Don’t be silly! Of course not!
by tootired2care 92 Replies latest social current
Don’t be silly! Of course not!
i agreed with everything you said minus the concealed carry.
i'd alos like to toss in a couple ideas.
the nra has this safety program called "eddie the eagle", where they go around to schools and teach gun safety to kids. not like cleaning weapons, but stuff like, "don't touch the guns without mommy or daddy around." i think expanding that program WITH the nra would be a great thing to do.
i think we do need to change our gun culture. so many people only think of guns as weapons, but there are many people who use them for sport like hunting and competitions, or to simply put food on the table. a few states have some high school shooting competitions. this, i think should also be expanded. here's another area that i believe the nra can be instrumental in. right now, kids have to maintain a 2.0 gpa for athletic eligibility. why not bump that to:
2.0 gpa to qualify to be on the team, attend safety/teaching sessions and to assist with the supervised cleaning and maintenance of the guns as well as restricted supervised practice (like half the allotted bullets or something).
2.5 gpa to do everything the 2.0 gpa students get to do, but unrestricted (full allottment or something) supervised practice.
3.0 gpa to do what the 2.5 gpa students get to do while also qualifying to compete.
there are many kids who grow up around guns and learn to properly respect them. they're not taught that guns are only for killing other people and many go on to own quite a few guns with no issues at all. i think the shooting teams with certified coaches/police officers/military personnel would help reach out to kids with interest, but no responsible way to get involved.
there is an academic paper out there advocating lengthening the eligibility time for people with misdemeanors because of the plea bargain. this doesn't have to be a permanent ban, but how about 5-10 years after release or something?
we register our cars every year. this shoud be mandatory for guns. every year you register them with the local police department while having to pass yearly background/mental health checks. how about even having the police dept fire a sample bullet for tracing purposes?
couple that with mandatory insurance or a large bond. we have that for cars, why not for guns?
the mental health and counseling really need more investment. we're shutting these places down when we ought to be researching more effective treatments, etc. anyone who has ever had therapy could probably cosign on how difficult getting a GOOD therapist can be.
i also think we should start buying back guns. not quite at market rate, but places like oakland have programs where you turn it in and get some cash no questions asked.
also, the reservations i'd have as far as tear gas is the effect on kids breathing that in. otherwise, the lights and sound stuff seems like a good idea, but i'd hate to damage any kid's hearing or sight.
@marvin Shilmer - Agreed, school contruction should be improved with those things you mentioned, along with emergency tear gas and flood lighting that each teacher can control remotely. Now there is just the small matter of how to pay for all those upgrades.
@rbih - I think more education at young age is always good. The insurance angle and gun buy back would definitely help too. I just heard a story yesterday where some elementry kid brought an unloaded gun to school for protection -- terrible. This shows very bad parenting, gross lack of education, and sensitivity to other students.
I'm a bit disturbed about all of the suggestions about having kids be at a certain GPA to be able to have/use guns.
The intruder at Sandy Point was 20 years old - out of school - homeschooled when he was in school - and did not own the guns that were used (if I understood the reports correctly).
His mother took him to the gun range, where he learned how to shoot the weapons.
Basically, he stole the weapons from his mother - and then went on his shooting spree.
So - any suggestions about gun safety are a moot point. His mother was responsible for introducing him to weapons. His mother.
It would be the same if he had broken into a residence and stole the weapons from a citizen (of course, we hope that any normal citizen would have their weapons in a gun safe).
As far as my original suggestion - you want the kids to first be inside the classrooms before the klaxons go off - otherwise, they will need to get to one ASAP.
The noise level will be loud - but I may have exagerated the 'ear drum splitting' levels.
It's like... a while ago, my wife and I were driving to work on the freeway and we heard a loud blast of a horn that sounded 100% like a diesel train horn. It was loud and disconcerting. I was looking for the train - before I realized that we were no where near train tracks, and it was a horn someone installed on their vehicle.
The noise didn't hurt my hearing - but it took my focus off of the task I was doing - driving to work - for a few seconds. This is what I am talking about. The idea for the noise is to rattle the intruder - make them lose focus on their 'mission'. Allow the innocents those few seconds to get to safety.
Perhaps someone should be asking the question of why the intruder was able to get into the classrooms? Shouldn't they be able to lock them to prevent outside entry?
