Mental Health is the Issue, Not Guns and Armed Guards in Schools is not the Solution


PDA






Jeff White
December 26, 2012, 02:27 PM
Putting armed guards in all schools would be prohibitively expensive and it's just not a reasonable response to a small threat. The costs would greatly outweigh the benefits.

I have thought a lot about this issue for years. It is very real to me. When I was a police officer in a small rural town I knew that most likely I would be on my own in an active shooter situation, too much time would elapse before another officer could arrive to go in with me. Just the way things are.

One of my duties in my current job with the sheriffs office is being in charge of security at the courthouse. I know how expensive real security is. I know this is going to sound cold in this emotionally charged atmosphere, but the risk of an active shooter in every school in America does not justify the cost of properly trained and equipped armed security. We already spend more per capita on education then any other industrialized nation.

I am an NRA life member and I will not readily give up anything in a futile attempt to stop mass shootings. But the more I think about it, the more I have to dismiss the proposal to put armed officers in every school as prohibitively expensive.

What can we do then? Gun control will solve nothing, we can't afford to harden our schools and staff them with armed security forces. The solution that has the greatest benefit for our society is to fix our broken mental health system. Back in the 1980s we (as a society) decided that treating the mentally ill by institutionalizing them was cruel and inhumane. And it was expensive. States closed most of their mental hospitals and sanitariums. Advocacy groups pushed an agenda of mainstreaming the mentally ill.

Suddenly we were having a "homeless" problem. Why? Many of the mentally ill who lost their homes in the state run institutions couldn't handle being "mainstreamed". The number of them I dealt with who just refused to avail themselves of the shelter and government housing programs and preferred to live on the street just amazed me. Today our jails are full of mentally ill people who have committed crimes, felonies and misdemeanors both. In many cases they a found unfit to stand trial and committed to a mental institution. The problem is, there are so few beds that they often sit in isolation cells in the county jail for months waiting for a bed to open up. The judges here have taken to issuing a Rule to Show Cause summons to the directors of the state hospitals ordering them to show up in court and explain why these people are still sitting in the county jail months after the court ordered them committed to the Department of Human Services. Usually a bed comes available within hours of the institution being served with one of these orders.

Would fixing our mental health system stop all mass shootings? No, of course not. But I think it would lower the risk tremendously and have the other positive effect of dealing with the homeless problem and the jail overcrowding problem. The benefits to society would be worth the cost.

I'm not sure how much national coverage this story got, but several weeks ago it's possible that a mass shooting was thwarted when the parents of a troubled young man who seems to share many of the problems the sandy Hook shooter had (I will not use his name here), contacted police after he bought an AR15 rifle at Wal-Mart.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/mo-parents-discuss-son-accused-in-shooting-plot/article_c34f5471-d12c-5f70-9ced-57d581ab4ac6.html


Mo. parents discuss son accused in shooting plot

BOLIVAR, Mo. (AP) — The parents of a Missouri man accused of plotting attacks at a movie theater and Walmart store said they repeatedly struggled to find mental health care for their son before his arrest.

Bill and Tricia Lammers spoke with the Springfield News-Leader about their struggles in the wake of the deadly Dec. 14 school shootings in Connecticut.

"You think, 'Thank God it's not Blaec,'" Bill Lammers said. "I thank God we got lucky. ... Everybody in our community got lucky because he wasn't able to do anything."

Their son, Blaec Lammers, 20, has been jailed since last month on three felony charges, including making a terrorist threat. Lammers' attorney, DeWayne Franklin Perry, has declined to comment on the case.

Blaec Lammers was arrested after Tricia Lammers went to law enforcement, reporting that her son bought an AR-15 and another semi-automatic rifle from a Walmart store in Bolivar, a town about 130 miles southeast of Kansas City. It's the same store where a police report shows Blaec Lammers was found three years ago carrying a butcher knife and a Halloween mask with plans to kill a clerk.

When questioned, Blaec Lammers confessed that he planned to open fire during a showing of the new "Twilight" film and at the Walmart store.

Tricia Lammers has received phone calls from people who say she's heroic.

"I'm not a hero," said Tricia Lammers, who moved to Bolivar with her husband and the couple's two children in 2009. He was the radiology director at Citizens Memorial Hospital before becoming a consultant. She is a patient liaison at the hospital.

"With the events that happened last Friday my heart tells me I did the right thing," she said, adding, "Our city could be in the news."

Bill and Tricia Lammers say their son has always been different. He was diagnosed with dyslexia soon after first grade. He was quiet and shy. Other children picked on him. He lettered in academics his freshman year of high school in Omaha. Two years later, he was expelled after saying he wanted to harm a teacher. He has homemade tattoos on his arms, belly and legs.

The couple has tried repeatedly to get help for their son, who has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and an anti-social personality disorder. They recalled waiting for hours as hospital staffers called institutions around the state, trying to find one that had an open bed for their son.

They've spent as much as $30,000 on repeated hospitalizations and medications. There is still a balance of about $9,300 from their son's last stay at Lakeland Behavioral Health System, a psychiatric hospital for children in Springfield.

They said the mental health system has failed them and their son.....rest of the story at the link

I would like to know why the Lammers are not guests on every news show. I do know the reason, it's because their story doesn't fit a certain agenda. But this is what we need.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mental Health is the Issue, Not Guns and Armed Guards in Schools is not the Solution" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cesiumsponge
December 26, 2012, 02:41 PM
The numbers simply don't work out to justify armed guards in every school and public place across America. There were a total of 25 school-ralated firearm fatalities for 2009 (latest year of data listed by the government). For thst same year, NOAA listed 34 lightning strike fatalities in the US.

Battling anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria isn't the answer. Mass shootings and lightning are very low on my list of worries. I'm much more worried about heart disease and cancer. Like you mention, at the end of the day, the mental health issue needs to be addressed simply to better society in multiple facets. Most of the homeless here are mentally ill and not homeless under their own volition.

fastbolt
December 26, 2012, 02:48 PM
I applaud the first 2 posts of this thread.

I wish these thoughts would spread to other threads that are running wild on other gun owner forums ...

Steel Horse Rider
December 26, 2012, 02:59 PM
It would be far cheaper to simply track the young men who were given behavior modification drugs in their adolescence. That is where a large chunk of these shooters are from, but since chemical handcuffing is acceptable we will not hear a peep. Calling for gun and magazine bans will sell better...

Alaska444
December 26, 2012, 03:11 PM
Actually, there have been more mass shootings prevented with good police work and informed tips coming in prior to these shootings.

Several aspects of these shootings lend them to intervention. First, they are usually planned over several months, secondly, there is a common link to many of these shooters as upper middle class, white males with severe social inhibitions coupled with mental health issues. Parents, teachers, police and mental health and primary care folks should all get better at recognizing those at risk.

The basic science looking into these mass shootings is beginning to pain a recognizable portrait of what to look for. Again, several have been aborted by good police work and friends and family who came forward. One of the common findings is that these creeps broad cast their intentions. Folks need to understand a duty to come forward if someone is talking crazy.

Lastly, let folks have their 2A rights and be able to carry on public school grounds like they do in Utah. That won't cost anyone a penny in increased taxes. Remove the gun free zones and you have removed the killing grounds for these cowards. Mas Ayoob calls for an Israeli type of response where armed and anonymous concealed carry folks have put an end to mass school killings. If they can do that in the face of terrorism, we can certainly accomplish the same.

In addition, that would be a continuation of the popularity of CCW in America. Make the next step and eliminate all gun free zones. Public school carry and decriminalize carry where private parties prohibit it. In Utah, private schools and private businesses can put up the no firearms signs, but they lack the power of law. All that they can do if they notice you are armed is to ask you to leave.

We have the solution, just turn the clock back 30-40 years by allowing CCW as they do in Utah today and you will see a dramatic reduction in these crimes.

Sam1911
December 26, 2012, 03:12 PM
The numbers simply don't work out to justify armed guards in every school and public place across America. There were a total of 25 school-ralated firearm fatalities for 2009 (latest year of data listed by the government). For thst same year, NOAA listed 34 lightning strike fatalities in the US. ... Mass shootings and lightning are very low on my list of worries. I'm much more worried about heart disease and cancer. Like you mention, at the end of the day, the mental health issue needs to be addressed simply to better society in multiple facets. ...Indeed. While we may argue over whether armed guards or better mental health care are the most effective possible solutions to the problem of mass shootings, the fact remains that from a public policy perspective the far wiser choice would be to have the courage to do NOTHING specifically targeted to reduce that problem. It is simply too rare an occurrence to dramatically change anything about society, to restrict the freedoms of the people to any degree at all, or to spend tax dollars to confront.

But in human society, no "leader" would ever have the courage to speak that kind of truth, as he and his associates would be howled out of office for being "insensitive" and not doing "something" to protect the children.

So, the pragmatic effect of calling for better mental health options/care as a matter of public safety is merely to act as a distraction from the -- even less effectual -- calls for gun control.

It may be one of the better things that we can take the people's money to "give" society, in general. There may certainly be huge public benefits to having large, and full to brimming, mental health facilities getting the homeless off our streets, quarantining the criminally insane (from kleptomaniacs to process predators), and even, yes, snagging the occasional mass-murderer-wannabe (maybe even BEFORE he snaps!). But I still can't -- truthfully -- claim any large scale response at all to be a "reasonable" response to the events in CT, or events similar to that.

There's a cost-benefit equation there that simply doesn't balance until (and then only MAYBE) you throw a lot of other social issues onto the "pro" side of the scales.

Sam1911
December 26, 2012, 03:19 PM
We have the solution, just turn the clock back 30-40 years by allowing CCW as they do in Utah today and you will see a dramatic reduction in these crimes.You believe that 30-40 years ago we were in a BETTER place vis-a-vis concealed carry laws in the US?

Check this out: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php

Hurryin' Hoosier
December 26, 2012, 03:24 PM
Exactly the point which I've tried to make in several conversations. The closing of mental institutions and "mainstreaming" of people who would formerly have been committed (or simply dumping them on the street) has played a very large part in these mass-shootings. Yet another "victory" for the ACLU!

bikerdoc
December 26, 2012, 03:25 PM
Very well thought out Jeff.
I am no longer the lone voice calling for mental health reform.
All 4 of the past shooter were identified as a problem but the system moved too slow.
The VT and Aurora shooter even had shrinks label them dangerous, that label didn't stop them, an immediate 30 committed evaluation would have.
But addressing the root cause of the problem doesnt fit their agenda to disarm us.
In fact I am sure they smirk with callous glee that they can use these ill young men to further their agenda.

CZguy
December 26, 2012, 03:37 PM
Let me say right up front that I have no idea what the solution is. But I do have some observations.

First the problem is mental illness. So regulating firearms, cars, or gasoline is pointless.

State run mental health hospitals, didn't fix the problem of mental illness, but they did warehouse the unbalanced so that they couldn't harm others. Putting the ill back into the community for treatment (making them homeless) was a huge mistake. Right now the only way to get mental health care is through the prison system. This is probably the worst place to provide this care.

So we as a society are left to make some tough choices. Should we build institutions in order to warehouse the mentally ill? The downside would be cost, and the shock that people would have when word got out just how horrible they were. The up side would be that we would be safer from mass shootings.

Should we change our laws so that a mentally ill person could be declared a threat to society and incarcerated permanently.

I'm going to suggest that our society doesn't have the stomach for either choice. And that puts us right back where we are right now, with no treatment whatsoever for those who need it most. And politicians trying to appease people by talking about gun control in order to make people feel that they had done something.

Alaska444
December 26, 2012, 03:43 PM
You believe that 30-40 years ago we were in a BETTER place vis-a-vis concealed carry laws in the US?

Check this out: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
Actually I stand corrected on the concealed carry aspect, yes, we are making great strides day by day right now.

Let me rephrase what I should have stated to the truth that guns were not prohibited on school grounds when I went to public school in the 1970's. Get rid of the gun free zones created in the 1980's. That is at the heart of much of what we are discussing. Thank you for the correction.

Cesiumsponge
December 26, 2012, 03:45 PM
Simply raising awareness to take away the taboo would help change perceptions. Right now, people avoid the mentally ill like lepers. People with mental illness feel its shameful and somehow inherently worse than physical illness and tend to not to reach out for help. We wouldn't react the same way if we had a cold or broke a finger. It's an astonishingly few that are violently dangerous. Most mental illnesses aren't the stereotypical extremes portrayed in media and movies.

JustinJ
December 26, 2012, 03:46 PM
The numbers simply don't work out to justify armed guards in every school and public place across America. There were a total of 25 school-ralated firearm fatalities for 2009 (latest year of data listed by the government). For thst same year, NOAA listed 34 lightning strike fatalities in the US.

A few months ago the gf and i went swimming in a river at a local state park. While there a thunderstorm began blowing in so we immediately got out of the water and headed back to the car through a forested area when the lightning started. I was amazed at the number of people who continued swimming in spite of heavy lightning so i have trouble equating avoidable fatalities from lightning strikes with those of innocent children being gunned down. While some lightning strikes are completely unexpected and unavoidable others obviously are. Regarding the unexpected strikes there is probably not much of anything that can be done to avoid them. Saying "X number more die from reason Y than from shootings" is not a valid argument if Y can not reasonably be mitigated to begin with. Nor it is it a valid reason to rule shooting death numbers acceptable. What i am grappling with is whether or gun control can help the problem and would it be worth the price if so. Most here seem to refuse to have any degree of objectivity on the issue and instead only consider points that support pro-gun ideology. Personally i do believe i should have a right to whatever firearm i like but i also believe children and adults should have a right to not be shot by a lunatic. I own more semi auto rifles that i can recall in one sitting and know plenty of others who do as well. The problem as i see it is there is no good way to keep them out of the hands of first time murders without also creating additional restrictions against responsible gun owners.

I don't pretend to know the cost of increased security in schools but i can think of quite a few things i'd happily see cut to fund it. We should also not forget that increased security can have numerous benefits beyond just stopping school shootings. There may also be other effective security options than a full time armed guard such as physical measures like hardened entry points with controlled access. The idea of needing such security at schools certainly is disconcerting but obviously not nearly as much as recent events.

Obviously its very easy for us to say we need better mental health care in this country but many clamoring for it now were just recently spouting ideologies contradictory to government funded health care. Funding aside there are also huge civil liberties issues related to committing people against there will and i'll never support trashing one part of the constitution in the name of another. No matter how much we'd like it to be a simple one this is a very complex issue with no clear answers.

ID-shooting
December 26, 2012, 03:55 PM
Here is my beef. I work every day with many of our veterans. The VA has never been what I would consider stellar in dealing with PTSD and depression post deployment but the system is getting much better. Soooo...we have a young kid who just got back from Iraqistan or someplace, is having a rough time adjusting and gets his service connection and treatment for PTSD. Under the guise of "protecting the public from the mentally ill" he ends up on the "do not buy" list the FBI and the ATF keep?

One week, Private Snuffyis capable pf standing post but the next week he is too crazy to own a gun? See where this goes?

guyfromohio
December 26, 2012, 04:01 PM
Mental health is a subjective science. The same docs who give diagnoses of autism and ADD to unruly kids of crappy parents, the same ones who give diagnoses to perverts and murderers..... Now they can label you and take away your 2a rights? Isn't stockpiling ammo and weapons a sign of paranoia? For that matter, why are you carrying concealed? Paranoia? Afraid of something? Read up on how communist Russia used the mental health field like an artist with a brush. Very slippery slope. Institutionalize criminally insane after a criminal act? Yes. Before? No.

guyfromohio
December 26, 2012, 04:03 PM
ID-shooting.... Yes, you get it.

Cesiumsponge
December 26, 2012, 04:12 PM
There are millions of lakes across the country that folks swim in. Even in bad weather. There aren't millions of lightning fatalities or even thousands, or hundreds. Your argument supposes that "something could have been done" to stop a rampage killing. There is really nothing that could prevent things like this with absolute certainty.

You could expend the entire GDP. You'd probably catch a lot more bad guys before they make their move. Maybe even most. Never all. We will never know if implementation of new legislation would prevent something from happening. You can't prove a negative. How many rampage shootings, homicides, and suicides did the 7+ million FBI NICS denials prevent? The answer is probably "some".

Looking at other nations with laws vastly different or similar to ours, rampage killings still occur. They occur everywhere, but with great infrequency. Arson is still the moat common method and still holds records as the deadliest types of attacks. Americans tend to not really care what happens elsewhere in the world though.

I've only suggestsd an awareness campaign for mental health. I wouldn't suggest taking away someone's rights to save another. I've dismissed the NRA's attempts at blaming old, old movies and video games to shift blame. I don't think anyone here has suggested locking away anyone who feels a bit depressed.

Cosmoline
December 26, 2012, 04:16 PM
I agree that the focus must be on mental illness. But more specifically, no the small number of mentally ill who are VIOLENT when not in treatment. The current laws, including the current gun laws, toss everyone into a "danger to himself or others" category. This is a terrible mistake. It has the effect of punishing the merely depressed while failing to protect society from the truly dangerous. We need to have a separate policy and special attention for those who are prone to murder when off meds. Suicide, while surely a public policy concern, is much further down the list than mass murder. It's not even a crime.

Those who will start getting instructions on killing people from their cereal bowl if they miss a pill should never be out of an asylum. It was hoped back in the 80's that we would have a cure by now. We don't. It's unlikely we ever will. So that experiment has failed.

we have a young kid who just got back from Iraqistan or someplace, is having a rough time adjusting and gets his service connection and treatment for PTSD. Under the guise of "protecting the public from the mentally ill" he ends up on the "do not buy" list the FBI and the ATF keep?

That's a perfect example. PTSD does not make someone a danger TO OTHERS. It can, when coupled with depression, lead to suicide. But that's really a private matter for the person to deal with. It's not our business, frankly. And it certainly doesn't compare with folks who aren't on this planet at all.

There are already some stop-gaps in place where psychs are permitted to break privilege to warn people of dangerous patients. But beyond telling the person "hey this guy has been having fantasies of torturing you to death," THEY HAVE TO LET HIM GO! If he's stable on meds, and is taking them currently, then by law he's got to be cut loose. That needs to end.

Alaska444
December 26, 2012, 04:40 PM
Since there are many common characteristics of these killers, there is definitely opportunity for authorities to pay closer attention to them. What if a school official had a private but formal conversation with the Sandy Hook shooters mother about securing her weapons from her kid especially if she observed signs of mental deterioration. You don't have to present such a conversation as a homicidal threat, but a suicidal threat since there is overlap between these mass murderers and suicidal ideation as well.

http://www.prlog.org/10014476-prevention-is-the-cure-profile-of-mass-murderer.html

We have opportunities for intervention and identification of at risk kids. With more research, there may be mental health interventions that could circumvent this early as well. I would point out that the Columbine killers were under mental health care if I recall correctly. That didn't prevent this killing as well. You only have so much you can do in a mental health capacity especially with current mental health laws. Remember, it is not against the law to be crazy. The only time you can intervene and lock them up is when there is a documented danger to self or others identified.

JustinJ
December 26, 2012, 04:44 PM
You could expend the entire GDP. You'd probably catch a lot more bad guys before they make their move. Maybe even most. Never all. We will never know if implementation of new legislation would prevent something from happening. You can't prove a negative. How many rampage shootings, homicides, and suicides did the 7+ million FBI NICS denials prevent? The answer is probably "some".

Looking at other nations with laws vastly different or similar to ours, rampage killings still occur. They occur everywhere, but with great infrequency. Arson is still the moat common method and still holds records as the deadliest types of attacks. Americans tend to not really care what happens elsewhere in the world though.

We really have to stop trying to argue that efforts to reduce violence are futile if all violence can't be stopped. Seatbelts and other safety measures in vehicles won't stop all traffic fatalities but one can't rationally argue against their use. Hospitals won't prevent all deaths but one reasonably argue this is a reason to tear them all down. By the same token the possible benefits gained through further gun restrictions may not be worth the price even if some deaths can be prevented.

I don't know where you get that arson is still the most common attack but even if it were one can't seriously claim that the benefits of housing is negated by fire. Also, there are books of laws in place regarding building code and fire/life safety regulations to mitigate and reduce deaths from fires. While there may still be large numbers of people killed by arsonists in less developed nations modern materials and regulations make it far more difficult to successfully kill large numbers of people this way. Its obviously not impossible but far more difficult and unlikely than many seem to realize.

drcook
December 26, 2012, 04:49 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Our wonderful media has taught the terrorists of the world how to bring the U.S. to its knees. 2 or 3 coordinated attacks on schools and the U.S. would just go bonkers, worse than what we just saw, worse than the 9/11 attack.

Do not for a moment think that the reaction in our country has gone unnoticed. The media inflamed the public to a fever pitch.

Whether or not the incident was mental illness, domestic or foreign terrorism the only way that the next one is going to be stopped, is to have someone there to physically stop it.

Whether it be dedicated LEO's, armed staff, etc, schools are one of the last areas that there is a bunch of unprotected people left. As long as the closest responder is still X amount of minutes away, there will always be that window of time where children will be in harms way.

Alaska444
December 26, 2012, 05:03 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Our wonderful media has taught the terrorists of the world how to bring the U.S. to its knees. 2 or 3 coordinated attacks on schools and the U.S. would just go bonkers, worse than what we just saw, worse than the 9/11 attack.

Do not for a moment think that the reaction in our country has gone unnoticed. The media inflamed the public to a fever pitch.

Whether or not the incident was mental illness, domestic or foreign terrorism the only way that the next one is going to be stopped, is to have someone there to physically stop it.

Whether it be dedicated LEO's, armed staff, etc, schools are one of the last areas that there is a bunch of unprotected people left. As long as the closest responder is still X amount of minutes away, there will always be that window of time where children will be in harms way.
Exactly the point. Get rid of gun free zones and we reduce the risk of this occurring, but that risk will never be zero.

readyeddy
December 26, 2012, 05:12 PM
With all due respect, we are not mental health experts. We do not know the science, law, politics or financial impacts of institutionalizing the mentally ill. We know guns and the 2A and that's why we argue against gun restrictions.

But if you really want to pursue the sanatorium option, then do a quick calculation of the number of mentally ill and multiply that by the cost of instutionalizing a single patient. A quick search on the net comes up with an article that puts the numbers at 760,000 at $40,000 per day. That comes out to $30.4 billion a day. Now factor in that the numbers are inflated and round it down to $3.4 billion a day. That comes out to $1.2 trillion a year. Factor in the fiscal cliff and the reality becomes clearer.

AlexanderA
December 26, 2012, 05:27 PM
Trying to fix the mental health system is not the answer either.

The hard truth is that there will be x number of mass shootings, no matter what "cures" are attempted. All these remedies, whether they be gun control, more armed guards, or better mental health, are just things to make us feel better in our own minds that we are trying to do something about the problem.

The bottom line is that a free society has to accept the possibility of incidents like this, as the price of keeping its freedom. The alternative is a totalitarian, police state, and even that is no guarantee.

Alaska444
December 26, 2012, 05:36 PM
Trying to fix the mental health system is not the answer either.

The hard truth is that there will be x number of mass shootings, no matter what "cures" are attempted. All these remedies, whether they be gun control, more armed guards, or better mental health, are just things to make us feel better in our own minds that we are trying to do something about the problem.

The bottom line is that a free society has to accept the possibility of incidents like this, as the price of keeping its freedom. The alternative is a totalitarian, police state, and even that is no guarantee.
I don't believe we have to settle for that price at all. Violence is not necessarily the price of freedom, just the opposite really. What we have is regulations that prevent self defense, these mass shootings are not the product of a free society at all, but an over regulated and a "me" society where they look to the government for their provision instead of hard work, virtue and building a free society. No, this is not what freedom looks like my friend.

Jeff White
December 26, 2012, 05:39 PM
But if you really want to pursue the sanatorium option, then do a quick calculation of the number of mentally ill and multiply that by the cost of instutionalizing a single patient. A quick search on the net comes up with an article that puts the numbers at 760,000 at $40,000 per day. That comes out to $30.4 billion a day. Now factor in that the numbers are inflated and round it down to $3.4 billion a day. That comes out to $1.2 trillion a year. Factor in the fiscal cliff and the reality becomes clearer.

And how much do you we spend every day in this country to incarcerate and run through the legal system those who are so dysfunctional that they end up in the system because they can't care for themselves?

We are probably spending close to that nationwide now. And while they are in jail they get little, if any treatment because your average county jail is not staffed and funded to provide it.

I would estimate 40% of the people in jails today are in need of some kind of mental health care which for the most part they aren't getting. If you figure an average cost of $80.00 per day just to house them and then add in the cost of the police manpower to arrest them, prosecutors, public defenders, court clerks, probation officers and all the other ancillary costs of running them through the system, I would bet the cost is just as staggering.

We need to decide what the proper role of government is. When we closed the mental hospitals and sanitariums we simply transferred transferred the cost from one department of government to another. And we endangered the public by doing so.

ilbob
December 26, 2012, 05:41 PM
With all due respect, we are not mental health experts. We do not know the science, law, politics or financial impacts of institutionalizing the mentally ill. We know guns and the 2A and that's why we argue against gun restrictions.

But if you really want to pursue the sanatorium option, then do a quick calculation of the number of mentally ill and multiply that by the cost of instutionalizing a single patient. A quick search on the net comes up with an article that puts the numbers at 760,000 at $40,000 per day. That comes out to $30.4 billion a day. Now factor in that the numbers are inflated and round it down to $3.4 billion a day. That comes out to $1.2 trillion a year. Factor in the fiscal cliff and the reality becomes clearer.
The biggest problem with the whole mental health idea is that the so called professionals have shown they are completely incapable of separating out the dangerous to others from the merely kooky.

As for the cost, I think it may well be in the $40,000/year range rather than $40,000/day.

One of the things that is rarely touched on is that one of the reasons that the ACLU went after the warehousing of the "insane" was that a lot of them just were not dangerous, at least when they went in.

Derek Zeanah
December 26, 2012, 05:47 PM
What Bob said. $40,000 per year is much more reasonable than $40,000 per day. $40k/day translates into $14,600,000 per year, and I can't imagine many treatments that run that much.

It's important to use the proper units here.

Millwright
December 26, 2012, 05:49 PM
Mr. White, I humbly submit you are "part of the problem"; as you admit. Our justice system is broken ! We're turning loose dangerous individuals in plea deals every day. And, thanks to "feel good legislation", we're not - as you admit - not restraining dangerous individuals with serious mental health issues. All will find a way to inflict their delusions/animus upon someone, somewhere, sometime.

The "upside" is historically, these incidents are decreasing. And with increasing levels of CCW these deranged individuals are increasingly thwarted in their goals. The "downside" is recent events may bring about some temporary restrictions in how Joe Citizen protects himself and others. But I suspect this is a debate the "pros" will win.

And, FWIW, due to my employment I'm also a "part of the problem", too. >MW

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 05:51 PM
I applaud the first 2 posts of this thread.

I wish these thoughts would spread to other threads that are running wild on other gun owner forums ...

Agreed.

And in this one.

1911 guy
December 26, 2012, 05:56 PM
Here I go with another half-baked opinion. While the mental health aspect of this is surely not to be overlooked, it is a battle that is almost unwinnable due to the nature of the enemy. The enemy isn't the criminally insane guy, yet, it's the very establishment that would be responsible for "warehousing" or keeping the violently unstable out of society. They have no will or desire to do it and the law tells us the mentally unbalanced have a right to be ill. They cannot be forced to get treatment. Unless, of course, they've already committed a crime and it's court mandated. But then it's a little late.

In a perfect world, we'd be able to help these people to some extent, either getting effective treatment or segregating them from the rest of society as much for their safety as ours. But it's not going to happen. It should, but it won't.

So we're left with the blunt instrument of stopping them, rather than the preferred instrument of prevention. And then we're right back to square one in this argument.

In theory, Jeff, I agree with you 100 percent. But having a mother that retired from a hospital that dealt with physical and mental health issues, as well as having one friend who's a psychologist and two friends who have a socially dysfunctional child apiece (one violently so, the other just a little strange), I see the determination of the "system" to force these people, sometimes against their own wills and usually against the will of family, to be mainstreamed.

Texan Scott
December 26, 2012, 05:59 PM
If your argument that mentally ill shooters in schools are too rare to justify securing all schools is accepted, may we not also argue that such shootings are too rare to justify the expense of tracking or incarcerating all America's mentally ill? The same logic applies to both; if you make the two mutually exclusive or accept one but reject the other, your proposal fails on logical grounds.

Your argument against armed security also depends logically on acceptance of your premise of excessive expense. I would make two points here: one, that merely allowing teachers and administrative staff to exercise a legal right to carry creates no added public expense; two, that the idea of "excessive" expense is not a fact but a value judgement on your part. You have effectively decided how much monetary value a child's life should carry to society.

The idea of stripping any citizen of civil rights or physical liberty on the basis of what they might or might not do in the future is an absolute violation of the 5A; our justice system is predicated on the assumption of innocence and the requirement of due process of law.

These arguments for "better" mental health care merely trade one sort of police state for another. Further, penalizing voluntary seekers of treatment and then coercively institutionalizing people who don't voluntarily seek help is both logically unsound and (in my purely subjective opinion) very poor public policy.

It is time to dust off "Freedom isn't free" and take a hard look at it... sometimes the price of our freedom is enduring others' abuse of theirs. Freedom isn't free; freedom isn't even entirely SAFE. The problem is, tyranny is a lot less free, and no matter what a sweetly spoken would-be tyrant tells you, it isn't any safer, either.

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 06:02 PM
I agree that the focus must be on mental illness. But more specifically, no the small number of mentally ill who are VIOLENT when not in treatment. .

I think the CO theater shooter was in treatment at the time. So probably was the CT shooter.

I think it's more about awareness and identification, as others have said. There are programs where kids have learned enough to identify other dangerous kids. I think parents are probably more blind to it in their families, if anything. We need to develop more awareness, networks, and support organizations. Develop legitimate ways to address the people that we are 'losing' to mental illness or social exclusion.

I dont support further restrictions on guns, I dont support unfair taxation when those with kids could turn to private funding, I dont support invasions into people's rights to privacy.

Please see my signature, the 2nd one.

Edit: and for anyone who didnt know it, I'm a Democrat and liberal....liberal by most of the people's opinions on this forum anyway :-)

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 06:10 PM
Whether or not the incident was mental illness, domestic or foreign terrorism the only way that the next one is going to be stopped, is to have someone there to physically stop it.

.

In all those sources, including many mass shooters (who plan and plot, as evidence by diaries, letters, blogs)....they do a great deal of planning. A few armed guards will not stop an attack. The attack will just shift as necessary.

C'mon, even with my tinfoil hat on, I dont believe that a real coordinated attack would not include forward recon and genuine planning & strategy.

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 06:15 PM
I don't believe we have to settle for that price at all. Violence is not necessarily the price of freedom, just the opposite really. What we have is regulations that prevent self defense, these mass shootings are not the product of a free society at all, but an over regulated and a "me" society where they look to the government for their provision instead of hard work, virtue and building a free society. No, this is not what freedom looks like my friend.

Exactly. We need to be more responsible for our own safety, by whatever (legal) means necessary. If we need to change laws re: cc and gun-free zones, great.

If parents need to protect their kids by proxy...hiring armed security...so be it.

Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own safety as much as it is possible for each of us. To think of our own solutions, get our own training, develop our own awareness...extending that to family.....use our own methods, choose our own places to pray, shop, drive, learn.

If schools are really that dangerous, why do parents even send their kids there? (Someone else here on the forum had a very good post on this elsewhere). If they really believed it, would they still send their kids to public school everyday? Or make the lifestyle changes that would enable something else?

Cosmoline
December 26, 2012, 06:16 PM
From the mid 19th century until the 1970's it was routine for the barking insane to be housed for life in asylums. The great experiment in deinstitutionalization has returned them to our streets. Most are harmless enough. But some aren't. The ones who are dangerous are usually well known by their providers, so this isn't some great mystery. It's exceptionally difficult to put people away even when they're screaming insane and biting people. They're more likely to be put in jail, and that doesn't really work for anyone.

Waiting until they threaten someone and then killing them isn't really a solution either. Ever received one of those letters telling you a psych's patient is dreaming of torturing you or someone you love? The dude who was going to come to our office and kill at least one of us per his own psych's report was going to get shot dead by me if I ever saw the guy and he so much as twitched. That's not really a solution to the problem. Someone like that should be in a rubber room for life. He was following a co-worker around for many months, waiting for an opportunity to kidnap, torture and murder her. Such a person should never be at liberty. And there's nothing unconstitutional about putting them away. Their brains are just wrong, and that sort of illness is incurable. So we either do something about reinstitutionalizing them or just keep waiting till they kill someone or are killed before they can.

And the problem is MUCH bigger than a few high-profile shootings. These folks are involved in a lot of smaller scale killings. The dude who axed his family to death, stole a handgun and went on a shooting rampage through Anchorage a few years ago is a good example. Or the nutcase in Hoonah who was given a break after assaulting a cop and rewarded the kidness by murdering most of the police force on the island. These people were well known as violently insane, but there's no procedure for locking them up long-term on that basis. They're supposed to be treated and released instead. That doesn't work when your illness causes you to murder people. Releasing them is like rolling grenades around.

None of this applies to the much broader category of those who have depression, PTSD, or whatever. These weren't even considered psychological conditions until recently. I'm talking about people who hear voices in their head or have fits of homicidal rage so severe they can't be allowed near knives.

Zeke/PA
December 26, 2012, 06:18 PM
It's true, Mental Health is the issue.
The guy that set up and murdered the firemen was in jail for 17 years for killing his 92 year old Grandmother with a HAMMER.
Obviously a mental incapasitate, WHY was he released?
Also if the Left wanted to they could call anyone who took so much as a depressant drug a mental case.
What's the answer?

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 06:21 PM
It's true, Mental Health is the issue.
The guy that set up and murdered the firemen was in jail for 17 years for killing his 92 year old Grandmother with a HAMMER.
Obviously a mental incapitate, WHY was he released?
Also if the Left wanted to they could call anyone who took so much as a depressant drug a mental case.
What's the answer?

Not really, they would make the case that you were infringing on their civil liberties...that they had paid their debt to society. That there was no further legal grounds to keep them incarcerated. That you cant keep people locked up based on 'what they might do' without very strong medical and evidential precedent.

This thread is starting to sound like people want to just throw some civil liberties out the window just to be a bit safer. Hmmm.

Cosmoline
December 26, 2012, 06:25 PM
They have to be released because we made the policy choice to toss out the insanity plea or render it almost impossible to use. What we forgot is that when you convict someone for a crime they must be released after the imprisonment is finished. The murderous insane should never be released. So part of the solution is to rework our penal codes to permit for true lifelong confinement for insane criminals.

As far as gun ownership, if you reinstitutionalize the violently mad, you solve the problem in the process. If they're in the asylum they can't buy firearms.

1911 guy
December 26, 2012, 06:43 PM
And to begin worrying about "We can't lock them up before they do something" is a red herring. Send a very polite letter to your congressperson about how you'd like to stalk and murder them. See how fast you get a knock on the door, then use the "But I didn't DO anything yet" line. Let me know how that works for you. I'll send you birthday cards while you're cooling your heels in the joint. Most of these truly whacko people have made similar threats or statements.

To be clear, most of the mentally ill fall into the "crazy cat lady" category. They're very eccentric but harmless. They live in their own little world and want the population to be exactly one.

The small minority, however, are the criminally insane. They are a little odd, to be sure, but coupled with that is a bent on harming others. Sometimes out of paranoia, sometimes out of nothing but malice toward every other person on planet earth.

22-rimfire
December 26, 2012, 06:46 PM
Requiring that armed guards be positioned in every school is overkill for the risk in my opinion. It should be handled by the school district on a case by case basis as it is now.

The mental health issue is sticky. I just wonder who's opinion merits reaction by law enforcement or the judicial system? Parents? Neighbors? Fellow school kids? Teachers? School administrative staff?

I don't like schools making mental health prognoses. Parents are conflicted (especially good parents). Many single parents don't know one way or the other. The kid is often a meal ticket for the lower income folks. Law enforcement is generally reactive versus proactive.

I agree that mental health issues relative to violence need to be strengthened. But I don't want too much power entrusted to individuals other than parents and what laws might be crafted need to be very sensitive to folks who have a mental illness that is being dealt with via mediacation.

If new laws are crafted that make firearm ownership illegal for people on meds.... it won't be good for psych business, and it won't respect individual rights sufficiently, and it won't be effective in stopping truly violent people before they do something that law enforcment typically would handle. Each would have to make an informed decision about their own mental health if a more stringent law was crafted.

Being required to get a "good boy letter" before buying a gun from a "mental health professional" is a slippery slope, costly, and one I would try to avoid.

sixgunner455
December 26, 2012, 06:48 PM
The mentally ill are not the problem, though mental illness and institutions may have some part to play in all of this.

But the mentally ill are not the only mass killers. What about Beslan? What about the Pearl, Miss shooter who, by his own claims at least, was not crazy - just pissed off?

If we decide, as a nation, that mental health care is the solution to this problem, we will be looking at only one facet of what it will take to keep children safe at school. If that is truly the goal, then there can be only one answer - armed good people at the school. They don't have to be paid armed security, or police, or anything. The Pearl, Miss shooting was stopped by an armed, courageous school administrator.

Mental health care is an issue, and a serious one. But is it really this issue?

JustinJ
December 26, 2012, 06:50 PM
Send a very polite letter to your congressperson about how you'd like to stalk and murder them. See how fast you get a knock on the door, then use the "But I didn't DO anything yet" line.

First, threatening a person is a crime and often a greater crime when made against an elected official so you would have "done something". Second, if the note is just creepy but not an actual threat the knock on the door will likely be just for an interview, unless you fail it.

1911 guy
December 26, 2012, 06:59 PM
Justin, we agree completely and you just made my point for me. These people (the mentally unstable and violent) usually HAVE done something. They have often made threats but it winds up being swept under the rug because they're "different". No, they're crazy, violent and have made threats. So lock them up and we need to put an end to the false argument of "they didn't do anything".

labhound
December 26, 2012, 07:04 PM
Giving the government more power to declare people mentally ill and remove them from society scares me more than shooters in schools. As far as the shooters being mentally ill as the public and press love to claim, don't kid yourself. There are sane evil people out there that will kill and not think twice about it. I'm personally all for armed police, guards, or administration in all our schools as a last resort against stopping people from killing our defenseless children and teachers, when all other methods have failed.

BSA1
December 26, 2012, 07:46 PM
So the mentally ill are the new whipping group for eliminating violent crime. Since the only way to prevent future crimes from happening is to lock them before they break any laws.

The first issue will be to decide who to lock up.

The second is what the criteria will be.

The third issue will be suspension of writs of habeas corpus.

Another issue will be whether to make the committments a criminal or civil process.

A new Government Gulag with broad authority would have to be created along with it’s own law enforcement arm.

A nationwide system of detention centers will have to be built.

Since mass arrests and involuntary commitments will quickly overwhelm mental health professionals the Government will have to create training programs for M.H. professionals .Cases awaiting hearings will be measured in years with the accused remaining in custody.

Since the real goal is to change the individual’s way of thinking and to convince him to obey all Government orders they will be housed in reeducation centers. All contact with the outside world and family will be prohibited to avoid taking the chance of interfering with the education program.

A massive nationwide P.R. program will be implemented with the help of a willing media. Talk radio will be taken off the air.

Welcome to the new, brave world.

22-rimfire
December 26, 2012, 07:46 PM
There are truly evil people that walk our streets who have no compunction to kill someone; no remorse. These people have always existed, but in my opinion, they are more plentiful now. Some would say that anyone like this has to be mentally ill? I believe they are simply evil and socialized by our culture not to feel. These people do not care about "right and wrong", there is only gain and loss.

Master Blaster
December 26, 2012, 07:55 PM
Couple minor points to consider. Not one off the last 5 mass shooters had ever been arrested or committed to an institution. Not one had committed a prior violent act.

Thanks

tpaw
December 26, 2012, 07:56 PM
Jeff White writes:

Putting armed guards in all schools would be prohibitively expensive and it's just not a reasonable response to a small threat. The costs would greatly outweigh the benefits.

I disagree. Saving one child's life is worth any cost. You would beg, borrow and steal, and expend every asset you had to save YOUR child if he or she were at the end of a gun. Money should NEVER be an issue when it comes to protecting our children!

Sam1911
December 26, 2012, 08:23 PM
Arrgh, personalizing tragedies makes for terrible public policy. It's the same fallacy that gets people playing the "Mega Millions." The ODDS of winning make spending a dime on the game utterly absurd, but the STAKES trick folks into spending their hard-earned money on a game they will not ever win.

We look at a school shooting and say "what if it was MY kid?" And that ruins our objectivity, which should be telling us this is not a prevalent enough problem to divert billions of public dollars to combat. When you realize that dying in a school shooting is less likely than being killed by lightning -- or any number of other absurdly rare accidental deaths like being killed by a goat, or dying on an escalator, or being strangled in your own shoelaces -- you can then contemplate the fact that any public dollar diverted from, say, cancer research or developing heart disease treatments, or traffic safety, or hundreds of other VASTLY more common causes of death, toward dedicated prevention of school shootings is UTTERLY FOOLISH.

Hard cases make for bad laws. Exceptionally rare tragedies make for HORRID public policy.

Hypnogator
December 26, 2012, 09:03 PM
I agree completely that putting armed security in each and every school in the country is simply cost prohibitive. It may be a good approach in some of the larger districts that can afford it.

I think the majority of can agree on one thing: The ONLY effective way to stop an active shooter bent on killing is IMMEDIATE armed response. Some propose allowing teachers and school staff to carry concealed weapons in schools, if they have concealed weapons permits. This might well stop an active shooter, or, if made known, dissuade a potential shooter from even attempting a mass murder. But allowing teachers to carry their concealed weapons would open the possibility that unauthorized persons could gain access to the weapons if left in a purse, briefcase, or desk drawer. Moreover, the responding teacher would be at a severe disadvantage in using a pocket pistol to confront a gunman with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, possibly wearing body armor. Finally, there would be a severe risk that a teacher attempting to intervene in an active shooting incident would be shot on sight by responding law enforcement officers.

Based on my training and experience training law enforcement agencies all over the country, I believe there is a better solution to effective immediate armed response while minimizing the risk to the armed responder. A fellow law enforcement trainer has accurately called active school shooters “monsters.” Every school building in the country has fire extinguishers to enable teachers and staff to fight fires, should they occur. I believe that schools should also have “monster extinguishers” strategically located throughout the campus – a securely locked container holding an easy-to-use rifle, such as an M-1 Carbine or AR-15, plus an armored and distinctively marked “raid jacket” that would instantly identify the responder to law enforcement responders and provide some modicum of protection from the shooter. Specially trained volunteer teachers and staff members would have keys to these containers, and would be able to respond instantly with effective lethal force to terminate the threat. The rifle is much easier to shoot accurately in an emergency than a handgun, and would penetrate all but the most cumbersome body armor.

Jeff White
December 26, 2012, 09:12 PM
ilbob said;
The biggest problem with the whole mental health idea is that the so called professionals have shown they are completely incapable of separating out the dangerous to others from the merely kooky.

I disagree. I talk to the mental health professionals who do evaluations on a weekly basis. They know exactly who is dangerous and who isn't. While I believe that much of psychiatry is pseudo-science, it isn't that hard to know who is dangerous and who isn't. Certain indicators in their past conduct are usually a dead giveaway. They guy who cuts a man's throat in a fit of rage and then stands up in court to defend himself by saying he and the victim were arguing and the victim started chocking so he attempted an emergency tracheotomy to save his life, is pretty much a danger to himself and others. (yes we had this crime here, he actually cut two peoples throats but the female victim survived). He was well known to the police. In and out of jail and mental facilities for years. No he didn't shoot large numbers of people, but he is just as sick as those who do.

In the article I linked in the opening post, the parents of the boy in Missouri talk about their struggles to keep their son in residential treatment. The long term beds aren't there anymore. And the system is set up to keep putting these people back into society.

Every peace officer who ever put the man hours into doing an involuntary committal can relate stories of how they went off to the mental institution, were put on meds and released and within days were back doing whatever it was got them committed in the first place because without someone to see they stayed on their meds, they didn't.

Millwright said;
Mr. White, I humbly submit you are "part of the problem"; as you admit. Our justice system is broken ! We're turning loose dangerous individuals in plea deals every day. And, thanks to "feel good legislation", we're not - as you admit - not restraining dangerous individuals with serious mental health issues. All will find a way to inflict their delusions/animus upon someone, somewhere, sometime.

As more strain is put on budgets the problem is only going to get worse.

1911 guy said;
In theory, Jeff, I agree with you 100 percent. But having a mother that retired from a hospital that dealt with physical and mental health issues, as well as having one friend who's a psychologist and two friends who have a socially dysfunctional child apiece (one violently so, the other just a little strange), I see the determination of the "system" to force these people, sometimes against their own wills and usually against the will of family, to be mainstreamed.


Here in Illinois the governor is closing the state facilities for the developmentally disabled. His solution is to put them in neighborhood group homes. Many of them are functionally incapable of caring for themselves at all. The families of these unfortunate people have been fighting this for two years. It won't be long until we see some of them in the criminal justice system.

Texan Scott said;
Your argument against armed security also depends logically on acceptance of your premise of excessive expense. I would make two points here: one, that merely allowing teachers and administrative staff to exercise a legal right to carry creates no added public expense; two, that the idea of "excessive" expense is not a fact but a value judgement on your part.

Allowing teachers and administrative staff to carry is not going to happen nationwide. No school board is going to take on the liability of giving someone with an unknown level of training the additional duty of armed security guard. The trial lawyers see every tax funded institution as a cash cow waiting to be milked. School districts would see lawsuits for failure to adequately train these people if there was an accident or an improper use of force. I believe every state in the nation has minimum training requirements for armed security guards. If we won't let someone with just a CCW permit be an armed security guard, what makes you think it's good public policy to let one be the first responder in an active shooter incident?

How many teachers with CCW permits would accept the job knowing they had no civil immunity?

The idea of stripping any citizen of civil rights or physical liberty on the basis of what they might or might not do in the future is an absolute violation of the 5A; our justice system is predicated on the assumption of innocence and the requirement of due process of law.

These arguments for "better" mental health care merely trade one sort of police state for another. Further, penalizing voluntary seekers of treatment and then coercively institutionalizing people who don't voluntarily seek help is both logically unsound and (in my purely subjective opinion) very poor public policy.

When did I say anything about stripping anyone of civil rights based on what they might do? I am referring to those people who have proven they can't cope with life on their own.

And I never said anything about stripping people who voluntarily seek help of anything. Have you every talked with any of these disturbed people? I have to as part of my job. Many of them would rather be in the hospital but our system is not set up for that any longer.

It is time to dust off "Freedom isn't free" and take a hard look at it... sometimes the price of our freedom is enduring others' abuse of theirs. Freedom isn't free; freedom isn't even entirely SAFE. The problem is, tyranny is a lot less free, and no matter what a sweetly spoken would-be tyrant tells you, it isn't any safer, either.

Having served more then 20 years as a US Army Infantryman I am well aware of the cost of freedom. Having spent 20 years in law enforcement I also know that there are many people on the streets and in our jails who are completely incapable of caring for themselves and many of them are a danger to others.

tpaw said;

I disagree. Saving one child's life is worth any cost. You would beg, borrow and steal, and expend every asset you had to save YOUR child if he or she were at the end of a gun. Money should NEVER be an issue when it comes to protecting our children!

Money and resources is an issue with everything. No one has the resources to protect their children or their home or anything else to the level that they are 100% certain nothing bad can happen to them. We make choices and place a value on people and things we love every day.

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 09:12 PM
tpau writes:



I disagree. Saving one child's life is worth any cost. You would beg, borrow and steal, and expend every asset you had to save YOUR child if he or she were at the end of a gun. Money should NEVER be an issue when it comes to protecting our children!

Do you have that same attitude about govt paid health care? Or even welfare? Spending more in our child protective services agencies?

Please dont forget, parents are FREE to spend any amount of $$ they wish protecting their kids, including homeschooling, private schools, or paying for armed security in public schools (if that's allowed. Laws against that are likely to change, at least for security if not staff).

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 09:19 PM
Jeff White said;

Allowing teachers and administrative staff to carry is not going to happen nationwide. No school board is going to take on the liability of giving someone with an unknown level of training the additional duty of armed security guard. The trial lawyers see every tax funded institution as a cash cow waiting to be milked. School districts would see lawsuits for failure to adequately train these people if there was an accident or an improper use of force. I believe every state in the nation has minimum training requirements for armed security guards. If we won't let someone with just a CCW permit be an armed security guard, what makes you think it's good public policy to let one be the first responder in an active shooter incident?

How many teachers with CCW permits would accept the job knowing they had no civil immunity?


Not to mention the hysteria, similar to right now, when a teacher is overpowered to get their weapon by a teen or 2 or 3? It's not necessarily possible to keep CC a secret all the time.

So they get his/her gun and shoot up some fellow gangbangers or other students?

Just another witchhunt against guns.

Again, I'm really trying to avoid big changes that can come back and bite us in the butt WHEN they get over come...as any will. Armed guards dont always work now...if pro-gun people shove that down the public's throat and it stilll happens? We keep getting backed further and further into corners where the guns end up being the last straw for them to grasp.

There is no complete solution. It's a mistake to mislead the public that there is. On BOTH sides.

Texan Scott
December 26, 2012, 10:06 PM
Mr White,

Please permit me to clarify two points :

First, when I suggest that that school teachers and administration be allowed to CC, I do NOT mean that they should require permission of the local school board. We can do that already in Texas, and most schools won't, because of anti- 2A sentiment or simply fear of, as you suggest, legal liability.

I suggest the State (and here, for my part, I mean Texas) needs to make it plain that it is the teacher's individual right; that the ISD has no authority to deny, or need to know, and therefore a legal indemnity from liability. Each person will exercise their own rights at their own risk, AS DO WE ALL who CC.

Further, to suggest they shouldn't be allowed to carry because simply having a CHL doesn't make them qualified to respond is a dangerous charge levelled at CHL holders in general ... are the rest of us dangerously unqualified CHL holders also?

Second, I do not recall you (Mr White) saying that anyone should be stripped of civil rights because of what they MIGHT do... but others have gone as far as to suggest a tracking database of citizens who took medication as teenagers! Will we now have on someone's legal record the fact that they were given ritalin or prozac as a 13 year old? And would that contraindicate allowing gun ownership? If not, why even do it? And how comfortable are we with allowing private medical history become public record? Such things are violations of privacy that discourage people from seeking treatment for themselves or their families.

Of course, people who have made threats, displayed disturbing or dangerous behavior, become substance abusers or otherwise demonstrated that they are not capable of managing their lives because of mental issues HAVE done something demonstrable... and it should be shown in court (a hearing, due process) that they are mentally incompetent. The legal basis for this already exists. No draconian new laws are needed; we need to be willing to FOLLOW THROUGH with the system we have. Yes, that costs money. No, it won't prevent every tragedy. But if we're going to "do something" we need to try what we're supposed to have already been doing.

22-rimfire
December 26, 2012, 10:16 PM
Tpaw said: Saving one child's life is worth any cost. You would beg, borrow and steal, and expend every asset you had to save YOUR child if he or she were at the end of a gun. Money should NEVER be an issue when it comes to protecting our children!

Yes, I would do the best I could to protect my child. But I dissagree that "saving one child's life is worth any cost." It is one of those politican statements to justify an open ended expense with little practical return.

Even with an armed guard at a school, after months or years of boring inactivity.... a determined shooter could easily get past them and take them out without extra-ordinary measures taken.

The mental health approach may be the approach to take. But I would first insist (and fund) the transfer of appropriate documents to the FBI/ATF to be included in the NICs data base and see what develops. There are already laws about someone being declared mentally ill and not qualified by their mental condition to own a firearm. Expanding those laws would have to be very thoughtfully done and would be subject to court challenge.

9MMare
December 26, 2012, 11:06 PM
First, when I suggest that that school teachers and administration be allowed to CC, I do NOT mean that they should require permission of the local school board. We can do that already in Texas, and most schools won't, because of anti- 2A sentiment or simply fear of, as you suggest, legal liability.

I suggest the State (and here, for my part, I mean Texas) needs to make it plain that it is the teacher's individual right; that the ISD has no authority to deny, or need to know, and therefore a legal indemnity from liability. Each person will exercise their own rights at their own risk, AS DO WE ALL who CC.

.

This is interesting and I've seen it proposed both ways....keep it concealed and private AND make it known so that there can be a coordinated defense if necessary.

And also because it can put the teachers at risk to be found with a drawn gun in a situation where the police respond. (Just like the rest of us).

Alaska444
December 26, 2012, 11:40 PM
Mr White,

Please permit me to clarify two points :

First, when I suggest that that school teachers and administration be allowed to CC, I do NOT mean that they should require permission of the local school board. We can do that already in Texas, and most schools won't, because of anti- 2A sentiment or simply fear of, as you suggest, legal liability.

I suggest the State (and here, for my part, I mean Texas) needs to make it plain that it is the teacher's individual right; that the ISD has no authority to deny, or need to know, and therefore a legal indemnity from liability. Each person will exercise their own rights at their own risk, AS DO WE ALL who CC.

Further, to suggest they shouldn't be allowed to carry because simply having a CHL doesn't make them qualified to respond is a dangerous charge levelled at CHL holders in general ... are the rest of us dangerously unqualified CHL holders also?

Second, I do not recall you (Mr White) saying that anyone should be stripped of civil rights because of what they MIGHT do... but others have gone as far as to suggest a tracking database of citizens who took medication as teenagers! Will we now have on someone's legal record the fact that they were given ritalin or prozac as a 13 year old? And would that contraindicate allowing gun ownership? If not, why even do it? And how comfortable are we with allowing private medical history become public record? Such things are violations of privacy that discourage people from seeking treatment for themselves or their families.

Of course, people who have made threats, displayed disturbing or dangerous behavior, become substance abusers or otherwise demonstrated that they are not capable of managing their lives because of mental issues HAVE done something demonstrable... and it should be shown in court (a hearing, due process) that they are mentally incompetent. The legal basis for this already exists. No draconian new laws are needed; we need to be willing to FOLLOW THROUGH with the system we have. Yes, that costs money. No, it won't prevent every tragedy. But if we're going to "do something" we need to try what we're supposed to have already been doing.
+1 I agree, that is exactly the way that Utah has done it.

tpaw
December 27, 2012, 12:28 AM
22-RIM Fire States:

Yes, I would do the best I could to protect my child. But I dissagree that "saving one child's life is worth any cost." It is one of those politican statements to justify an open ended expense with little practical return.

9 M Mare States:

Do you have that same attitude about govt paid health care? Or even welfare? Spending more in our child protective services agencies?


I ask you both one question. What if it were YOUR child? Would cost be a factor between life or death?

Think about how much tax payer dollars pay for Obama's family vacations to Hawaii. Starting with Air Force One, it's flight crew, fuel and all other expenditures. Now, wouldn't you rather see YOUR tax dollars go to a more meaningful cause? One being your childs safety. Is his vacation more important than your children. I'm sure he has dozens of agents protecting HIS children everywhere they go. Are they any better than yours?????

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 12:49 AM
22-RIM Fire States:



9 M Mare States:



I ask you both one question. What if it were YOUR child? Would cost be a factor between life or death?

Think about how much tax payer dollars pay for Obama's family vacations to Hawaii. Starting with Air Force One, it's flight crew, fuel and all other expenditures. Now, wouldn't you rather see YOUR tax dollars go to a more meaningful cause? One being your childs safety. Is his vacation more important than your children. I'm sure he has dozens of agents protecting HIS children everywhere they go. Are they any better than yours?????
Do you really think that we need to create another TSA type of police force?

I don't believe that is an answer at all myself. I believe the Utah solution is all we need to do coupled with profiling of potential shooters. They have many things in common. Assuring that they cannot have access to any weapons is not an impossible task. Once again, they stopped a creep that was going to do a "Columbine" in a school about 5 miles from my house.

We do have a lot of tools available.

Another issue is that gun owners do have to take the responsibility of gun ownership seriously and protect others by securing their weapons. I hope we get some updates on how the kid got his mother's weapons especially when she wanted to have him placed in a secure facility.

tpaw
December 27, 2012, 01:28 AM
Alaska 444 States:

Do you really think that we need to create another TSA type of police force?

Perhaps I think from the standpoint of where I live, NYC. We have a police force of 35,000 plus. Probably larger than most third world countries have army's, and more than most towns here in the US have people.
Allocation of officers to secure schools would not be a burden here, in fact, it's being done now in many areas, and will continue.
Many municapalities do not have that advantage and I understand that.
Inteligent planning by qualified personel is essential where resources are limited. Parental In-put is essential. Go to school board meetings. Take an active interest! Show up, ask questions! Apathy is our worst enemy. Parents need to get involved in their childrens education and extra curricular activities.
Perhaps cutting back on tax dollars for perks in certain school districts is a start. What perks? It's up to the parents to decide. After all, it's your tax dollars that pay for it all.
Just my opinion guys. There is no ONE answer to the problem.

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 01:53 AM
Alaska 444 States:



Perhaps I think from the standpoint of where I live, NYC. We have a police force of 35,000 plus. Probably larger than most third world countries have army's, and more than most towns here in the US have people.
Allocation of officers to secure schools would not be a burden here, in fact, it's being done now in many areas, and will continue.
Many municapalities do not have that advantage and I understand that.
Inteligent planning by qualified personel is essential where resources are limited. Parental In-put is essential. Go to school board meetings. Take an active interest! Show up, ask questions! Apathy is our worst enemy. Parents need to get involved in their childrens education and extra curricular activities.
Perhaps cutting back on tax dollars for perks in certain school districts is a start. What perks? It's up to the parents to decide. After all, it's your tax dollars that pay for it all.
Just my opinion guys. There is no ONE answer to the problem.
Interesting, Ohio is allowing a pilot program of arming teachers after 3 day class.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/26/ohio-firearms-group-offers-to-train-teachers/bit.ly/Rgh6aO

9MMare
December 27, 2012, 02:27 AM
22-RIM Fire States:



9 M Mare States:



I ask you both one question. What if it were YOUR child? Would cost be a factor between life or death?

Think about how much tax payer dollars pay for Obama's family vacations to Hawaii. Starting with Air Force One, it's flight crew, fuel and all other expenditures. Now, wouldn't you rather see YOUR tax dollars go to a more meaningful cause? One being your childs safety. Is his vacation more important than your children. I'm sure he has dozens of agents protecting HIS children everywhere they go. Are they any better than yours?????

If it was my kid and *if* I was worried about a mad shooter killing my child in a school, I would take action to find a way to PRIVATELY raise the funds for whatever protections I deemed necessary.

I would teach my child in the best way I could how to react in such a situation. I would get the school board to allow teachers to cc if they chose to.

*I* have nieces and nephews in NJ...a very un-gun-friendly state. The oldest are now shooting skeet and practicing and know how to use guns safely. My eldest nephew likes shooting ARs and I'm saving to buy him one (but he's only 16) I reinforce this along with their parents. We do these things together. *I* teach my eldest niece about self-defense (the other is 6). *I* am not unduely worried about them in public schools. I do worry about lots of other things.

However *since these school shootings are no more common than being struck by lightning or being mauled to death by a dog,* I would not subject my fellow Americans to footing the bill for it because that goes against my beliefs in the Constitution.

I would accept that the ultimate protection of myself and my family was OUR responsibility, not the local or state or federal govts'.

And you did NOT answer my question. I respected you enough to do so.

22-rimfire
December 27, 2012, 03:16 AM
Tpaw said... What if it were YOUR child? Would cost be a factor between life or death?

Cost is always a factor in everything we do. Life is full of risks. The chances of injury or death are probably greater driving or riding in a car on the way to school. I think the last time I noticed, there were nearly 1000 highway deaths this year in my state. School shootings.... 20 kids (nationwide); that's 20/300+ million people in the US.

tpaw
December 27, 2012, 08:55 AM
9MMare

Please re-state your question, I'll be more than happy to answer it to the best of my ability. Thank you.

JohnBT
December 27, 2012, 09:02 AM
I'd like a show of hands please. Who believes the reason that school buses don't have seatbelts is due to anything other than money? And don't dare mention air bags.


Speaking of mental health and community living, I had a client referred to me earlier this year for a vocational evaluation. Nice guy with pretty good skills, but because of his history the private/treatment high school was required to send 2 adults with him and at least one of them had to be watching him at all times.

But I'm retired now. 37 years was at least 7 years too long. They kept cutting every agency's budget year after year and I see they're still cutting.

John

hso
December 27, 2012, 11:35 AM
We closed mental health institutions because of abuses and expense in the 80s. What many pointed out was that there was no way to care for many of the people being abandoned in the closings. What rational person thinks that someone that has to be supervised to take their medication will continue to take their medication without supervision. Group homes with supervision helped many, but others simply weren't suitable for them and were also abandoned because of economics and "principle". Homeless rates skyrocketed after patients were put out on the street.

Add that the stigma against mental health care is still strong in this country and we have a poor system for helping those most in need and protecting the public from those we most need to protect ourselves from.

Finally, even if you have private insurance that will cover a teen and permit you to get them in an institution for care, that insurance will not cover an adult family member. The blogger anarchistsoccermom posted "Thinking The Unthinkable" about how things had to go before her son was institutionalized. I have a colleague who's 15 year old son began "acting out" a year ago. We talked about his behavior from time to time since I have a daughter of similar age and a son who's older. When he told me several weeks ago that his son had made threats about killing kids in his HS by taking a knife or gun or even gasoline they'd finally picked up the phone and had him taken to a local private in-patient facility. He also pointed out that when they realized this was their last resort they also realized it was probably 9 months later than when they should have done it. "How do you cook a lobster without all the fuels? Turn the heat up a little bit at a time.", he said. We talked about a parents love for a child "blinding" them to the serious nature of the child's problems. We talked about denial also. We talked about how even after you see there's something more than teen challenges to authority going on how the process of getting counseling for a kid can be challenging (I walked that path with my son after he ran away from his mother's) and how that can even cloud you to seeing the greater problem.

It isn't easy to get help for your kid if they have personality or mental disorders that are dangerous. It isn't easy because you don't want them to be sick, because you don't want the neighbors or family to see them as sick, because you don't have the money or the community doesn't have the resources or they tell you that the police will handle it when they can't.

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 03:44 PM
We closed mental health institutions because of abuses and expense in the 80s. What many pointed out was that there was no way to care for many of the people being abandoned in the closings. What rational person thinks that someone that has to be supervised to take their medication will continue to take their medication without supervision. Group homes with supervision helped many, but others simply weren't suitable for them and were also abandoned because of economics and "principle". Homeless rates skyrocketed after patients were put out on the street.

Add that the stigma against mental health care is still strong in this country and we have a poor system for helping those most in need and protecting the public from those we most need to protect ourselves from.

Finally, even if you have private insurance that will cover a teen and permit you to get them in an institution for care, that insurance will not cover an adult family member. The blogger anarchistsoccermom posted "Thinking The Unthinkable" about how things had to go before her son was institutionalized. I have a colleague who's 15 year old son began "acting out" a year ago. We talked about his behavior from time to time since I have a daughter of similar age and a son who's older. When he told me several weeks ago that his son had made threats about killing kids in his HS by taking a knife or gun or even gasoline they'd finally picked up the phone and had him taken to a local private in-patient facility. He also pointed out that when they realized this was their last resort they also realized it was probably 9 months later than when they should have done it. "How do you cook a lobster without all the fuels? Turn the heat up a little bit at a time.", he said. We talked about a parents love for a child "blinding" them to the serious nature of the child's problems. We talked about denial also. We talked about how even after you see there's something more than teen challenges to authority going on how the process of getting counseling for a kid can be challenging (I walked that path with my son after he ran away from his mother's) and how that can even cloud you to seeing the greater problem.

It isn't easy to get help for your kid if they have personality or mental disorders that are dangerous. It isn't easy because you don't want them to be sick, because you don't want the neighbors or family to see them as sick, because you don't have the money or the community doesn't have the resources or they tell you that the police will handle it when they can't.
So true HSO. I spent two years working with autistic kids for two years before I went to med school. I also spent a summer working at Boston Mental Institution one to one with a criminally insane client between my first and second year of med school. This person had stabbed a woman in the back in self defense. Yes, he was insane for sure.

There are indeed people that benefit from in patient hospitalization. There are also many who truly are a danger to themselves or others. The homeless problem in America is mainly a combination between those that have drug abuse issues and the mentally ill. There is no law against being crazy. The only time that anyone can intervene is when there is objective evidence of a danger of harm to themselves or others.

With these school shooters, often times they hit the radar for being strange or different, but they don't commit any acts that puts them in the other categories where intervention is indicated.

I believe that there is an even deeper failure of parents who don't have any clue what their kids are doing. Thinking again of the huge number of guns that the Columbine kids had in their homes. I can't imagine that happening in my home since there were not any off limit places in my home. My kids did not have the presumption of privacy outside of hygiene of course. I looked and searched my kids rooms to know what they were doing when they were teenagers. I did intervene on my own on a couple of occasions. Parents are still part of this loop. If the cops can find much evidence after the fact, where were the parents before the fact?

Skribs
December 27, 2012, 03:58 PM
I disagree with armed guards, but I have to say giving a few teachers training and letting them carry would be a far cheaper way to provide a quicker end for an active shooter in our schools.

awgrizzly
December 27, 2012, 04:20 PM
Putting armed guards in all schools would be prohibitively expensive and it's just not a reasonable response to a small threat. The costs would greatly outweigh the benefits.

I don't like the way security guards was immediately dismissed as crazy without consideration. I don't consider additional gun laws a better suggestion, or one that would have any immediate effect. If a weapon ban was put in place, what about all the guns already available, what about the fact that almost all of these shooters use illegally obtained guns, what about the difficulty in getting the bad guys to obey laws?

The idea of a guard in every school may not be practical, but the idea of guards should not be dismissed. At the very least it should be an option in every school district in the nation and left for the parents to decide. Perhaps some would want to contribute toward hiring a guard. Perhaps some parents with gun training (like local vets or retired cops) would want to volunteer for guard duty. Perhaps providing some teachers training and providing a gun in a lock box or principal's desk drawer would be better than nothing. Perhaps consideration that a school gun free zone guarantees the safety of the shooter, not the children. After all, the protection of children is a priority of the parents. Entrusting politicians for this is not a good idea... might even be called crazy.

I believe that the immediate dismissal of the concept of security guards was more an ideological response than practical. It's at least worth discussing.

HorseSoldier
December 27, 2012, 04:24 PM
There's the Dave Grossman et al argument that spree shootings by younger shooters are heavily influenced by violent video games, violent television, and violent movies.

If the 2nd Amendment can be subjected to restrictions like NFA related tax stamps and such, what about the idea of similarly infringing the 1st Amendment and impose a tax penalty on Hollywood and video game manufacturers for any product that promotes violent behavior above a certain threshold. Establish certain thresholds for glorifying violence and sadistic behavior and if they are exceeded by a game, TV show, or movie, slap a major tax penalty on it. (Ideally then use the funds for things like mental health resources for at risk teens and school security programs, but of course Congress doesn't ever do the right thing with a money supply.)

Cosmoline
December 27, 2012, 04:26 PM
I believe that the immediate dismissal of the concept of security guards was more an ideological response than practical. It's at least worth discussing.

I agree it was ideological. A lot of us don't like the ideology of a police state, which is what armed guards and security everywhere is helping to create. Imagine a world that looks like our airports do now. Clean, tidy, tightly policed and almost entirely devoid of liberty. You are subject to search, seizure, disarmament with no due process. You have no free expression beyond very limited confines. You have limited means of movement. You are only permitted limited personal items. You are subject to observation at all times in all places. You are subject to random checks. All the while the intercom blares overhead about the need to stay vigilant.

Getting kids used to that sort of thing in school trains them to accept it as adults. And bit by bit we become a liberty-free nation. In such a world, the mere fact of owning a few firearms becomes moot.

The NRA is mostly on our side, but it is also in favor of brutal federal criminal laws and is not "small government" by any stretch.

Establish certain thresholds for glorifying violence and sadistic behavior and if they are exceeded by a game, TV show, or movie, slap a major tax penalty on it.

Careful about mentioning tax penalties. Because I guarantee there are a lot of cats in DC contemplating exactly that when it comes to our firearms! Have you forgotten that CJ Roberts loves him some tax penalties? Besides, I have real firearms to protect the fake ones in video games.

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 04:27 PM
There's the Dave Grossman et al argument that spree shootings by younger shooters are heavily influenced by violent video games, violent television, and violent movies.

If the 2nd Amendment can be subjected to restrictions like NFA related tax stamps and such, what about the idea of similarly infringing the 1st Amendment and impose a tax penalty on Hollywood and video game manufacturers for any product that promotes violent behavior above a certain threshold. Establish certain thresholds for glorifying violence and sadistic behavior and if they are exceeded by a game, TV show, or movie, slap a major tax penalty on it. (Ideally then use the funds for things like mental health resources for at risk teens and school security programs, but of course Congress doesn't ever do the right thing with a money supply.)
Sorry, I understand the sentiment, but why would we support any abrogation of the Bill of Rights at all?

Jeff White
December 27, 2012, 04:55 PM
awgrizzly said;

The idea of a guard in every school may not be practical, but the idea of guards should not be dismissed. At the very least it should be an option in every school district in the nation and left for the parents to decide.

I didn't say we shouldn't have any armed guards. I said a national program to put them in every school would not be cost effective. There are clearly some schools where armed guards or police officers are necessary to maintain order. But for the most part these schools already employ armed guards or school resource officers.

We are not going to have properly trained and equipped security forces in our schools for minimum wage. It costs a heck of a lot of money to train and equip an effective officer. Remember, the training is continual. We don't want to trust someone who's only training was what the state requires to be an armed security guard to interact with our children and expect him or her to risk their life taking out an active shooter. If you want quality, effective people in that job you are going to have to pay a decent wage. I don't know how the schools are funded where you live, but here we pay for them with our real estate taxes. It's not unreasonable to expect the kind of security you are talking about to cost $80 to $100K per officer per year by the time you figure salary, training, equipment, the employer's share of social security, unemployment insurance premiums, health insurance etc.

How many school buildings do we have in this country? I am sure some of them, like the high school I went to are large campuses with several buildings which would require a security force to properly secure, not a single officer. School districts would have to have more then one officer per building so that there was a reserve available to fill in when the regularly assigned officer was sick or taking a personal day.

It's easy to say "Put an armed officer in every school building in America!" it sounds good and really upsets the antis. But the logistics of such a program boggles the mind.

cosmoline said;

I agree it was ideological. A lot of us don't like the ideology of a police state, which is what armed guards and security everywhere is helping to create. Imagine a world that looks like our airports do now. Clean, tidy, tightly policed and almost entirely devoid of liberty. You are subject to search, seizure, disarmament with no due process. You have no free expression beyond very limited confines. You have limited means of movement. You are only permitted limited personal items. You are subject to observation at all times in all places. You are subject to random checks. All the while the intercom blares overhead about the need to stay vigilant.

This is another good point. The whole time I was in the Army I hated living on post because of the rights you give up there. I certainly don't want my grand kids brought up in that environment.

9MMare
December 27, 2012, 08:22 PM
9MMare

Please re-state your question, I'll be more than happy to answer it to the best of my ability. Thank you.

Please see my first sentences in post # 54.

Alaska444
December 27, 2012, 08:56 PM
awgrizzly said;



I didn't say we shouldn't have any armed guards. I said a national program to put them in every school would not be cost effective. There are clearly some schools where armed guards or police officers are necessary to maintain order. But for the most part these schools already employ armed guards or school resource officers.

We are not going to have properly trained and equipped security forces in our schools for minimum wage. It costs a heck of a lot of money to train and equip an effective officer. Remember, the training is continual. We don't want to trust someone who's only training was what the state requires to be an armed security guard to interact with our children and expect him or her to risk their life taking out an active shooter. If you want quality, effective people in that job you are going to have to pay a decent wage. I don't know how the schools are funded where you live, but here we pay for them with our real estate taxes. It's not unreasonable to expect the kind of security you are talking about to cost $80 to $100K per officer per year by the time you figure salary, training, equipment, the employer's share of social security, unemployment insurance premiums, health insurance etc.

How many school buildings do we have in this country? I am sure some of them, like the high school I went to are large campuses with several buildings which would require a security force to properly secure, not a single officer. School districts would have to have more then one officer per building so that there was a reserve available to fill in when the regularly assigned officer was sick or taking a personal day.

It's easy to say "Put an armed officer in every school building in America!" it sounds good and really upsets the antis. But the logistics of such a program boggles the mind.

cosmoline said;



This is another good point. The whole time I was in the Army I hated living on post because of the rights you give up there. I certainly don't want my grand kids brought up in that environment.
Dear Jeff, what do you think of the Utah approach allowing CCW and armed teachers in public schools?

tpaw
December 28, 2012, 01:05 AM
9MMare asks:
[QUOTE][Do you have that same attitude about govt paid health care? Or even welfare? Spending more in our child protective services agencies?QUOTE]

Government paid health care and welfare has been in play longer than you and I have been around, so that's a moot issue at this stage of the game. It will probably be here long after you and I are gone.
As for spending more for our child protective services agencies, I cannot comment simply because I don't have the mathmatical spread sheets as to how they spend their money. Perhaps you can supply me with that. That will answer your question, or at least part of your question.

HorseSoldier
December 28, 2012, 02:06 AM
Sorry, I understand the sentiment, but why would we support any abrogation of the Bill of Rights at all?

I think if the idea of slapping tax stamps on violent electronic media or taxing the hell out of them -- or more exactly getting that concept into the national debate about how to stop this sort of violence -- might tend to suddenly make many an anti-2A type suddenly get in touch with their inner strict Constitutional constructionists . . .

1911 guy
December 28, 2012, 02:11 AM
BINGO! Start talking about internet censorship or taxing the ever-loving bejeezus out of weed in the states it's legal in, and they get all cross-eyed and even more nuts than they started out. They have no concept of rational thought and applying principles to decision making. Everything is a "feeling" or a random thought, knee-jerk reaction to what's in front of them this commercial break. Having principles means being consistent, even when you'd rather go play whack-a-mole with the other guys head.

Jeff White
December 28, 2012, 08:19 AM
Dear Jeff, what do you think of the Utah approach allowing CCW and armed teachers in public schools?

I have no problem with CCW anywhere, even in schools. However if we are going to give the CCW holder a duty to act in an active shooter situation, make it part of his/her job, then we are obligated to train, equip and compensate that person. The training must be to the same standards as the police so that we could also extend civil immunity protection to them just like we do the police.

steelerdude99
December 28, 2012, 09:02 AM
I have no problem with CCW anywhere, even in schools. However if we are going to give the CCW holder a duty to act in an active shooter situation, make it part of his/her job, then we are obligated to train, equip and compensate that person. The training must be to the same standards as the police so that we could also extend civil immunity protection to them just like we do the police.

Jeff White,
All good points. My worry is that if even 1 in 10 teachers carry a firearm, one of them somewhere will undoubtedly make a mistake and use it or threaten to use it they shouldn’t have. The numbers alone make it a possibility. There will also be the question of what’s justified? A few thug students, who would love to not be in school in the first place, actually assault teacher who is otherwise defenseless. Is it justified to draw? Even if there was a policy where, an active shooter situation must be occurring before ever drawing a firearm, I would bet that many teachers would defend themselves if violence against them was actually occurring.

chuck

Jeff White
December 28, 2012, 10:38 AM
steelerdude99 said;
My worry is that if even 1 in 10 teachers carry a firearm, one of them somewhere will undoubtedly make a mistake and use it or threaten to use it they shouldn’t have. The numbers alone make it a possibility.

Our professional gun carriers, the police, armed security guards and the military sometimes make mistakes too. Should we disarm them? We are dealing with human beings here, mistakes will happen. Despite what you might read in the online gun forums, CCW holders are human just like everyone else. Should we eliminate CCW because someone might make a mistake and use a weapon inappropriately?

There will also be the question of what’s justified? A few thug students, who would love to not be in school in the first place, actually assault teacher who is otherwise defenseless. Is it justified to draw? Even if there was a policy where, an active shooter situation must be occurring before ever drawing a firearm, I would bet that many teachers would defend themselves if violence against them was actually occurring.

Are schools anti self defense zones? Should we deny teachers the right to defend themselves because they are at work? As bad as things are in many of our schools, I don't think there are that many incidents where teachers are attacked so severely that deadly force would be justified in self defense.

Personally my only requirement for CCW in schools would be that the weapon remain completely concealed. I have went into schools in uniform and had all kinds of curious children ask about my weapon. Children are curious about guns and I think if they saw the teacher's weapon it might distract from the business of education as he/she was drawn into conversations about the weapon. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but talking about guns and self defense isn't the primary job of a teacher.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 12:30 PM
9MMare asks:
[QUOTE][Do you have that same attitude about govt paid health care? Or even welfare? Spending more in our child protective services agencies?QUOTE]

Government paid health care and welfare has been in play longer than you and I have been around, so that's a moot issue at this stage of the game. It will probably be here long after you and I are gone.
As for spending more for our child protective services agencies, I cannot comment simply because I don't have the mathmatical spread sheets as to how they spend their money. Perhaps you can supply me with that. That will answer your question, or at least part of your question.

It was a direct question related to 3 things. That's just avoidance. We dont have the 'mathematical spreadsheets' for armed guards or other protections for schools either but you didnt question that that was worth it.

Thank you anyway.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 12:40 PM
Jeff White,
All good points. My worry is that if even 1 in 10 teachers carry a firearm, one of them somewhere will undoubtedly make a mistake and use it or threaten to use it they shouldn’t have. The numbers alone make it a possibility. There will also be the question of what’s justified? A few thug students, who would love to not be in school in the first place, actually assault teacher who is otherwise defenseless. Is it justified to draw? Even if there was a policy where, an active shooter situation must be occurring before ever drawing a firearm, I would bet that many teachers would defend themselves if violence against them was actually occurring.

chuck

IMO this is likely too. And all it takes is one teacher committing a major shooting and it all comes back on GUNS again, not teachers or mental illness or personal responsibility.

That is why I'd like the NRA and gun folks to NOT make the big decisions regarding a 'cure' for school shootings. There isnt one and for every one that fails just once...which of course they will, nothing is 100%...then the public is back to blaming guns again.

Not that we shouldnt try to be part of the solution...personally and publicly....but we need to keep making it clear how it's a matter of perspective: that kids are alot more safe in schools than on the roads or around pools. That school shootings are RARE. That more awareness and identification of sick people needs to happen.

Just IMO

guitarguy314
December 28, 2012, 02:35 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, I am afraid of new mental health rules and regulations. I'm worried that teachers will be told the profile, and asked to look out for the behaviors in students.

The problem is that this will become a witch hunt. Do you want your child pulled out of class and administered to by the school/county shrink because he doesn't have many friends, reads a lot, and keeps to himself? Even if nothing comes of it, imagine the alienation that they would feel afterwards? The ridicule they would face at the hands of their classmates.

.((I worry because I fit the profile big time when I was in High School))

Alaska444
December 28, 2012, 03:53 PM
I have no problem with CCW anywhere, even in schools. However if we are going to give the CCW holder a duty to act in an active shooter situation, make it part of his/her job, then we are obligated to train, equip and compensate that person. The training must be to the same standards as the police so that we could also extend civil immunity protection to them just like we do the police.
Thanks Jeff, but actually, CCW is NOT part of the teachers job, it is simply exercising their God given right to self defense. The schools are forbidden from regulating their right to carry. It is thus an individual right granted by the state to all people who qualify for CCW permits, not just teachers or school employees. Parents, visitors, etc. are also allowed to carry as well.

Once again, this is not a program supported by the schools or by the education program in Utah. In fact, they speak out against this right to carry. It is in reality, just about as close to actuating the true purpose of the 2A I have seen as far as gun free zones and public schools in America. Perhaps someone is aware of a better set of state laws, but that appears to be the model we should consider.

Alaska444
December 28, 2012, 03:55 PM
IMO this is likely too. And all it takes is one teacher committing a major shooting and it all comes back on GUNS again, not teachers or mental illness or personal responsibility.

That is why I'd like the NRA and gun folks to NOT make the big decisions regarding a 'cure' for school shootings. There isnt one and for every one that fails just once...which of course they will, nothing is 100%...then the public is back to blaming guns again.

Not that we shouldnt try to be part of the solution...personally and publicly....but we need to keep making it clear how it's a matter of perspective: that kids are alot more safe in schools than on the roads or around pools. That school shootings are RARE. That more awareness and identification of sick people needs to happen.

Just IMO
Then you are against constitutional carry?

BSA1
December 28, 2012, 04:09 PM
I'll bite. What is constitutional carry?

aka108
December 28, 2012, 04:31 PM
Read earlier where someone suggested following up on people who were prescribed behavorial altering drugs when in school. Seems this drug "ritilan" (sp?) is just about a staple any more. Follow up on every kid who took the stuff would be monumental. I don't have any idea nor do I think anyone else does about hour you are going to determine if someone is going to go postal at some time in thier life. Sort of like determining who is going to commit suicide. No crystal ball for determining these events. Somebody gets fired from a job. Most likely anyone who has is a litte pee'd off about it but are you going to prevent anyone who has been fired from owning a firearm? There are a lot of "strange acting" people who own firearms but are good decent people and are of no danger. Then you have "normal" appearing people who can become very violent. I don't know if anyone will ever be able to absolutely eliminate the mass shooters. Even law enforcement people have gone bezerk.

HorseSoldier
December 28, 2012, 04:40 PM
BINGO! Start talking about internet censorship or taxing the ever-loving bejeezus out of weed in the states it's legal in, and they get all cross-eyed and even more nuts than they started out. They have no concept of rational thought and applying principles to decision making. Everything is a "feeling" or a random thought, knee-jerk reaction to what's in front of them this commercial break. Having principles means being consistent, even when you'd rather go play whack-a-mole with the other guys head.

For those who are interested in drumming up this aspect of the debate about school violence, I just created a petition at the White House website calling for the Obama administration to impose a $50 tax stamp on "M" and "A" rated video games (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/impose-50-tax-stamp-sale-m-or-rated-video-games-due-link-between-violent-games-and-real-violence/1wf597ms), with the petition description noting that since the government has long established its right to impose limitations on one right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the same logic should be employed reference the 1st Amendment to address the link between violent video games and real world violence.

gossamer
December 28, 2012, 07:00 PM
The numbers simply don't work out to justify armed guards in every school and public place across America. There were a total of 25 school-ralated firearm fatalities for 2009 (latest year of data listed by the government). For thst same year, NOAA listed 34 lightning strike fatalities in the US.

Battling anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria isn't the answer. Mass shootings and lightning are very low on my list of worries. I'm much more worried about heart disease and cancer. Like you mention, at the end of the day, the mental health issue needs to be addressed simply to better society in multiple facets. Most of the homeless here are mentally ill and not homeless under their own volition.

We will spend more time and money dealing with school shootings in this country than we did before. Meanwhile our kids will go to those schools and eat fried tatertots, pizza, pasta and drink cokes and eat carcinogens all day at home.

But this country is just sure it's the shooting that's going to kill our children, giving no real consideration to the fact that a third of school children in this country are overweight or obese.

steelerdude99
December 28, 2012, 09:32 PM
steelerdude99 said;

Our professional gun carriers, the police, armed security guards and the military sometimes make mistakes too. Should we disarm them? We are dealing with human beings here, mistakes will happen. Despite what you might read in the online gun forums, CCW holders are human just like everyone else. Should we eliminate CCW because someone might make a mistake and use a weapon inappropriately?

...

Jeff White,
I agree 100% that the police, armed security guards and the military are human's make mistakes and they are not disarmed. Anti's would make a big issue over any accidental discharge by a teacher CCW'ing. Hell, anti's may even make a stink over an armed response to anything less than a mass shooting in progress.

chuck

awgrizzly
December 28, 2012, 09:45 PM
awgrizzly said;

I didn't say we shouldn't have any armed guards. I said a national program to put them in every school would not be cost effective. There are clearly some schools where armed guards or police officers are necessary to maintain order. But for the most part these schools already employ armed guards or school resource officers.

Yes, and my complaint was that some wrote it off immediately as crazy. Personally I don't know how many school buildings there are, what guards in every one of them will cost, and where the money would come from. I learned long ago not to make snap judgments and write off an idea without consideration. To do so betrays a motive as suspect and possibly not in the best interest of the goal at hand. And these underhanded charlatans in the media and federal government seldom set anything but their power and longevity as a priority.

I say the parents have the last word on this and in all likelihood the federal government can best keep their nose out of it.

Sam1911
December 28, 2012, 10:08 PM
As a thought experiment:

There are approximately 120,000 elementary and high schools in the US.
If we put one armed guard in each school and pay him or her $35,000 a year, absent all of the vast administrative costs associated with such a program, that's more like an outlay of $45,500 for each one of those guards. That's $5,460,000,000 just in compensation and benefits for guards. Yes, some schools already have guards, but we have to allow that some schools could require more than one lonely guard, so the number seems conservative if anything.

After all, we're not even considering colleges and universities, which largely do have their own security staff and which security staff has proved utterly incapable of preventing such attacks on college grounds.

Now, that money is being spent to prevent school shootings. "School-related violence" accounted for 38 deaths in 2010. (Which would work out to about $143,684,210 PER STUDENT life saved, IF we agree that a security guard would prevent EVERY SINGLE ONE of those deaths.)

On the other hand, somewhere between 5-6 children die every day in car accidents in the US. The equivalent of Sandy Hook massacre every 4-5 days all year long. How much could FIVE AND A HALF BILLION dollars do to reduce those deaths? And wouldn't it be amazing -- truly a worthy goal -- if we could bring the number of kids killed in car wrecks down to even 10 times the number killed in school shootings?

But we'll spend the money wherever it is most sensationalistic to do so.

BryanDavis
December 28, 2012, 10:37 PM
You moderators, who seem to have all agreed on this beforehand, do realize that a very large number of people in this country view owning large numbers of firearms or owning military-style rifles as insane don't you?

And that psychiatrists and psychologists are not immune to this sort of thinking?

And I don't mean they view it as insane as in they don't like it and are just insulting it. I mean a large number of people and mental health professionals in this country view it as a reason to investigate a person psychiatrically. They view it as sickness. You're aware of this?

You also must realize that a large number of people in this country view the very people on this website as gun-toting maniacs don't you? Again, they are not joking, this is not a game, they honestly view you as mentally ill. Mentally Ill.

I risk being banned saying this sort of thing, but it is obvious to me that the 2nd Amendment lot working to strengthen the mental health system of the 1940s, something that has been widely discredited as abusive, even destructive, thanks to our media, something that lobotomized thousands of people, something that to this day continues to use electroshock treatment on untold numbers, is the 2nd Amendment lot making its own noose.

Alaska444
December 28, 2012, 10:50 PM
As a thought experiment:

There are approximately 120,000 elementary and high schools in the US.
If we put one armed guard in each school and pay him or her $35,000 a year, absent all of the vast administrative costs associated with such a program, that's more like an outlay of $45,500 for each one of those guards. That's $5,460,000,000 just in compensation and benefits for guards. Yes, some schools already have guards, but we have to allow that some schools could require more than one lonely guard, so the number seems conservative if anything.

After all, we're not even considering colleges and universities, which largely do have their own security staff and which security staff has proved utterly incapable of preventing such attacks on college grounds.

Now, that money is being spent to prevent school shootings. "School-related violence" accounted for 38 deaths in 2010. (Which would work out to about $143,684,210 PER STUDENT life saved, IF we agree that a security guard would prevent EVERY SINGLE ONE of those deaths.)

On the other hand, somewhere between 5-6 children die every day in car accidents in the US. The equivalent of Sandy Hook massacre every 4-5 days all year long. How much could FIVE AND A HALF BILLION dollars do to reduce those deaths? And wouldn't it be amazing -- truly a worthy goal -- if we could bring the number of kids killed in car wrecks down to even 10 times the number killed in school shootings?

But we'll spend the money wherever it is most sensationalistic to do so.
That is why the NRA proposal is a non-starter at the Federal level and why the Utah CCW laws are the best hope to get rid of gun free zones. It is the gun free zone that is the danger to all of us and not just in schools.

Sam1911
December 28, 2012, 10:51 PM
Not sure why you're addressing that statement to "you moderators," Bryan, but certainly we all are aware that some percentage of the mental health care field views firearms as a negative thing, and views those who own them and carry them as in some way unbalanced.

However, there certainly are those in the field who do not share such beliefs and who own guns and carry guns themselves. Similar to any other profession, each individual brings his or her own biases.

You can't demonize an entire field of medicine and claim they're all out to get us. Besides, you might run the risk of being labeled paranoid!

BryanDavis
December 28, 2012, 10:58 PM
Not sure why you're addressing that statement to "you moderators," Bryan, but certainly we all are aware that some percentage of the mental health care field views firearms as a negative thing, and views those who own them and carry them as in some way unbalanced.

However, there certainly are those in the field who do not share such beliefs and who own guns and carry guns themselves. Similar to any other profession, each individual brings his or her own biases.

You can't demonize an entire field of medicine and claim they're all out to get us. Besides, you might run the risk of being labeled paranoid!

I Can demonize an entire field of medicine. And I shall and have. No other field of medicine has ever done anything like lobotomize people. No other field of medicine had to deal with the massive targeted cutbacks of things like the Community Reinvestment Act (here in New York). No other field of medicine has to force its treatment on its patients as a matter of course. And no other field of medicine is ever going to try and take your guns away.

A psychiatrist or psychologist can and will.

Sam1911
December 28, 2012, 11:10 PM
Oh good heavens. Just about all fields of medicine have done atrocious, destructive, even what we would now call murderous things in the pursuit of health, wellness, and eradication of disease. And certainly the broader associations of medical professionals have made very unfortunate moves to try to end private gun ownership so the psych field is far from alone in that.

If your argument against a better mental health care aspect to "the solution to school shootings" is based solely on a hatred for or general distrust of the entire fields of psychiatry and mental health care, you aren't going to get much traction here.

BryanDavis
December 28, 2012, 11:16 PM
In isolated incidents Sam, doctors have done terrible things indeed, but only in isolated incidents. It is nothing like the mental health system of the 1940s and you know it.

No general practitioner is going to have you locked up and prevent you from ever legally owning a firearm again. Not in this day and age.

If you want to strengthen that system, the same system that systematically committed terrible atrocities, and the same system you are seeking to revive, then by all means knock yourself out. As I said before you're making your own noose.

Sam1911
December 28, 2012, 11:38 PM
In isolated incidents Sam, doctors have done terrible things indeed, but only in isolated incidents. It is nothing like the mental health system of the 1940s and you know it.I am a historian by trade, I've read quite a bit about the history of science and medicine and I can tell you with utmost certainty that your opinion here is COMPLETELY wrong. Utterly wrong.

Explorations (and terrible abuses) into mental health care go back centuries, just like the many truly terrible and destructive and lethal things that were commonly performed, prescribed, and administered by other types of medical practitioner -- far MORE commonly than the abuses within the field of mental health. Mental health care was frequently wrong-headed and abusive and sometimes deadly, but so was just about every other field of health care. Treatments were, more often than not, worse than the disease, illness, or injury.

No general practitioner is going to have you locked up and prevent you from ever legally owning a firearm again. Not in this day and age.Certainly true, but your cardiologist has very little concern that the lethal event you're about to experience may cause the traumatic deaths of many other people -- different stakes, you understand.

However, medical professionals absolutely do have the authority to "ruin" your life by ending your career if you happen to be in various fields where your condition might put others' lives at risk.

If you want to strengthen that system, the same system that systematically committed terrible atrocities, and the same system you are seeking to revive, then by all means knock yourself out. As I said before you're making your own noose.I've expressed my own opinion about the appropriate response to the school shooting problem elsewhere, but suffice to say here that I'm not convinced that any major social change or reassignment of funds specifically to address the problem makes any logical, statistical or fiscal sense at all. So, from that perspective you may consider that I'm not a fan of systemic changes to the mental health system either.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 11:56 PM
I Can demonize an entire field of medicine. And I shall and have. No other field of medicine has ever done anything like lobotomize people. No other field of medicine had to deal with the massive targeted cutbacks of things like the Community Reinvestment Act (here in New York). No other field of medicine has to force its treatment on its patients as a matter of course. And no other field of medicine is ever going to try and take your guns away.

A psychiatrist or psychologist can and will.

Ahhh, you need to look a little further...the syphillis experiments on southern black men, is just one example. Forced sterilization of the poor? The mentally disabled? Such 'experiments' & 'treatments' were common up until the 70's, including on orphans and prisoners....no consent, in many cases they didnt even know they were guinea pigs.

THey forced plenty on unwilling and/or unknowing 'patients.' And that's just in the US...should I go into the doctors in concentration camps in Nazi Germany? ....they were no different than other doctors except that they felt they had a new pool of research animals (like the orphans and prisoners here). Or the Japanese?

I think that your research has not been very thorough.

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 12:11 AM
Wow, getting way off course. I am actually a doctor and I don't know what the you know what everyone is talking about.

Facts, all research today must go through strict protocols and committees before any patient is signed up. Full disclosure of the research is mandatory for each patient. Getting a study through this process is very difficult and highly regulated.

We are not the Japanese and Nazi folks that committed criminal acts against POW's and concentration camp victims.

Primary care doctors can only document the facts of a case and give their opinion. Doctors do not make these sort of decisions, we only document the medical conditions present or absent.

If a person is a pilot for instance, the doctor cannot end their career unless that doctor is also a Flight Surgeon acting on military protocols in an immediate action. Medical review boards acting on published regulations are the only officers who have authority in a military situation to end a career. I know of no analogous entity in the civilian world. I have spent 9 years in military medicine and over 10 years in the civilian world.

I know of no DSM diagnostic criteria of gun ownership constituting psychiatric illness.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 12:18 AM
Wow, getting way off course. I am actually a doctor and I don't know what the you know what everyone is talking about.

Facts, all research today must go through strict protocols and committees before any patient is signed up. Full disclosure of the research is mandatory for each patient. Getting a study through this process is very difficult and highly regulated.

We are not the Japanese and Nazi folks that committed criminal acts against POW's and concentration camp victims.

Primary care doctors can only document the facts of a case and give their opinion. Doctors do not make these sort of decisions, we only document the medical conditions present or absent.

If a person is a pilot for instance, the doctor cannot end their career unless that doctor is also a Flight Surgeon acting on military protocols in an immediate action. Medical review boards acting on published regulations are the only officers who have authority in a military situation to end a career. I know of no analogous entity in the civilian world. I have spent 9 years in military medicine and over 10 years in the civilian world.

I know of no DSM diagnostic criteria of gun ownership constituting psychiatric illness.

The other gentleman's view was very unbalanced. I didnt say such things were still practiced...are you denying those things in our past however?

And also...constitutional carry...please explain?

481
December 29, 2012, 12:23 AM
I know of no DSM diagnostic criteria of gun ownership constituting psychiatric illness.

I do- it's a rare disorder though- when I see a gun like I can't help but buy it. BWAAAHAHAHAHA! :D

No cure. :evil:

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 12:47 AM
The other gentleman's view was very unbalanced. I didnt say such things were still practiced...are you denying those things in our past however?

And also...constitutional carry...please explain?
Way off topic, history has spoken volumes on this atrocities. Easy to find on a simple Google search.

Back to topic, Mental health forensic evaluations of mass killers has identified several common elements such as taking months to plan, speaking to other people about their plans, upper middle class white kids, isolated personalities, etc.

If we are looking at a mental health solution, the answer is in profiling of at risk kids and intervening through several current methods of police work. We already have adequate in patient facilities to lock up all of those found to be a danger to self or others. After all, these are very rare events.

Once again, we don't need to reinvent the wheel or jump off any cliffs to look to potential solutions. Since there is no dragnet that can get every single creep off the streets and out of our schools since many can hide below the radar, allowing CCW in schools like Utah won't break the piggy bank either.

Looking at the root causes of these horrible events, there is much we already know to place directed approaches to preventing these events. Israel uses much of this in their daily lives to detect and prevent terrorist acts. This is just a different version of that risk.

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 12:49 AM
Constitutional Carry:

Constitutional Carry is a situation within a jurisdiction in which the carrying of concealed firearms is generally not restricted by the law. When a state or other jurisdiction has adopted Constitutional Carry, it is legal for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun, firearm, or other weapon concealed with or without an applicable permit or license. There are currently four U.S. states that have adopted Constitutional Carry and eleven U.S. states that have pending legislation to adopt it. The scope and applicability of such laws or proposed legislation can vary from state to state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry

Jeff White
December 29, 2012, 12:55 AM
Did anyone read the article I linked to in my original post? There was possibly a mass shooting thwarted a couple weeks before the Sandy Hook shooting when the parents of a disturbed young man called police after he bought an AR15.

In the article they relate their long fight with the system to keep this young man institutionalized. Something is wrong with a system that refuses to find a bed in a residential treatment facility for someone like that. Something is wrong with a system that has so few beds that people who are certified by the court as criminally insane languish in our county jails for months at a time before a bed is found for them. A system where judges threaten to hold directors of institutions in civil contempt for not taking these patients is severly broken.

Not once did I suggest that we go back to a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest type mental health system.

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 01:01 AM
Did anyone read the article I linked to in my original post? There was possibly a mass shooting thwarted a couple weeks before the Sandy Hook shooting when the parents of a disturbed young man called police after he bought an AR15.

In the article they relate their long fight with the system to keep this young man institutionalized. Something is wrong with a system that refuses to find a bed in a residential treatment facility for someone like that. Something is wrong with a system that has so few beds that people who are certified by the court as criminally insane languish in our county jails for months at a time before a bed is found for them. A system where judges threaten to hold directors of institutions in civil contempt for not taking these patients is severly broken.

Not once did I suggest that we go back to a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest type mental health system.
Great point Jeff, the other poster was off course for sure. There is much to be fixed, but the issue of recognizing at risk kids has a lot of data behind it today. We can and should do better detecting them in advance.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 01:47 AM
Way off topic, history has spoken volumes on this atrocities. Easy to find on a simple Google search.

Back to topic, Mental health forensic evaluations of mass killers has identified several common elements such as taking months to plan, speaking to other people about their plans, upper middle class white kids, isolated personalities, etc.

If we are looking at a mental health solution, the answer is in profiling of at risk kids and intervening through several current methods of police work. We already have adequate in patient facilities to lock up all of those found to be a danger to self or others. After all, these are very rare events.

Once again, we don't need to reinvent the wheel or jump off any cliffs to look to potential solutions. Since there is no dragnet that can get every single creep off the streets and out of our schools since many can hide below the radar, allowing CCW in schools like Utah won't break the piggy bank either.

Looking at the root causes of these horrible events, there is much we already know to place directed approaches to preventing these events. Israel uses much of this in their daily lives to detect and prevent terrorist acts. This is just a different version of that risk.

Thanks for your input.

Again, I was only trying to provide some balance to the other poster's response.

You are taking it a bit further.

BryanDavis
December 29, 2012, 01:49 AM
I am a historian by trade, I've read quite a bit about the history of science and medicine and I can tell you with utmost certainty that your opinion here is COMPLETELY wrong. Utterly wrong.

Explorations (and terrible abuses) into mental health care go back centuries, just like the many truly terrible and destructive and lethal things that were commonly performed, prescribed, and administered by other types of medical practitioner -- far MORE commonly than the abuses within the field of mental health. Mental health care was frequently wrong-headed and abusive and sometimes deadly, but so was just about every other field of health care. Treatments were, more often than not, worse than the disease, illness, or injury.

No, I'm not. And I know I'm risking banning by arguing this here, but I'm willing to risk it. So pig-headed is your stance on mental health.

I don't doubt that treatments were worse than the disease. But in no other field of medicine are theyforced on the patients.

I don't need to be a historian to know that.

Did anyone read the article I linked to in my original post? There was possibly a mass shooting thwarted a couple weeks before the Sandy Hook shooting when the parents of a disturbed young man called police after he bought an AR15.

In the article they relate their long fight with the system to keep this young man institutionalized. Something is wrong with a system that refuses to find a bed in a residential treatment facility for someone like that. Something is wrong with a system that has so few beds that people who are certified by the court as criminally insane languish in our county jails for months at a time before a bed is found for them. A system where judges threaten to hold directors of institutions in civil contempt for not taking these patients is severly broken.

Not once did I suggest that we go back to a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest type mental health system.

My apologies but no, I didn't read the article you linked to.

But the idea of building More mental institutions to host a population that was abused by them and is now moving towards more amicable solutions, like supported apartments and group residences is absurd.

The idea isn't going to fly and I'm glad of it, and people can call me "unbalanced" all they want but that's just the reality.

Ahhh, you need to look a little further...the syphillis experiments on southern black men, is just one example. Forced sterilization of the poor? The mentally disabled? Such 'experiments' & 'treatments' were common up until the 70's, including on orphans and prisoners....no consent, in many cases they didnt even know they were guinea pigs.

THey forced plenty on unwilling and/or unknowing 'patients.' And that's just in the US...should I go into the doctors in concentration camps in Nazi Germany? ....they were no different than other doctors except that they felt they had a new pool of research animals (like the orphans and prisoners here). Or the Japanese?

I think that your research has not been very thorough.

I'm not going to get into how I know what I know, but do you have any idea what a supported apartment is?

Again I'm really risking banning here, but the views on mental health on this website are appalling.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 01:52 AM
Constitutional Carry:

Constitutional Carry is a situation within a jurisdiction in which the carrying of concealed firearms is generally not restricted by the law. When a state or other jurisdiction has adopted Constitutional Carry, it is legal for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun, firearm, or other weapon concealed with or without an applicable permit or license. There are currently four U.S. states that have adopted Constitutional Carry and eleven U.S. states that have pending legislation to adopt it. The scope and applicability of such laws or proposed legislation can vary from state to state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Carry

While I would like that to be supported by the 2A...or anywhere else in the Constitution, and I have read a bit on both sides of the argument, I dont really believe that 'concealed carry' is a Constitutional Right (as I have seen supported so far).

I believe that it is up to the states to determine that.

Am I thrilled with that? No, but I cant just deny the interpretations of the Constitution. And I do believe in state's rights. I'm also pretty content with my state's cc and other gun laws. (Altho they are already under grave attack since the Newtown shooting.)

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 01:54 AM
Thanks for your input.

Again, I was only trying to provide some balance to the other poster's response.

You are taking it a bit further.
No problem, take care. We all have much to learn and consider with these matters.

CZguy
December 29, 2012, 04:13 AM
Origionally posted by BryanDavis

Again I'm really risking banning here, but the views on mental health on this website are appalling.

Your views on this subject are different than my own. But I acknowledge that you feel very strongly about this issue. Do you have any first hand experience with the mental health field that would support your position?

bikerdoc
December 29, 2012, 08:21 AM
Again I'm really risking banning here, but the views on mental health on this website are appalling.

Nobody is going to ban you for stating your views in polite logical manner.

CZ guy asked

Do you have any first hand experience with the mental health field that would support your position?

I don't care if you do or not, but I do.

Unlike surgery or using antibiotics in physical medicine. We don't cure mental illness, we control the symptoms. Whether it be cathartic treatment, medication, or any one of the treatment modalities.

The problem with past abuses is not relevant as the current paradigm is mainstreaming rather than segregation.
It is not working.
Jails, and homeless shelters, have become the new mental hospitals since the closing of mental hospitals starting in the 80's. I can't think of a more inappropriate, inhumane setting. Yet our government is OK with it and then shocked when it doesn't work.
So when an identified, documented, ill person, as was the case in aurora, and VT, commits an atrocity, the system was at a loss to prevent it and protect society.
That should be the source of our outrage not the tool.

So much easier to blame the tool.

JohnBT
December 29, 2012, 08:49 AM
"Something is wrong with a system that refuses to find a bed in a residential treatment facility for someone like that."

Find a bed, after all the cuts the politicians have administered to the budgets year after year, decade after decade? I think we're lucky there are any treatment slots at all. I cannot blame the mental health system(s) when they have been given next to nothing in the way of resources to work with.

John

tpaw
December 29, 2012, 09:58 AM
9MMare asks:

[QUOTE][Do you have that same attitude about govt paid health care? Or even welfare? Spending more in our child protective services agencies?QUOTE]

Lets try it this way:

Gov't paid health care: We already have Medicare and Medicaid

Welfare: That's a given, it's out there.

Child protective services: Also a given, it's out there.

As for my attitude towards the above programs, yes, I do believe that those programs are needed, but with strict monitering which unfortunately is not being done. I don't know what can be done to resolve it, simply because (Like any large organization) there will always be some form of corruption within those organizations. But to deny those who would really need that type of assistance would not be an intelligent alternative.
I hope this answers your question.

BSA1
December 29, 2012, 10:41 AM
Constitutional Carry is a situation within a jurisdiction in which the carrying of concealed firearms is generally not restricted by the law.

This is a selective posting of only part of the definition which also states "The scope and applicability of such laws or proposed legislation can vary from state to state."

Certain restrictions are not only practical but necessary for the safety of others. Are you advocating that unrestricted carry of guns should be allowed in a courtroom during divorce hearings and domestic violence cases where emotions run high?

X-Rap
December 29, 2012, 10:42 AM
It seems to me that for mental health care to be effective it will require that patients in some, maybe many cases will be forced into institutions and also forced meds. In the past I believe there was massive corruption and abuse that stemmed from this. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and I think there are many unintended consequenses that need to be thought out before we go "all in" with what people are asking for. My biggest fear is who gets to decide and what criteria they use to strip away ones freedom and how we as a country come to terms with another big gov. plan to fix us in the name of safety.

X-Rap
December 29, 2012, 10:53 AM
Certain restrictions are not only practical but necessary for the safety of others. Are you advocating that unrestricted carry of guns should be allowed in a courtroom during divorce hearings and domestic violence cases where emotions run high?

So how about sporting events where emotions also run very high for some. There are many emotionals events that may effect us on a daily basis, I hate to think that we should be dissarmed for them all.
Gun free zones are themselves caused by emotion, the ones I know of have very little difference with free to carry zones aside from the emotional one.
Having a gun at school is no different than one in a crowded theater, resturant, mall, church, sporting event, college campus or zoo except the emotional tie with it being populated primarily with kids. We must either believe in the right or not and quit trying to sort out special circumstances.

BSA1
December 29, 2012, 10:57 AM
Those that oppose ccw in schools by teachers would do well to visit a local school and review their active shooter plan.

Last week the TV news televised a local school district plan. The schools plan is;

1. Teacher locks the classroom door.

2. Teacher turns off the classroom lights.

3. The children and teacher hide out of sight in the darkened classroom.

The first thing my non-leo wife said is a darkened room with the door locked from the inside would tell me students are hiding inside the room. I would simply shoot the lock off to get into the room.

Then consider how long it will be before your local police will have enough officers on the scene and get organized before entering the building. At least 15 minutes in urban areas, 30 minutes + in rural areas and SWAT teams.

BSA1
December 29, 2012, 11:17 AM
We must either believe in the right or not and quit trying to sort out special circumstances.

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. You must not have experience in the courtroom or have knowledge of the level of violence in divorce and domestic violence cases.

X-Rap
December 29, 2012, 11:40 AM
I just don't believe there is anymore danger than what you could find by restraining order violations, arbitration meetings in Lawyers offices, chance meetings on the street or of course crimes of passion resulting from the discovery of an affair. What you are doing is trying to sort out some sort of protected zone by saying there is some greater risk while I don't believe it's a valid argument considering the many similar circumstances that could occur where there are no restrictions.
I'll give you a court room with violent offenders needs to have resriction of weapons just like a jail or prison does and if that is your argument for gun free areas in public buildings like court houses I agree but that is not an emotional reason.

Onmilo
December 29, 2012, 12:04 PM
Our local big city schools have both armed and unarmed security/police on campus from primary to high school due to high incidents of kids bringing weapons on campus.
The cost is not 'prohibitively expensive', adding about 1.5% tax increase to property taxes.
Since guards and metal detectors were added to all schools across the board, the incidents of weapon related violence have gone to zero.

This practice is not incorporated in all the smaller townships but may be added to referendums soon.

The city is Peoria and the District is 150 and this is in the ONLY state where private individual legal ccw is NOT allowed.

Sam1911
December 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
No, I'm not. And I know I'm risking banning by arguing this here, but I'm willing to risk it. So pig-headed is your stance on mental health.Please abandon the persecution complex. No one is going to ban you for stating your opinions as long as you remain polite and on topic. Now, if you get too far afield with insulting talk like calling others "pig-headed" ... yeah, you could end up on the wrong end of the stick, so to speak.

I don't doubt that treatments were worse than the disease. But in no other field of medicine are theyforced on the patients.We seem to be confusing past and present. The field of physical medicine as it exists today is fundamentally different from what it was a century, or two, or more ago. The same is true about mental health. Lobotomies happened, sometimes in an attempt to protect society from extremely dangerous anomalous persons without simply ending that person's life -- as a form of mercy, in other words. (And, unfortunately, to try to "fix" other problems as well -- some of which aren't even considered problems any more.) But they don't happen now. The field of professional medicine will not allow those destructive and harmful practices, because we understand that they do not help, do not cure the fundamental problem.

However, the mental health field is still charged with (among rather a lot of beneficial, voluntary aid to people who feel troubled in life) helping protect society from people who's minds have developed cancerous circuitry that leads them to seek the pain, fear, and death of other people. That is an important and necessary task.

There are stories we read and hear which make us worry that "there but by the grace of God go I," after a fashion, but there's little reason to fear that the mental health field has either the desire or the ability to declare Constitutionally protected rights, interests, and hobbies as de facto reason to lock someone away.

I don't need to be a historian to know thatIt does help if you're going to formulate strong opinions about the way things were, compared to the way things are, and why.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 01:08 PM
Way off topic, history has spoken volumes on this atrocities. Easy to find on a simple Google search.

Back to topic, Mental health forensic evaluations of mass killers has identified several common elements such as taking months to plan, speaking to other people about their plans, upper middle class white kids, isolated personalities, etc.

If we are looking at a mental health solution, the answer is in profiling of at risk kids and intervening through several current methods of police work. We already have adequate in patient facilities to lock up all of those found to be a danger to self or others. After all, these are very rare events.

Once again, we don't need to reinvent the wheel or jump off any cliffs to look to potential solutions. Since there is no dragnet that can get every single creep off the streets and out of our schools since many can hide below the radar, allowing CCW in schools like Utah won't break the piggy bank either.

Looking at the root causes of these horrible events, there is much we already know to place directed approaches to preventing these events. Israel uses much of this in their daily lives to detect and prevent terrorist acts. This is just a different version of that risk.

Thank you. Please dont bother taking the time to 'police' my posts and tell me what I should and shouldnt address.

Also, you are addressing your mental health comments to the wrong person, as I've not questioned this focus.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 01:13 PM
9MMare asks:

[QUOTE][Do you have that same attitude about govt paid health care? Or even welfare? Spending more in our child protective services agencies?QUOTE]

Lets try it this way:

Gov't paid health care: We already have Medicare and Medicaid

Welfare: That's a given, it's out there.

Child protective services: Also a given, it's out there.

As for my attitude towards the above programs, yes, I do believe that those programs are needed, but with strict monitering which unfortunately is not being done. I don't know what can be done to resolve it, simply because (Like any large organization) there will always be some form of corruption within those organizations. But to deny those who would really need that type of assistance would not be an intelligent alternative.
I hope this answers your question.

Thank you.

And by your thinking, then since we already have armed guards in many schools, we're good then? Perhaps examine where more might be truly needed, and left up to the school?

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 01:18 PM
You are a bit closer to what I've posted a couple of times.

it's not *just* gun-free zones and it's not just the govt creating them. Many private businesses and institutions have them as well...in some states legal, in some states they do not carry the wt of law.

And crimes happen anyway. Banks are a prime example. They have armed guards and in many states are NOT gun-free zones). It's about motivation. If someone is motivated strongly enough (& then compounds that with strategy)...they do not care if there are or may be guns.

The Ft. Hood shooting is a good example also. So is the Gifford's shooting where there was armed security. Crazy is crazy....but there can be very strong motivation behind it.

So how about sporting events where emotions also run very high for some. There are many emotionals events that may effect us on a daily basis, I hate to think that we should be dissarmed for them all.
Gun free zones are themselves caused by emotion, the ones I know of have very little difference with free to carry zones aside from the emotional one.
Having a gun at school is no different than one in a crowded theater, resturant, mall, church, sporting event, college campus or zoo except the emotional tie with it being populated primarily with kids. We must either believe in the right or not and quit trying to sort out special circumstances.

WSM MAGNUM
December 29, 2012, 01:43 PM
Jeff White says;
Mental Health is the Issue, Not Guns and Armed Guards in Schools is not the Solution

Putting armed guards in all schools would be prohibitively expensive and it's just not a reasonable response to a small threat. The costs would greatly outweigh the benefits.

I have thought a lot about this issue for years. It is very real to me. When I was a police officer in a small rural town I knew that most likely I would be on my own in an active shooter situation, too much time would elapse before another officer could arrive to go in with me. Just the way things are.

One of my duties in my current job with the sheriffs office is being in charge of security at the courthouse. I know how expensive real security is. I know this is going to sound cold in this emotionally charged atmosphere, but the risk of an active shooter in every school in America does not justify the cost of properly trained and equipped armed security. We already spend more per capita on education then any other industrialized nation.

I am an NRA life member and I will not readily give up anything in a futile attempt to stop mass shootings. But the more I think about it, the more I have to dismiss the proposal to put armed officers in every school as prohibitively expensive.

What can we do then? Gun control will solve nothing, we can't afford to harden our schools and staff them with armed security forces. The solution that has the greatest benefit for our society is to fix our broken mental health system. Back in the 1980s we (as a society) decided that treating the mentally ill by institutionalizing them was cruel and inhumane. And it was expensive. States closed most of their mental hospitals and sanitariums. Advocacy groups pushed an agenda of mainstreaming the mentally ill.

Suddenly we were having a "homeless" problem. Why? Many of the mentally ill who lost their homes in the state run institutions couldn't handle being "mainstreamed". The number of them I dealt with who just refused to avail themselves of the shelter and government housing programs and preferred to live on the street just amazed me. Today our jails are full of mentally ill people who have committed crimes, felonies and misdemeanors both. In many cases they a found unfit to stand trial and committed to a mental institution. The problem is, there are so few beds that they often sit in isolation cells in the county jail for months waiting for a bed to open up. The judges here have taken to issuing a Rule to Show Cause summons to the directors of the state hospitals ordering them to show up in court and explain why these people are still sitting in the county jail months after the court ordered them committed to the Department of Human Services. Usually a bed comes available within hours of the institution being served with one of these orders.

Would fixing our mental health system stop all mass shootings? No, of course not. But I think it would lower the risk tremendously and have the other positive effect of dealing with the homeless problem and the jail overcrowding problem. The benefits to society would be worth the cost.

I'm not sure how much national coverage this story got, but several weeks ago it's possible that a mass shooting was thwarted when the parents of a troubled young man who seems to share many of the problems the sandy Hook shooter had (I will not use his name here), contacted police after he bought an AR15 rifle at Wal-Mart.


As Wayne has said, mental health is a problem that needs to be dealt with. And he did not say that having armed security in our schools will be the solution that will stop school killings. Nor will solutions to mental health issues completely stop firearm killings.

If you believe that putting armed security in our schools is cost prohibitive, then why are we not complaining about the cost of security around the President. The costs of security for sports venues. The costs of security for government buildings and media staffers and their offices... and on and on.
Are our children less valuable than they are? Talk about moral standards. I find it appalling that we will complain about costs of security for schools and not about the above mentioned.

To "fix" these society problems, we have to "fix" ourselves. You must turn back to God. How can you expect God`s protection of the school children, and our country, when we have banned prayer and God from the schools.
This country was founded on the biblical covenant and it will not stand if we do not humble ourselves, seek God and ask for God`s forgiveness. We can argue about these gun problems all we want and blame this and that, claim that this will be the solution, but... if you keep ignoring God.... the last days will come quickly!

CZguy
December 29, 2012, 01:46 PM
One thing to consider, is that a necessary byproduct of living in a free society, is that these type of horrific crimes will exist. Once you accept the concept that the restrictions being proposed, are not worth giving up our freedoms. Then it becomes apparent that the only way to minimize the damage, is to allow lawful concealed carry everywhere, without creating the attraction of a gun free zone.

I know that this wouldn't work for a politician who is under pressure to do something after one of these events. But sometimes the most obvious solution is the most practical.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 01:49 PM
To "fix" these society problems, we have to "fix" ourselves. You must turn back to God. How can you expect God`s protection of the school children, and our country, when we have banned prayer and God from the schools.
This country was founded on the biblical covenant and it will not stand if we do not humble ourselves, seek God and ask for God`s forgiveness. We can argue about these gun problems all we want and blame this and that, claim that this will be the solution, but... if you keep ignoring God.... the last days will come quickly!

The God I was raised with and pray to would never allow kids to die because of my or anyone else's shortcomings. And I dont remember there being any law that families cant pray at home and at church. I dont remember anything in the Bible about only being protected where you pray.

CZguy
December 29, 2012, 01:51 PM
To "fix" these society problems, we have to "fix" ourselves. You must turn back to God. How can you expect God`s protection of the school children, and our country, when we have banned prayer and God from the schools.
This country was founded on the biblical covenant and it will not stand if we do not humble ourselves, seek God and ask for God`s forgiveness. We can argue about these gun problems all we want and blame this and that, claim that this will be the solution, but... if you keep ignoring God.... the last days will come quickly!

I believe that this is a very good point. But with faith in America declining for the last fifty years, I'm not sure that we can turn the tide around.

CZguy
December 29, 2012, 01:56 PM
The God I was raised with and pray to would never allow kids to die because of my or anyone else's shortcomings.

If you take a step back for a moment and think about it, God allowed the carnage of WWII. That's what free will is all about.

We have discussed many possible solutions in this thread. I don't see why getting back to a more morale way of living couldn't be considered a viable solution.

BSA1
December 29, 2012, 02:07 PM
I'll give you a court room with violent offenders needs to have restriction of weapons just like a jail or prison does andee if that is your argument for gun free areas in public buildings like court houses I agree
By that statement you have acquiesced your position of unrestricted carry.

but that is not an emotional reason.

Emotion often overcomes reason. In my previous life I was crisis resolution negotiator or in layman’s terms a hostage negotiator. Often I would work with individuals who have become overwhelmed by the apparent hopelessness of their situation and have lost their ability to think their problem through in a logic, rational manner. My job was too overcome the emotion of their situation and help them use logic problem solving skills.

These type of emotions can overtake rational thinking when someone is angry or in times of high stress such as a divorce. Time or a “cooling off” period often resolves these issues. Since this is a thread dealing with the mentally ill therapy and medicine can help with restoring this level of functioning.

Jeff White
December 29, 2012, 02:08 PM
We have discussed many possible solutions in this thread. I don't see why getting back to a more morale way of living couldn't be considered a viable solution.

Because you can't legislate morality, nor can you appropriate money to encourage it. One could argue that many government policies have contributed and still contribute to the decline of morality in our society, but that's not an argument that is going to get any traction. After all we all have different standards and ideas of what would be considered living a moral life. I would no more want to live in a society that legislated someone's idea of morality then I want to live in one that tells me what kind of firearms I may own.

You don't have to look any further then the places where the people are forced to live under Sharia law to get an idea of what letting someone else define morality for you is like.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 02:24 PM
If you take a step back for a moment and think about it, God allowed the carnage of WWII. That's what free will is all about.

We have discussed many possible solutions in this thread. I don't see why getting back to a more morale way of living couldn't be considered a viable solution.

"Moral".

And I agree. But you can no more force morality on people than you can force someone to use a gun they carry. So as a solution?

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 03:04 PM
As Wayne has said, mental health is a problem that needs to be dealt with. And he did not say that having armed security in our schools will be the solution that will stop school killings. Nor will solutions to mental health issues completely stop firearm killings.

If you believe that putting armed security in our schools is cost prohibitive, then why are we not complaining about the cost of security around the President. The costs of security for sports venues. The costs of security for government buildings and media staffers and their offices... and on and on.
Are our children less valuable than they are? Talk about moral standards. I find it appalling that we will complain about costs of security for schools and not about the above mentioned.

To "fix" these society problems, we have to "fix" ourselves. You must turn back to God. How can you expect God`s protection of the school children, and our country, when we have banned prayer and God from the schools.
This country was founded on the biblical covenant and it will not stand if we do not humble ourselves, seek God and ask for God`s forgiveness. We can argue about these gun problems all we want and blame this and that, claim that this will be the solution, but... if you keep ignoring God.... the last days will come quickly!
+1, that is where it is all at. All we have to do is read the philosophy of how the constitution was written and implemented by the founding fathers to understand it was written to govern a people governed by the God of the Bible. We have strayed far.

All we further have to do is to read the literal truth of the Bible in what it tells us will happen before the Lord's return. Yes, the answer is to return to the truth of the Bible and seek God (II Chronicles 7:14) However, I know and understand the spiritual condition of the world when Christ returns. Sadly, I don't believe that this nation will repent but I could be wrong. I just don't see it and once again, I believe it is simply a sign of the times.

God bless,

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 03:08 PM
Because you can't legislate morality, nor can you appropriate money to encourage it. One could argue that many government policies have contributed and still contribute to the decline of morality in our society, but that's not an argument that is going to get any traction. After all we all have different standards and ideas of what would be considered living a moral life. I would no more want to live in a society that legislated someone's idea of morality then I want to live in one that tells me what kind of firearms I may own.

You don't have to look any further then the places where the people are forced to live under Sharia law to get an idea of what letting someone else define morality for you is like.
The God of the Bible doesn't dictate morals to individuals either. In the New Testament, God changes lives through being born again and then the desire of that individual is to follow God's laws and commandments and precepts. God does make it clear that we shall all give account. However, I am not sure we are a better nation since getting rid of all of the "blue laws" and other such prohibitions on behavior. The kids today have no sense of what many of us grew up with. I don't believe it hurt us at all.

Derek Zeanah
December 29, 2012, 03:16 PM
OK, we don't do religion here. If we start getting into a "God of the Bible" versus secular debate I'm shutting this one down.

Jeff White
December 29, 2012, 03:17 PM
The God of the Bible doesn't dictate morals to individuals either. In the New Testament, God changes lives through being born again and then the desire of that individual is to follow God's laws and commandments and precepts. However, I am not sure we are a better nation since getting rid of all of the "blue laws" and other such prohibitions on behavior. The kids today have no sense of what many of us grew up with. I don't believe it hindered us at all.

Who's bible would you have us legislate into law? There is a little thing called the first amendment which prohibits a state mandated religion. I'm sure that after they complete the shredding of the second amendment they will turn their sights on the first. Do you trust congress to codify a bible into law? The founders didn't. You must remember that many of the earliest European settlers came here looking for the freedom to worship as they saw fit.

I don't think shredding the first amendment will save the second.

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 03:35 PM
Who's bible would you have us legislate into law? There is a little thing called the first amendment which prohibits a state mandated religion. I'm sure that after they complete the shredding of the second amendment they will turn their sights on the first. Do you trust congress to codify a bible into law? The founders didn't. You must remember that many of the earliest European settlers came here looking for the freedom to worship as they saw fit.

I don't think shredding the first amendment will save the second.
I never stated we should legislate the Bible into law. It is an individual issue.

Yes, the constitution did not prohibit state constitutions from requiring Christian faith and belief in the Bible at all. Example, MA state constitution, requirements for governor and his oath of office for instance.

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

It was not until the First Amendment was incorporated into the 14th amendment that they began the state and local prohibitions of religious expression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

So, legislating morals is not the answer, I believe that is a common belief. It is up to the individual to seek that within themselves. So far, the majority of Americans reject Christian values today and it is not likely to reverse that trend. Legislating morals is really not the answer at all even though I am a Christian myself.

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 03:43 PM
OK, we don't do religion here. If we start getting into a "God of the Bible" versus secular debate I'm shutting this one down.
Sorry, I thought I was just answering a question on legislating morals. Thank you.

WSM MAGNUM
December 29, 2012, 03:54 PM
9MMARE SAYS;

The God I was raised with and pray to would never allow kids to die because of my or anyone else's shortcomings. And I dont remember there being any law that families cant pray at home and at church. I dont remember anything in the Bible about only being protected where you pray.

9MMare... it is written as Alaska444 has pointed out, that in the Bible, in 2 Chronicles 7:14... "if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

So, you see.... it is evil that drove Adam Lanza to kill all those people. It is evil that is turning our hearts cold and driving us away from God. You cannot expect God`s blessings and protection by continuing to push Him away.

I would like to refer you to a couple of good books that will explain, better than I can, how the American Covenant and 9/11 has so much truth to it on what and why these horrible things are happening today. Of course, if you are not an atheist or agnostic, the Bible should be your first priority. But these 2 books will absolutely amaze and shock you. I believe we lost God`s protection and blessings starting on 9/11. God is trying to send us a message and wake up!

The books are:

The Covenant: One Nation Under God by Timothy Ballard

The Harbinger: The Ancient Mystery That Holds the Secret of America`s Future by Jonathan Cahn

somerandomguy
December 29, 2012, 04:03 PM
Putting armed guards in all schools would be prohibitively expensive and it's just not a reasonable response to a small threat. The costs would greatly outweigh the benefits.

I have thought a lot about this issue for years. It is very real to me. When I was a police officer in a small rural town I knew that most likely I would be on my own in an active shooter situation, too much time would elapse before another officer could arrive to go in with me. Just the way things are.

One of my duties in my current job with the sheriffs office is being in charge of security at the courthouse. I know how expensive real security is. I know this is going to sound cold in this emotionally charged atmosphere, but the risk of an active shooter in every school in America does not justify the cost of properly trained and equipped armed security. We already spend more per capita on education then any other industrialized nation.

I am an NRA life member and I will not readily give up anything in a futile attempt to stop mass shootings. But the more I think about it, the more I have to dismiss the proposal to put armed officers in every school as prohibitively expensive.

What can we do then? Gun control will solve nothing, we can't afford to harden our schools and staff them with armed security forces. The solution that has the greatest benefit for our society is to fix our broken mental health system. Back in the 1980s we (as a society) decided that treating the mentally ill by institutionalizing them was cruel and inhumane. And it was expensive. States closed most of their mental hospitals and sanitariums. Advocacy groups pushed an agenda of mainstreaming the mentally ill.

Suddenly we were having a "homeless" problem. Why? Many of the mentally ill who lost their homes in the state run institutions couldn't handle being "mainstreamed". The number of them I dealt with who just refused to avail themselves of the shelter and government housing programs and preferred to live on the street just amazed me. Today our jails are full of mentally ill people who have committed crimes, felonies and misdemeanors both. In many cases they a found unfit to stand trial and committed to a mental institution. The problem is, there are so few beds that they often sit in isolation cells in the county jail for months waiting for a bed to open up. The judges here have taken to issuing a Rule to Show Cause summons to the directors of the state hospitals ordering them to show up in court and explain why these people are still sitting in the county jail months after the court ordered them committed to the Department of Human Services. Usually a bed comes available within hours of the institution being served with one of these orders.

Would fixing our mental health system stop all mass shootings? No, of course not. But I think it would lower the risk tremendously and have the other positive effect of dealing with the homeless problem and the jail overcrowding problem. The benefits to society would be worth the cost.

I'm not sure how much national coverage this story got, but several weeks ago it's possible that a mass shooting was thwarted when the parents of a troubled young man who seems to share many of the problems the sandy Hook shooter had (I will not use his name here), contacted police after he bought an AR15 rifle at Wal-Mart.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/mo-parents-discuss-son-accused-in-shooting-plot/article_c34f5471-d12c-5f70-9ced-57d581ab4ac6.html



I would like to know why the Lammers are not guests on every news show. I do know the reason, it's because their story doesn't fit a certain agenda. But this is what we need.
Hey Jeff, thanks for the perspective from a law enforcement personal. My question is, what are the things that you recommend? When I was in High School, all the doors and stuff had a big square(s) of glass in them, I think it's time for door replacements imo. If you could cost efficiently do some stuff to minimize the casualties in another one of these school shootings since armed guards isn't feasible, what would you do?

JN01
December 29, 2012, 04:08 PM
Because you can't legislate morality

Sure you can. Lots of laws are based on moral views, such as those prohibiting or allowing recreational drugs, gay marriage, abortion, sex ed curriculum in schools, etc. I would argue that laws that deny me the means to self defense are immoral, a pacifist might see the opposite.

Of course, you can't force people to approve or necessarily comply with them, but they can influence the decision making process, particularly those cases where failure to go along leads to jail time.

Alaska444
December 29, 2012, 04:10 PM
Sure you can. Lots of laws are based on moral views, such as those prohibiting or allowing recreational drugs, gay marriage, abortion, sex ed curriculum in schools, etc. I would argue that laws that deny me the means to self defense are immoral, a pacifist might see the opposite.

Of course, you can't force people to approve or necessarily comply with them, but they can influence the decision making process, particularly those cases where failure to go along leads to jail time.
I think you can't legislate morality applies to what you said, you can't get people to be moral themselves based on laws. That is an individual journey. However, I don't believe that the blue laws we had growing up hurt any of us even though I was not at all a Christian at that time in my life.

481
December 29, 2012, 04:17 PM
While I would like that to be supported by the 2A...or anywhere else in the Constitution, and I have read a bit on both sides of the argument, I dont really believe that 'concealed carry' is a Constitutional Right (as I have seen supported so far).

I believe that it is up to the states to determine that.

Am I thrilled with that? No, but I cant just deny the interpretations of the Constitution. And I do believe in state's rights. I'm also pretty content with my state's cc and other gun laws. (Altho they are already under grave attack since the Newtown shooting.)

To your point about concealed carry not being a Constitutional Right, I'd offer you this:

Amendment II:

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.

Nowhere within the Second Amendment's substantive language is there a description (or restriction) upon how those arms shall be borne by the class exercising the right being enumerated.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 05:19 PM
I find it interesting that some people are implying that morality only comes from religion.

Or that evil is some 'external' force acting on people. Evil comes from WITHIN IMO.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 05:20 PM
To your point about concealed carry not being a Constitutional Right, I'd offer you this:

Amendment II:

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.

Nowhere within the Second Amendment's substantive language is there a description (or restriction) upon how those arm shall be borne by the class exercising the right being enumerated.

I have no argument with that, it's just that I've seen it argued more convincingly (legally) elsewhere. I didnt say I liked it...but I try not to reject things I dont like just because I dont like them.

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 05:25 PM
Sure you can. Lots of laws are based on moral views, such as those prohibiting or allowing recreational drugs, gay marriage, abortion, sex ed curriculum in schools, etc. I would argue that laws that deny me the means to self defense are immoral, a pacifist might see the opposite.

Of course, you can't force people to approve or necessarily comply with them, but they can influence the decision making process, particularly those cases where failure to go along leads to jail time.

And most or all of those things you used as examples failed or are failing or are in use or are legal and I personally object to any laws based on morality alone that do not infringe on the rights of others. Sex education has nothing to do with morality....only medical and biological information. When you *recommend* abstinence in such a curriculm, then you are promoting a moral agenda. (for example).

d-dogg
December 29, 2012, 06:22 PM
First of all, let me say I think I found a great forum here. Lot's of well thought out responses to varying ideas, without the thread turning into a WWF smackdown.

So what is the solution?

Is this a mental health issue? A proliferation of guns issue? A lack of enough police issue? I'll get to my 2 cents worth of opinion in a minute.

It is very true we have a homeless problem, higher drug use, more crime, more "syndromes", etc. since our mental hospitals basically opened the gates up. To show my age, I did not go to school with kids with ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, or any of the modern "syndromes". If all the current goings on are the result of mentally ill walking loose and unchecked, and the solution is to fund mental institutions and lock them up, how many here will that affect personally? ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, OCD, depressives, binge drinkers, sex addicts, homosexuals, the paranoid, etc.? Remember that any of these syndromes were at one time grounds to have someone committed to an asylum. You know, most of the people with the symptoms I mentioned are highly functioning aside from their "quirks".

Are there too many guns, and do they call to us in the middle of the night to climb a water tower and go nuts? Some of mine do call to me, but they are saying "clean me, I'm rusting". Will gun control stop a murderer? Or knife control? Or baseball bat control? How about martial arts control? I wonder what would happen if someone were to mix a gallon of bleach with a gallon of ammonia close to an HVAC return? Guess we need cleaning supply control too. No, there isn't really a way to stop a person intent on doing another harm, is there?

Are our video games and movies making our young people crazy and violent? Do we need to restrict games, movies and TV? Is Call of Duty any worse than Have Gun Will Travel, Bonanza, The Rifleman, or any of the 9 dozen WWII movies guys my age watched as a kid when there were 3 channels of television? Well, we used to walk around the neighborhood with loaded guns at 10 and 12, and if we had an altercation with another boy we carefully placed our loaded guns down before having our fist fight or wrestling match. Today's youth probably wouldn't put the gun down and solve it with a fist fight would they? Wonder what changed?

More cops / armed guards? That must be the solution, right? Well, what if there had been an armed security person on site at any of these recent headline events? What if he or she were using the restroom when the crazy persons arrived on the scene? What if he or she were the first thing the crazy persons looked for and dispatched? So we need two or thre, or a dozen at each school in the nation? No, that's not enough. Each and every one of us needs 3 personal policemen/security guards - one to walk ahead, one to watch behind, and one for a wingman. No, I guess more cops/guards is not feasible, nor the solution.

Over 500 Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Brownies and Cub Scouts participated in a community service project near me last year. We got a half paragraph on page 12 of the C section of the local newspaper. A teenage girl swam out and rescued a drowning guy 3 times her size. IIRC, she got a whole paragraph somewhere in section C. Yet a single crazy walks into a school with a gun, and we as a nation cannot escape the constant publicity it receives. Sure the guy probably knew he would die, but he was absolutely certain he would be famous. Heck, I have things I need to be doing, but here I am posting on a forum as a result of it. Maybe we are rewarding the wrong behavior? Hey, we could call it the media's fault couldn't we? Start regulating the news? I think another country did that already - didn't work too well.

But we have to do something! Spend some money, pass some laws, post an ad, have a mini-series. Something!

What can each and every one of us do? In my opinion, it is easy, and we just need politicians and the media to step out of the way and let us do it.

We could all take responsibility for our own security. We could stop the vilification of weapons and those fond of them, and encourage more people to learn to defend themselves.

(I realize the next paragraph is a bit indelicate, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, but sometimes you just have to say some things plainly).

We heard of the heroic teacher who gathered her kids up, locked a door and died trying to protect them. I should not speak ill of the dead, but I would suggest to you, she, like so many of my children's teachers, may have thought all guns are evil. Suppose instead, she had been brought up with marksmanship a part of her life just as ballet, and piano lessons. Suppose she lived in a society which did not fear law abiding citizens being armed? Would she have walked out of that classroom blowing the smoke off the end of the barrel of her .357 with the pink grips, yelling behind her "somebody grab the kickball, it's recess time". Well, that sounds a bit like a Clint Eastwood movie, but you get my point. Of course in a fantasy world like this one, the crazy probably wouldn't have made it past the Betty White looking grandma who was standing in the lobby with a tray of brownies for her granddaughter's kindergarten class.

Anyway, long story short (too late), in my opinion the way to curb craziness is to enable and encourage people to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

JN01
December 29, 2012, 10:32 PM
And most or all of those things you used as examples failed or are failing or are in use or are legal and I personally object to any laws based on morality alone that do not infringe on the rights of others. Sex education has nothing to do with morality....only medical and biological information. When you *recommend* abstinence in such a curriculm, then you are promoting a moral agenda. (for example).

They are changing because peoples views have changed. Morals are not just about prohibiting things. Approving of using mind altering substances for recreation is a moral judgement. Sex education that promotes safe sex is a moral issue for some (often from a religious perspective) as abstinence is for others.

Slavery is an extreme example. It was once legal and widespread. Now it is not because society came to view it as abhorrent and outlawed it.

The same could be said about many blue laws. When enacted the majority probably thought they were sensible. Over time, attitudes changed, the laws were ignored and no longer enforced. They, for all practical purposes, were no longer laws.

People seem to have a knee jerk negative reaction to religious peoples views on political issues as "forcing their morality on everyone else" while failing to recognize that the opposition is no less trying to promote THEIR particular morality as correct.

Societal values change. Sometimes those changes are good, sometimes they are destructive.

JN01
December 29, 2012, 10:58 PM
Sorry for the tangent.

Back to the original topic, I do have a few questions.

I know people that work in schools, and there seems to be a large number of students with various developmental/mental health issues. I don't recall this being the case much when I was in school. Am I wrong in thinking it is much more prevalent now, or is it just more likely to be diagnosed now?

If it is more prevalent now, why is it?

The pharmaceutical industry has exploded in the last few decades, people are on all kinds of medications for just about everything. Do we really know what side effects these chemical cocktails might be having on kids in the womb?

These days, kids with issues are "mainstreamed" with all the other students. "Inclusiveness" and political correctness aside, is this the best course of action for everyone involved? Would separate classes be better suited for those with problems, allowing them to be addressed without disrupting a regular classroom while at the same time reducing the potential for ridicule and bullying (which could be a factor in later violent behavior) of the troubled student?

Lastly, I wonder about the cost factor. The current trend in corrections is downsizing- stepping up paroles, replacing prison time with dubious or untested "programs" in order to cut costs. If the public is unwilling to pay to keep criminals locked up, will they be willing to fund new or expanded mental health facilities?

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 11:30 PM
People seem to have a knee jerk negative reaction to religious peoples views on political issues as "forcing their morality on everyone else" while failing to recognize that the opposition is no less trying to promote THEIR particular morality as correct.

Societal values change. Sometimes those changes are good, sometimes they are destructive.

Agreed, values change, for better or for worse.

I just dont see anyone else promoting 'values' & morality in political issues much (not completely but I cant think of an example) except the religious.

Sam1911
December 29, 2012, 11:58 PM
I know people that work in schools, and there seems to be a large number of students with various developmental/mental health issues. I don't recall this being the case much when I was in school. Am I wrong in thinking it is much more prevalent now, or is it just more likely to be diagnosed now?
That is a very tough question to answer. I know I am not qualified to answer it with fact, but I have come to believe a few things about that subject.

1) There MAY indeed be more of certain kinds of mental illness and/or maladjustment than in previous eras. Many things could be claimed to account for that, but it is hard to prove that it IS true, or if so, WHY.

2) As the field of mental health has grown with the rest of science, medicine, technology, etc., experts in the field find more and more depth of understanding and nuance and variation to describe and diagnose. If we can say we understand vastly more completely how cells, and genes, and cancers, and viruses, and all manner of physical health work now than we did 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, etc. years ago -- surely it stands to reason that we understand how the brain works at least a little better as well. And as a result we've managed to catalog and describe a long list of mental aberrations that deviate from what we hope to consider "normal" psychological function. So, if we can identify several hundred distinct mental quirks, then we're going to diagnose those at a much higher rate, collectively, than in the past we diagnosed a much more binary concept of "sane" and "insane." We wouldn't call a person who's moody around Christmas "insane," but now we can say he or she suffers from "Seasonal Affective Disorder." And so forth.

2a) There have been large numbers of people throughout history who were unhappy, socially awkward, maladjusted, "slow," mean, sadistic, fearful, spiteful, hurtful, outcast, and many other variations on "not quite right." Now we might have the descriptive structure established to be able to say that a person is delusional, hyperactive, paranoid, psychotic, sociopathic, autistic, obsessive, dyslexic, or has Asperger's, etc., etc. It was simpler when we could just say the dyslexic kids were "slow" and the sufferer or paranoia was just a recluse, and the obsessive or delusional was just "eccentric" or "creepy." But we tend to want to help ourselves and help each other, so we continue to try and understand things better, and that means we start by describing them more precisely.

3) People with problems have a vastly better chance of getting help -- or at least being able to find someone who will OFFER them assistance -- than in previous eras. For much of history the vast masses have lived lives that were "nasty, brutish, and short" to quote Hobbes, and seeking a whole lot of self-awareness and self-improvement was not likely considering how much effort went into simple survival -- working hard enough, long enough not to get tossed out of your job slaving away in a coal mine 12 hours a day, or what have you, so you could afford a bit of bread and ale at the end of the day so you'd have strength to do it again tomorrow. That sort of existence, or various equally barbarous alternates, has been the lot of more humans in history than not. Spending a lot of relatively idle time contemplating whether you're ever going to be a success in life, or whether you're fully actualized, or whether you'll ever be TRULY happy is a luxury afforded to relatively few privileged folks, historically. (And, historically speaking, many of those who became noteworthy for their contemplations were well off into territory most of us would consider quite odd, if not raving mad.) Now, such is the life of a teenager, and of a young adult just doing "ok" with some entry level job that only takes up about 40 hours of their week and leaves the other 128 hours pretty much free for feeling kinda sucky. And of the 40-something guy who doesn't get along well with his wife and kids and wonders why he can't seem to get up the energy to have a mid-life crisis.

All that to say, I truly believe that modern human society has always been host to at least 95% of all these maladies, from the annoying to the incredibly scary and lethal.

Remember, the world's folklore is full of tales like Hansel and Gretl, The Pied Piper of Hamelin, vampires, witches, snatchers and ghouls and monsters of many kinds which it seems likely were largely retellings and embellishments of ghastly deeds perpetrated by deviant and/or dangerously maladjusted people.

I don't think there's much new under the sun. Just lots of new ways to try and describe and understand it all.

JohnBT
December 30, 2012, 02:53 PM
"To show my age, I did not go to school with kids with ADD, ADHD, Aspergers, or any of the modern "syndromes"."

Sure you did, we all did, they just didn't have all of those diagnoses available back then.


I can think back to elementary school in the '50s and make solid educated guesses on a lot of the students based on what I learned in grad school in the '70s and during 37 years of working with individuals with disabilities (and having access to all of their records, etc.)

At work 30 years ago I'd have to code a recent high school grad with Minimal Brain Dysfunction in order to provide vocational services because there was no listing at all for Learning Disability. That's just one example.

One client, again in retrospect, was closer to the Autism end of the Asperger's-Autism spectrum. The diagnosis he eventually received back then was Childhood Schizophrenia, so that's what I had to use on the paperwork if I wanted to assist in a job hunt. He couldn't drive or ride the bus alone, but he could play the piano and tune pianos, although he could not learn to repair them.)

Many things are in play when it comes to the increased numbers of diagnosed students.
In no order: schools get extra money for special ed students; if a student wants an accommodation (like extra time on tests) they need a diagnosis in order to get the paperwork approved; helicopter parents that sign up for everything (can't blame them much); insurance requires a diagnosis if you want meds/therapy/group counseling/whatever.

Want to skip that college math requirement? Get somebody qualified to give you a diagnosis of Math Disorder. Of course, the free route may takes many months or you can pay a psychologist many hundreds of dollars for 2 days worth of testing and report writing. On and on it goes.

I need a memory wipe on a lot of this stuff - I retired a couple of months ago.

John

JN01
December 30, 2012, 06:55 PM
I just dont see anyone else promoting 'values' & morality in political issues much (not completely but I cant think of an example) except the religious.

Employers with certain religious values do not want to provide abortion or contraceptive health care services. Those who see those services as a right seek to force them to pay for it. Both sides are attempting to force their values on the other. It remains to be seen which will prevail.

A recently passed California law prohibiting minors from being counseled away from homosexuality is being challenged in court. Those in favor of the law are attempting to force their view that if any child is confused about his/her sexuality, it should always default to gay.

For some, gun control is a moral issue. They think that guns are only for killing people and that there is something wrong with anyone who owns them. They want to hold their need to "feel" safe over your right to self defense.

Deltaboy
December 30, 2012, 07:12 PM
As a Minister, School Teacher and LEO Chaplin and a life long gun owner and TX CCW man I tell you we need to do both. We need to expand Fed State and Local spending on Mental health plus we need to allow educators and retired LEO and Military to be armed at School. I told my Super that I would carry at work when He got the School Board to allow it since they can here in TX with no state interferance.

Alaska444
December 30, 2012, 07:23 PM
Employers with certain religious values do not want to provide abortion or contraceptive health care services. Those who see those services as a right seek to force them to pay for it. Both sides are attempting to force their values on the other. It remains to be seen which will prevail.

A recently passed California law prohibiting minors from being counseled away from homosexuality is being challenged in court. Those in favor of the law are attempting to force their view that if any child is confused about his/her sexuality, it should always default to gay.

For some, gun control is a moral issue. They think that guns are only for killing people and that there is something wrong with anyone who owns them. They want to hold their need to "feel" safe over your right to self defense.
Actually self defense is a moral issue supported by the Bible. