize a threat if one were to present itself.

What is more important than protecting our kids? There has to be something that can be done. Sorry for the ramble...

I agree that something needs to be done. But I think that reducing the amount of guns in our country, particularly guns that can kill large amounts of people very quickly, would be a lot more effective. I don't feel like combatting guns with more guns so we could have shootouts in schools makes anyone safer. Not to mention the huge potential for accidental shootings of students (even worse if teachers are armed).


A Law Enforcement Officer in schools only helps if the shooting occurs at school.

What happens when your kid is in a movie theatre or shopping at the mall?

:yeahthat: Agree with niccig. Or the school bus.

[kijip]

What is more important than protecting our kids? There has to be something that can be done. Sorry for the ramble...

I agree with you that nothing is more important than protecting our kids. I just think that whatever is done to increase safety needs to clearly be more beneficial than detrimental and that the costs have to be weighed against both the potential benefits and the unintended consequences. I think arming teachers is extraordinarily dangerous and adding police guards to watch school has some serious questions as well, not the least of which is what do we stop funding to find the money. In my district PTAs are already paying for art and music in most schools. What else should we add to that list so the district can pay for policing? All students losing instruction that can get them college ready seems like a high price to pay. Kids remain far more likely to be murdered by their family at home than shot at school.


In my brother's daughters district the local police have daily contact with the school in their patrol area and the school has the ability to call those local officers they have a relationship with directly rather than going through 911 dispatch. There is not an officer always in the building but there is one at frequent and random intervals and they are close by. That seems like something other districts could do. There are also some well run after school programs that police organize in my city.

[niccig]

I wish I had the answer. I just know I'd feel a lot better if a trained, armed LEO was in my kid's school every day.

What is more important than protecting our kids? There has to be something that can be done. Sorry for the ramble...

Bill, there was an armed deputy at Columbine high school. He couldn't stop the shooting as in a different part of the school at the time.

I think of DS's school, it is a 2 story building. The armed guard could be upstairs, hear shots from downstairs, it would take a min or 2 to get downstairs. One minute is enough to fire what 30 odd bullets from the high capacity magazines. In CT it was just minutes for him to kill 26 people. An armed guard somewhere else in building couldn't have gotten there in time.