Connecticut Massacre

I suspect the NRA is not particularly prohibitive when it comes to substantive reform.

Financial costs of substantive reform are likely quite prohibitive, however. The U.S. guns industry is a $3.5 billion a year industry (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/gun-industry-thrives_n_807360.html) under current rules and regulations. I have no idea how many peope are employed in it or draw a significant element of their salary from some sort of linkage to it. (This doesn't address the fact that the U.S. is the world's number-one military arms dealer, either). There are an estimated 88 guns for every 100 people living in the U.S. I don't know if Americans have that many pets, cell-phones, or computers. Gun ownership and all the myriad issues associated with it is big business.

Gun ownership is probably minimally managed right now (that's obviously my personal assessment & I can't really find any data to contradict it or support it), considering the emphasis our federal government typically gives it (and state gov'ts widely vary). Substantively changing that reality--from an already expensive, minimally managed, to likely far more expensive, and more extremely managed, environment--would be quite expensive.

Not sure where the money is going to come from. Of course, U.S. debt is another issue entirely from the ideas advanced in this thread. But they are linked.

 

You're right. But if there ever was a chance for reform, Obama needs to grab it now and not let go until change occurs. These type of tagic deaths make even some gun owners think twice. Here is his big chance. Gun Reform for the better of all can define his 2nd term as President. Or he can do nothing and become a lame duck.... I hope not.

 

Many of you know that I am a teacher. For the last three years I have been in second grade, five years in first grade before that and three years in a combined fourth to sixth grade before that.

Last Tuesday, we had a routine lock down drill at our school. We are required by state law to have at least five fire drills, two tornado drills, and two lock down drills. We had already had one lock down drill, and discussed it and the reasons we have lock down drills in a class meeting.

This lock down drill occurred during my reading group time, so eight students were in a different classroom with a different teacher, and following procedure stayed in that classroom for the lock down. On Thursday, for our class meeting, many students wanted to discuss the lock down drill, and we pointed out that staying in a different classroom with a teacher, or going to the nearest classroom if you happen to be in the rest room when a lock down drill is announced is the correct thing to do.

One boy then asked, "What if you are in the bathroom and a guy with a gun wants to shoot you?"

We had previously talked about bullies and people who had been bothered by bullies, so there was a context for me to say, "Most people who want to shoot in a school are probably really angry at some older students, or maybe the teachers, but they would have no reason to be mad at a second grader, you've never done anything to them, so tell them, 'Please let me go, I'm just a little kid.'"

Every one seemed to think that was a pretty good idea that made a lot of sense.

Then, THE VERY NEXT DAY, we got an email over lunch about what had happened in Connecticut. We were directed to not tell the students anything about it during the day, and parents were asked via email to discuss it with their children over the weekend as they saw fit. This morning we had an emergency staff meeting and decided that unless the students were talking about it a lot themselves and we felt a need to help them process the events, we would not talk about it in the K - 2 grades. Knowing my class, I felt sure they would be talking a lot about it, but to my surprise, nobody said anything at all about it, and we had a pretty normal day, which was probably for the best.

As for myself, I was quite disturbed by it all.

I was doing my student teaching when Columbine happened. For weeks that was all my grad courses talked about. As the school shootings kept coming after that, at least you could understand, though of course not condone, what many of the shooters were thinking. Especially if you experienced life in an American high school yourself. Most of them were in middle schools or high schools. I remember one in Detroit where a kindergarten boy was sleeping in a crack house on a couch and found a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol, which he brought to school and then shot and killed a five-year-old girl in his class with, which was more an accident than a planned killing. The Amish school I guess was maybe an elementary school.

Of course all murders, regardless of how many killed or where they take place are horrible, but this one really touched me more than any other. Probably because I teach in an elementary school, and taught first graders. Also, my second cousin in Albuquerque, New Mexico, had Emilie Parker, one of the victims, in her Kindergarten music class for two and a half months before she moved to Connecticut, so though I never knew any of the victims, there is a personal connection for me.

So as a teacher, father of two teenage girls, American citizen, and human being, I was significantly touched by this event.

And of course now we are asking ourselves, "What can we do to make sure this never happens again? We have to make sure all of these deaths mean something!"

My short answer is: Nothing. It is impossible to ensure that something like this NEVER happens again.

That does not mean that I think there is nothing that we can or should do to lessen the likelihood and severity of such an event.

Just as there is nothing I can do that will ensure that I NEVER get killed in a car accident. If the driver of the semi-truck coming at me on a two-lane highway suddenly decides, "I hate blue mini-vans! I'm going to kill that guy!" and swerves into me at 60 mph at the last second, air-bag and seat belt regardless, I'm toast.

But that doesn't mean that I don't take many precautions while driving: I wear my seat belt, drive the speed limit, make sure my car is in good functioning order, slow down when it is snowy and icy, NEVER use my cell phone, and watch out for the other drivers.

On a similar note, I think there are many things that can be done to reduce the likelihood and severity, measured by the number of dead, of school and other public place shootings, and I think that the United States, as a culture, should be willing to discuss all options and do a cost / benefit analysis, weighing the price in money, time, convenience, and potential for misuse of options versus the possible benefits of reduced number and lethality of shootings. I think we should look at all things, including gun control and arming teachers and school staff.

Another teacher friend of mine, and former parent of one of my students, posted on her facebook page: "The day that I am required or encouraged to have a gun as a teacher is the day that I quit teaching."

I understand and respect her viewpoint, however I do not share it.

Others here have stated that the congressperson who wished that the principal had had an M-4 and blew off the guy's head instead of getting herself shot down as she and the school psychologist rushed to tackle the gunman with their bare hands is crazy. Again, I understand and respect those opinions, but do not share them.

As a father and husband, I believe I would take a bullet for my two daughters and my wife. As a teacher, I actually do think I would take a bullet for my students. But those fleeting moments of glory that I might feel before death would be totally in vain if it was clear that as soon as I fell my attacker would simply shift aim and also kill those I was trying to protect.

In such a case it is much better to give than receive. There are very few things that I believe are worth killing another human being for, but protecting your life and the lives of those who you are responsible for is definitely one of them. I realize that I would also most likely end up another victim, but I would at least like to die trying to fight. If I were faced with such a scenario, I believe I would try to use improvised weapons, such as a table leg, or pencil, or my guitar.

Actually, I would much prefer to have a fighting chance, and have it be legal for me to do so. So that is why I do not think it is crazy for that congress person to wish that the principal had had an M-4.

Here then, is my list of possible options:

1. Ban and destroy all guns in the United States.
Pro: no more shootings, just knifings and clubbings, usually less lethal.
Con: Never gonna happen. Even if the laws changed, there are just too many guns already in the U.S. Some crazy person would always be able to get a gun if he worked hard enough, yes, some might be thwarted, but some would find a way.

2. Have two police officers / security guards in every school, as mentioned in previous posts.
Pro: I like this idea, they have training, and would reduce the response time in a crisis.
Con: Extremely expensive, plus it would be easy for Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine shooters) or others like them, or even a lone shooter, to plan their attack so that the armed guards would be the first to get shot, by surprise in the back, and then they would have two more weapons.

3. Give the principal an M-4. No, give every adult in the school an M-4. Maybe they could have the grenade launcher underneath the barrel and it could be loaded with a net. They could have a sling with three or four magazines of different ammo, one, an expanding plastic, less lethal ammo, and then some armor piercing in case the shooter is wearing body armor.

It could work like this: The government reinstates the draft, then drafts every teacher and adult worker in all public school and sends them to basic training on the M-4, then they are part of the National and State Guard, but only have to do their work in the schools. The weapons could be kept in a safe in each classroom, either with key or combo or bio metric locks on them. Then, in the event of a shooting, maybe the first classroom will be a death trap, but then either other staff actively resist the shooter, if they choose to do so, or barricade themselves with their students in the class room, but can do something more effective than tell the shooter that the students are in gym when he blasts through the locked door.

Pro: It might actually work. At least the victim counts would be down. We probably have enough surplus M-4s from the Army to keep the cost down.