With any 'improvements/modifications' to any buildings beyond what is already there - there are all sorts of building and fire codes that need to also be met. So don't just wave a magic brush and paint your ideal solution for adding all sorts of entry obstacles. There has to also be a way for the firemen to gain access in case of fire/emergency.
The question was asked where the money would come from? The question of money applies to any proposed solution. I am thinking that the government (Fed/State/Local) should be able to help in this area - this would show their interest in helping provide a solution.
A certain amount of people due to genetic and situational circumstances will snap and go on a killing spree. Better mental health, anger management classes, have a lowering effect on the amount of people snaping. So better treatment done intelligently is a given,, as psychology and new understanding come along.
But the easy access and availibility of assault type weapons make the situation more threatening, if when that certain amount that are going to snap do so.
Lack of availibility takes a far more decisive impact on the damage of those who snap and feel compelled to go on a killing spree can do. Also consider the time delay factor created by a lack of availibilty, created by stricter control, and more severity of penalties for having an illegal asault type weapon.
Also If some one who has been known to be violent and mentally ill starts collecting a gun or guns, the quicker he could be turned over to authorites and questioned leading to thier being commited to get treatment before he snaps.
In addition make it a very severe penalty for some one to give a person a weapon who has been diagnosted as a person who cannot buy such a weapon due to mental issues, thus decreasing the availibility even more as this would have a a strong moral appeal to make on shareing a responciblity of any harmed caused with such a weapon given by what ever means to a person without a psychiatric clearence for such a weapon.
I'm in favor of reoccuring yearly psychiatric test to permit certain type weapons ownership along with a written test to make sure they understand thier responciblity to take proper safty percausions and the liabilities they have to society in general.
This in my estimation would be the best solution.
@ Jim_TX Yes it is a question of Money. Here in California, where the state is supposedly broke...they would have to take money from somewhere else. Since there all soo many schools nationwide, I wonder how much would it take to make these improvements? Possibly I think that there will be select schools with these major changes. As was pointed out, there are schools already with metal detectors and security. The locations of the schools comes into play, with the aid or lack of from the State.
The United Kingdom tightened its gun laws in year 1997. Since then its rate of intentional homicides has dropped 19%.
Over the same period of time the rate of intentional homicide in the United States has dropped 25%.
In year 2004 gun law in the United States changed to allow a wider range of firearm ownership. The rate of intentional homicide remained steady despite this change.
In year 1995 the overall rate of intentional homicide in the United States was 5 times the rate in the United Kingdom.
In year 2009 the overall rate of intentional homicide in the United States has dropped to 4 times the rate in the United Kingdom.
I don’t see a correlation between gun ownership and rate of intentional homicide.
Over the same general period the rate in the United States has improved much more than in the United Kingdom despite gun laws moving in opposite directions between the two nations.
It’s a no-brainer that overall rate of intentional homicide in the United States is much higher than in the United Kingdom. But what is the correlation of this higher rate to gun ownership law?
Legislation on gun ownership will be helpful in reducing intentional homicide only if it tags a correlation between gun ownership and homicide. So what is the correlation? I’m not saying there is none. I’m only saying I don’t see it.
1. Dataset used comes from Index Mundi. See accompanying chart:
While I agree that making schools much harder to break into would help prevent this type of attack, I don't think it's an affordable thing to retrofit every existing building. My town has 5 school buildings, all of which have ground level windows in every classroom, and full view glass doors at most entry points. Removing and bricking up those windows and rebuilding each entry point would be hugely expensive. Given the tiny risk of such an attack - there have been how many nationwide in the last 20 years over how many individual school buildings? - I don't think you'd get the voters to approve a bond issue or a tax hike to pay for that.
I do think that all new school buildings should be designed and built to make attacks less likely to succeed. Playgrounds should be walled off too, and vehicle traffic should be routed well away from the building to prevent car bombs and outdoor attacks.
There are novel methods and materials available to retrofit windows and doorways without the expense you probably imagine.
Windows would not have to be bricked over. Simple ballistic rated material could be installed with windows in place. So long as it’s not as simple as shooting out a window and stepping inside the building, occupants are much safer.
Points of ingress and egress would not require whole room renovation. Secure cubicles could be mass fabricated and installed inside or outside each point of access and accomplish the multiple security layering I spoke of earlier. Again, material technologies and methods would make this relatively inexpensive.
But as you say and I agree, cost is still involved.