[Tapper]

D, on 22 December 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

MTS, on 22 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent data, for the 2009-10 school year, and a number of states and districts that do not use them have begun discussing the idea in recent days.

Out of curiosity, has anyone outside the U.S. ever been to a public school that even had security staff, let alone armed security staff?

Well, I think several dutch schools have metal detectors at the entrance (we had a bit of a knife problem in the first years of the decade (and to be honest - earlier - several of my friends carried stilleto's or folding/butterfly knives), and a private security firm is usually hired to man the school doors/ act as bouncers for school parties for those classes for whom alcohol consumption is legal - the first bit I think is still not true on my own former school, but the latter since the late nineties.

Armed security/ school marshals: I really, really don't know. Shin, bear in mind: I'm European. I'm used to a far more 'involved' government and a clear monopoly of violence for the state. As such, my main difficulty already starts with the idea that providing safety at a school is the duty of the school (a private institution geared towards providing education) instead of society (and its representative, the government, geared towards providing, amongst other things, safety). Especially considering the fact that education (at the least here) is a government granted right/duty (until one is older than 16, one is obliged to go to school).

The good about the idea of the marshalls in general is bringing perhaps a bit of respect children of a certain age and mindset don't have for teachers anymore - but likely partly at the further detriment of respect for teachers (you can't deal with us, yuo need armed puppets for that!), and likely with more conflict situations between parents and schools over the treatment of pupils ("he touched my son in the crotch!" "not in the crotch, but above it - he had a gun tucked into the waistband of his trousers!" "it was the crotch!").

But all that aside: I think they won't be very good when it comes to preventing crime - not on their own. Because basically, you're going to ask a civilian working at a school, who will be paid by the school (and that's not going to be a top salary) to disarm people, to step into fights and break them up, and when push really comes to shove, get in a firefight, with a risk of death and/or dealing death. That's quite a bit to ask of personell. And you don't want those people to have the resumé of a night club bouncer, either.

And then, if a guy does smuggle in a gun, what is the effectiveness of a marshall? A gun can be emptied pretty quickly - and from what I see on the news, most school shooters kill themselves, too. So before the marshall reaches the class room, quite a few people are already dead/wounded, perhaps also the shooter. So perhaps it can save lives. But only because they may be at the spot slightly faster than the police, and I don't believe a citizen at an average teacher salary is going to be filling the boots of what is expected of a school marshall in the anti-violence description: I am not sure your average police officer on patrol can do that, to begin with.

Instead, just make schools an arms-free zone, and install passive safety measures. Give each classroom a panic button, if need be. Put a police post in or near the school territory (I don't know about the US, but in the Netherlands in cities, the response time between phoning in on the alarm number and police arriving is a matter of under 5 minutes if the crime is serious (like burglary or other violence)), or make sure patrols visit the school several times a day. Prevention and education are ultimately the better method.

[worry]

Some valuable perspective IMO, 5 quick points: http://thesocietypag...licy-in-the-u-s

[Shinrei]

QuickTidal, on 21 December 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

.
See, now your mingling your words, like I said you were.

We're talking The 2nd...not straight up guns for sport or Olympics or a damned starter pistol. All those examples of gun use that isn't "killing" are things that can be done with other tools...and the 2nd...isn't there to ensure SPORT homey...sorry that argument holds no water.
.

This is patently unfair. YOU'RE the one who came out with a statement that guns are only for death, and now you're telling me that if I address your point I'm mingling words? YOU'RE the one who changed the subject.

@Macros

Yeah, I got you the first time. Maybe I was not clear enough either:

"I disagree"


.

[Shinrei]

QuickTidal, on 21 December 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

In fact, I'll go one better Shin.

Tell me, in your reply, How Japan (sorry, but it's the best example) has the lowest number of gun deaths in the world, has next to no guns in country...and is a free, progressive society with individual rights above all else (up to and including the lowly janitor who mops the floor of the subway is as respected a member of society as a rich Doctor is)...and yet they have no 2nd amendment to make sure their government doesn't form a standing army or whatever reason you want to give for those "arms"?

Answer me that. You kind of keep avoiding answering it because it makes your arguments fall to ribbons.

You claim to not want to take away "rights"....in a world where only America thinks those ARE rights. Something does not compute.

Do I think owning a gun is an absolute right, in the way the right to life is? No, I do not. Japan can have a society without guns if that's what they want. Different societies allow different things. If Americans want their right to guns, and the Japanese don't want guns, I am not going to go out and protest their decision in either case.

If America banned guns, I wouldn't flip out and secede or something dumb like that. I'd accept it and move on - it's not, for me, an issue that will get me out in the street protesting. But I admit that I take a certain pride in being from a country where people keep a trust of their fellow citizens, and don't want the government to coddle them in everything.

The point I would like you to address directly is why it's fair to take guns away from millions of Americans who are law abiding, over the actions of a few? That's the point I'm making in my analogies that many seem to be misunderstanding. Arguing other uses for alcohol/explosives etc is not even close to addressing the point I was making.


(and as an aside, you have a very rose-colored view of japanese society, but that's a whole other topic of discussion...)

[worry]

Some guns are weapons of mass destruction and have no place in civilian life. It's as fair to restrict them as it is to restrict explosives, malignant biological agents like anthrax, various highly dangerous chemicals, etc.

You don't have to be "untrustworthy" in any malicious way to misuse an assault rifle. And, per its name, its purpose is assault. Not hunting, not even self defense. So while I too admire a generally free, trusting, adult relationship between members of a populace, part of that trust involves the responsibility to know when some things shouldn't be freely accessed because the consequences are dire for society. Banning M-80s and lawn darts were signs of that trustworthy populace functioning well. We also regulate when and where people can hunt and fish...not a bad idea, even if you might find people whining about it.

I know you have a natural antipathy to the nanny state, and there's gray area galore there for sure (I would surely implicate it as one bad faith actor in the continued insistence on attacking video games), but once in a while that nanny might have a good idea (or implement a good idea from another source)...like when it also has a groundswell of public support and a general meeting of minds between populace and government (barring a particular gun fetish group on par with NAMBLA), that seems to me like social health, not sickness. You restrict the very worst, most lethal variations of a manufactured products here; you regulate the middle levels tightly and smartly as you do many other products; and use basic but still formal regulatory precautions with the most basic form of that product (hunting rifles). You're not going to please everybody, but there are no victims here...unless you consider someone victimized by not getting to have every single thing they desire every time they desire it. And frankly, I dislike the overindulgent pushover nanny as much as I do the over-protective micro-managing one.

[Shinrei]

This I can support.

Attached File(s)

•  155880_495509930489870_2014766894_n.jpg (112.27K)
  Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 23 December 2012 - 02:30 AM

[Silencer]

Shinrei, on 23 December 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

The point I would like you to address directly is why it's fair to take guns away from millions of Americans who are law abiding, over the actions of a few? That's the point I'm making in my analogies that many seem to be misunderstanding. Arguing other uses for alcohol/explosives etc is not even close to addressing the point I was making.

Because it's not "a few" relative to the rest of the freaking world. It's shitloads.

And again; how is this different from regulating consumption of alcohol, dispensation of drugs (illegal and over-the-counter), car licensing, or any of a number of other things American citizens do not outright have a "right" to? I've addressed this point directly before, you just aren't reading my posts or something. The anomaly is that Americans *have* a "right to bear arms*, not that people are talking about regulating it or removing it! Why did not the Founding Fathers enshrine the "right to own a horse" in the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Why the guns? It may very well have made sense to them back then, but in today's society it is no different from stopping someone from driving a motor vehicle (even one they own) because they do not have a license. It is no different from confiscating illegally-obtained narcotics, or implementing further restrictions on dosages people can get from their pharmacy. The only thing that stands out is that for some reason Americans have this idiotic "right to bear arms", and are clinging to it for all its worth in face of multiple, excessive, not-seen-anywhere-else-in-the-developed-world massacres and general everyday shootings.
And yet you defend this as if taking away the right to bear arms is somehow "unfair" or "irrational".

[Silencer]

Seriously, Shin, are you even arguing with anyone in this thread? XD

I'm still waiting for the "ban guns" lobby to come out and actually post but the rest of us are just arguing for getting rid of the Second and tightening up rules and regulations.

Also:

 i-dXBjSvG-X3.jpg (120.79K)
Number of downloads: 1

[D'rek]

HoosierDaddy, on 22 December 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

In a school of 4,000+ students you need more than just teachers and administration. That's a small city's worth of young, oftentimes irrationally emotional people.

Ah that's an interesting point. I've never seen a public school that was more than 1500 or so students. Makes sense with bigger ones.

[King Lear]

D, on 22 December 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

MTS, on 22 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent data, for the 2009-10 school year, and a number of states and districts that do not use them have begun discussing the idea in recent days.

Out of curiosity, has anyone outside the U.S. ever been to a public school that even had security staff, let alone armed security staff?

Yeah, I did. In South Africa.

I don't think they were ever inside the school itself; a couple were stationed at the entrances and I think they'd patrol around the outskirts of the school. I don't remember if they were armed or not, though the night security definitely would have been.

I don't understand why. instead of advocating for real solutions to problems (gun control measures, real, sustained help for the mentally ill), anyone want to go in this direction and turn their spaces into a series of little prisons. Because that's what they become when there are bars on the windows, and electric fences, and people with guns at the gate.

This post has been edited by Ornery Owl: 23 December 2012 - 05:41 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

The mere illusion and thus perception that it is safer is much easier for people to swallow than actual change.

[Nicodimas]

Most gun laws that the "in the know" are going for are just foolish.

Tennesee has it right...arm teacher, administrators with guns + teaching. These are government run institutions and soft targets.

Guns are a American Right and freedom. Don't compare our country to some others we are very different.

Sorry you all should look at big PHARMA and SSRIs before you pin blame on the object they use. IT will be knives or bombs if its not 'guns'.


I like what Dr. Drew had said...lets starting investing in the brain..a simple scan on people can tell who is right and not..treat the person and fix em the best we can.

[worry]

So you are okay with the government mandating regular "scanning" of American citizens and other residents, and for those showing abnormalities, require they undergo treatment until they are fixed? While simultaneously mistrusting every word from big pharm companies as well as the medications they produce?

[HoosierDaddy]

God knows the availability of further firearms in a classroom will cut down on gun violence!

This country is so predictably fucking idiotic.

You do not solve gun violence by introducing MORE GUNS to the fucking situation. You just get MORE DEAD PEOPLE.

All other members of my nuclear family are teachers. They have NO business with a gun in their classroom and they'd fucking laugh out loud at the suggestion it would solve any problem.

[MTS]

More guns in the classroom is more likely to lead to more gun-related accidents in the one place such a measure would be designed to protect anyway, which is the height of stupidity.

[HoosierDaddy]

It's the same fucking idiotic principle: "If everyone is armed, criminals will be afraid to commit crimes!" No they won't. They'll just make them more fucking bloody and disastrous because most criminals commit crimes due to need not want you fucking neanderthals of thought.

[HoosierDaddy]

Anyway, if you want to know why this is going to continue to happen in America over and over again, take a look at Shin's discerned, reasoned, and mild misgivings of taking away guns, and realize that it's a shitload of Nic's using that as cover for batshit insanity.

[Silencer]

worrywort, on 23 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

So you are okay with the government mandating regular "scanning" of American citizens and other residents, and for those showing abnormalities, require they undergo treatment until they are fixed? While simultaneously mistrusting every word from big pharm companies as well as the medications they produce?

Same thing on another forum; European and Asia-Pacific governments are "oppressive" because we have tighter gun control regulations. Never mind that the States apparently conducts UAV flights over its own population or that you have things like the PATRIOT act, etc, etc. >.>

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on 23 December 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

worrywort, on 23 December 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

So you are okay with the government mandating regular "scanning" of American citizens and other residents, and for those showing abnormalities, require they undergo treatment until they are fixed? While simultaneously mistrusting every word from big pharm companies as well as the medications they produce?

Same thing on another forum; European and Asia-Pacific governments are "oppressive" because we have tighter gun control regulations. Never mind that the States apparently conducts UAV flights over its own population or that you have things like the PATRIOT act, etc, etc. >.>

You can't shoot them down unlike our Davy Crocketts.

[Shinrei]

Silencer, on 23 December 2012 - 03:08 AM, said:

Seriously, Shin, are you even arguing with anyone in this thread? XD

I guess I'm not sure. I think, to be perfectly honest, that I keep confusing comments by many as meaning "outright ban", when in fact we're basically advocating the same thing - sensible regulation. I think there ARE some people on here who would like to ban them outright, but I should just ignore them I suppose.

There is one thing I need to ask though -

Whether you are pro-gun/anti-gun/pro-regulated-guns or whatever, there are guns everywhere in the USA. Regulations are still not going to stop the occasional madman from getting their hands on some. I know we hate the idea of turning schools into armed camps/prisons or whatever, but what can or should be done to secure the schools?