Con: Schools have been weapons free zones for a long time. Many do not want to have weapons in schools.
The manner of safe keeping the weapons would be very expensive, and inevitably, some students would somehow get one or two and there would be another school shooting.

4. Give all the school staff 12 gauge shot guns, loaded with the bean bags that police sometimes use to stop attackers. They would be secured the same way as the M-4s. They could have 5 shells in the gun and a sleeve on the but with several more. The concussive effect of the bean bags should probably be enough to incapacitate even an armored shooter.
Pro: Again, it might work. If students got one somehow they would have less of a chance to kill other students and staff with it.
Con: Same as with the M-4 idea. 12 gauge shot guns have quite a kick. Maybe they should be 4-10s.

5. Allow school staff who have concealed carry permits to carry in schools.

Pro: A potential shooter would never know if there are armed people, or how many there might be, in a school. He would also not know who the first person to shoot would be. Response time would be decreased. One post of a pro-gun person on Facebook stated that the average death toll of shootings when police stopped it was 18. something, while the average death toll of a shooting that was stopped by armed bystanders was 2.2. I do not know the accuracy of that statement, but it seems like something that could be checked.

I do not have experience with hand guns. I do not have a concealed carry permit. But teachers nowadays have to do much more than reading, writing and arithmetic. I am trained in CPR, first aid, I can use an automatic external defibulator, I know how to use an epi-pen in case a student who knows he is allergic to peanuts eats some anyway, and I maintain my Crisis Intervention Training and am on the crisis management team at my school. That means that if a student is totally out of control and a danger to himself and others, I have training that legally allows me to touch the student and restrain him, and hopefully neither the student nor I or others will be injured.

If the laws were changed to allow school staff to carry concealed weapons, I would at least considered the option of getting trained to do so. I am not saying that I definitely would, but I would consider it.

Con: Again, the whole idea of someone having a weapon in a school is anathema to many. There would always be potential for someone to get the weapon and injure or kill others. There is not guarantee that the concealed carrier him or herself would not become a shooter. Teachers and school staff can also be crazy. However, we already do have a criminal back ground check before we start working, and will lose our licences if convicted of a crime, and we are trusted by many to keep their children safe every school day. So, for the most part, I feel that teachers and school staff are fairly trustworthy members of society.

6. Have each classroom supplied with an incapacitating agent. Again, locked up in some secure manner.

The agent I have in mind, would be like a pepper spray / mace, but on an industrial strength level, like the one used by the California University cop when he sprayed the Occupy Protesters as seen on YouTube. However, it would need a good range, in most schools, 30 feet should be sufficient, like what you get with a good can of wasp killer. Also, it would need to be sticky and obscure vision, so that a shooter wearing a gas mask, would have the eye covers obscured, and either be blind, or forced to remove the mask and exposed to the incapacitating agent that would temporarily blind him and severely inhibit respiratory functions.

Pro: It could work. It is not a normally deadly weapon. If students got it, they probably couldn't kill others with it.
Con: I do not know if such an agent currently exists or could be developed, but it seems to be simply a combination of things that I do know now exist and probably is possible to create.

7. Do nothing.
Pro: It is easy, some people, such as the NRA, won't get mad that we are trying to control guns.
Con: More people will be shoot and killed.

As you maybe can tell, this issue has been keeping me up at night and I have thought a lot about it. I am sure that I will continue to think about it and my thoughts and opinions will continue to evolve. I am serious about the opinions expressed here, and not flippant. I do not want to offend anyone with them, particularly victims of gun and other violence and their families. To current or future employers, I realize that these opinions are contrary to many accepted education philosophies, but please believe that they come from my sincere attempts to do and provide the best for my students.

I have more to say regarding the American gun and violence culture, but that will have to wait for another day.

 

Thank you for that long and fairly balanced post, however I'm still not sure what you personally believe should happen. It can't possibly be to keep M-4's or other weapons in schools, surely? I can't believe they'd have people with mindsets like that teaching children.

 

Just change the second amendment to say "you have the right to get shot", just so everybody is crystal clear and what that cornerstone founding document is really saying.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Well, personally I think only an idiot could misconstrue that as everyone has a right to bear arms for their own personal protection. The thing is though, it's such a poorly-worded sentence that it leaves a lot of scope for misinterpretation. I'm concerned with the semantics of the term "well-regulated". I think having the right to bear arms for the purpose of security can't imply that you can own any weapon you want, it doesn't correlate to being well-regulated at all.

The whole 'contitutional amendment' system needs looking at and bringing up to date. they seem to be looked at with almost religious reverence; but they're laws, and laws need to be constantly kept relevant and modern. Surely the US has a greater moral responsibility to protect its citizens than to adhere to the Second Amendment?

 

It's always the same, after such tragedy, that the pro-and anti-gun lobby go berserk with their agendas.
All those who died will be upheld as idols for the crusade of others.

People will always kill people be there a tighter-gun control or not.

 

The second Amendment isn't badly worded, its simple English:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It's simple English, word by word. In the beginning of the sentence it sets the two prerequisites required for the statement in the second half of the sentence. The two prerequisites are: one, a well regulated militia; two, necessary for the security of a free state. Only when these requirements are met, then the people's right to bear arms should not be infringed.

At the time when the bill of rights were written (1789):
- There were no well organized / regulated and multiple branches of military forces that we have today.
- There were no well organized / regulated law enforcement departments and agencies that we have today.
- The country's just formed, there were still a lot of uncertainties, still a lot of concerns of a central power, and still some lawlessness. So the right to bear arms was written to ensure the security of the state, to facilitate the formation of militia, and for self defense.

So, the second amendment no longer applies.

I think I've worked out a way that we can change the attitudes of gun nuts, Americans love buzz words right? and one of their favourite words of the century is "terrorism" so, why don't they just state that these shootings are acts of terrorism and as such the NRA supports terrorists that could work? huh? huh?

I like guns, I enjoy(ed(back when I was in the forces)) firing guns but I would never argue that I should own one and I would never argue that anyone should ever own millitary grade weaponry, you have companies in the US selling assault weapons, suppressors, tactical clothing and high capacity magazines these have one sole purpose, to kill and maim.

I remember watching an episode of sons of guns where a guy went into the shop with a revolver his dad had passed on to him, asking if it could be repurposed for home protection. It was an antique so not suitable for modern ammo. so he asked her to show him something else. She asked him if he'd considered a shot gun (offering him one of their auto loading short barrel saiga shotguns) I was thinking, what the hell does she think is going to be breaking into his house??? a silver back gorilla???

 

Well obviously, humans can be dicks. What we want to do though is reduce the amount of these cases as much as possible, and gun control laws will aid in drastically reducing it. I don't believe that the argument 'if there weren't guns, nutters would use other weapons' holds any weight.

 

@ Barmy Army

No, I do not actually want us school staff to be armed with M-4s, or anything for that matter.

What I want is to play the game of Real Life in a world where the game master has put the settings at: no player-vs-player, the alignment choices are if not only Lawful Good, then at least no Chaotic Evil, all children are issued at birth with a ring of invulnerability and damage reduction 30/, and the clerics have access to healing and resurrection spells that actually work. I know, as a game it would be quite boring, somewhat like the Sims my daughters play. You would go to work, not having to worry about being shot there, or your loved ones being shot while they are at school or work or the park or the movie theater or etc. But that is the game I would like to be playing.

Obviously that is not the game that we are all actually playing. Therefore I made that list. It's kind of like when you get slammed down hard by the level boss into a power reload and try again. You don't think, I got owned attacking him with my flaming sword after buffing up with acid resistance, I guess I'll try that again with the exact same tactics, you think, what should I change so that I might be successful next time.

I guess after some more thought, I'm leaning towards having the nonlethal agent available in schools, but realistically I'm thinking nothing will change. Also realistically most likely no such event will ever occur at my school (I seriously hope so anyway.)
So I'm not actually planning on such an event happening, but like most people here on Sorcerer's Place, I am a gamer. And thinking about what one might do in such and such a situation is what gamers do.

 

I agree, I hear it alot and it riles me every time.

I call guns 'thrift kill' weapons, anyone can kill anyone with a gun easily on a whim, you can't fight back against them and they need little or no preperation or skill to use them.
Guns empower people to kill, makes them feel more like they can do it. I argue that Holmes's theatre massacre wouldn't have happened if he had to rely on his bomb making 'skills' or a car.

 

I discovered last night that I knew one of the victims. Every year, for the 4th of July weekend, my in-laws hold a big cookout up in northern New Jersey. My father-in-law grew up in New Jersey, and still owns his parents' house there, and they've been holding this cookout long before I became a member of the family.

Of the people in attendance, some were friends of the family. One family in particular had two children, a daughter, in 3rd grade, and a son, in 1st grade. The 1st grader was one of the victims. I recall talking to them this past summer. My son played with their son, which is probably the only reason I spent any length of time in conversation with them. And that little boy is now dead.

I don't know what, if anything will change. What we do know for sure is that this issue won't be taken up until Congress reconvenes with its new membership in January. They won't pass any major legislation right now other than what is necessary to be done prior to the end of this year, with the looming fiscal cliff.

But there is already people who have stated they will propse these bills early in the next session, and even some members of Congress who are staunch supporters of the NRA have stated that the time for reform has come, and that this event has softened their stance on gun rights. The legislation one Congresswoman from California proposed last night was a re-introduction of the assault rifle ban that expired in 2004, along with a maximum cartridge capacity of 10 rounds. No more extended clips or "drums" will be sold. (The Newtown shooter had an extended 30-round clip. The guy is Aurora this summer had a 100-round "drum" while using the same rifle.)

Of course, this policy only works in the long-term. Which is why it was so tragic when the law wasn't renewed in 2004. Since it doesn't take the ammunition or guns away, the hoped-for result is that ammunition is gradually expended, and the guns break, and with no new weapons being introduced to the market the prevalence of them goes down over time.

 

Sorry to hear about that Aldeth. Truly tragic. It's hard to even wrap your head around the enormity of such a tragedy. Such senseless and pointless loss of such young life... The amount of suffering the victims families must be going through is unfathomable.

It just can't be allowed to happen over and over again.

 

Sorry to hear that Aldeth.

It is true that he had a 100 round 'beta' mag, but oddly enough this turned out to be his undoing, Holmes was clearly not a weapons expert and obviously not aware of just how unreliable those 'beta' mags can be, likewise he didn't have the knowledge to clear the stoppage that rendered his rifle useless, thankfully such coincidences happen I don't want to think about the possible death toll otherwise.

 

It's not like I was really close with this family. I can say now that I know people that were directly affected by this tragedy, but it's not like I saw them a lot. In fact, I have never seen them outside of the annual cookout. If I also didn't happen to have a son who was nearly the same age as their son, we probably wouldn't have spoke at all. Afterall, it was my son and their son that took a liking to each other, and my wife and I only started talking to them after this happened. I think it is my father-in-law who was most upset to hear about it. He is a longtime friend of the child's grandfather, which is why the family was at the cookout in the first place.

Not that this makes any of it "OK", but it does make it "less bad" from my end. I didn't tell my son about it. Chances are he hasn't thought about him much since the summer, and hopefully he won't ask where he is at next year's cookout.

 

I'm sure that the 150+ people killed by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing, and their families, wish that you were right.

 

While that is certainly true, how long ago was the OKC bombing? 10 years ago or so? More? (I'm thinking it's more.) It's been a long time at any rate. While terrorist bombing are quite common in other parts of the world, there hasn't been any in the U.S. since then. And the reason for this, is in large part, due to ease of use. You can learn to fire an assault weapon, with relatively little practice.

In order to make an effective bomb, it takes a lot more technical know-how. I'm not saying it can't be done, as McVeigh clearly proves, but it's a much bigger undertaking. I imagine you want to do a few practice bombs to make sure the one you're making actually works. In the case of an assault rifle, all the practice you need can be accomplished at a gun range.

I mean, just look at the number of mass shootings compared to the number of bombings in the US. The frequency of these attacks speak for themselves. It's fair to characterize the OKC bombing as an fairly unique occurrance, as there hasn't been anything on that magnitude before or since that I can recall. Sadly, mass shootings by comparison are fairly commonplace.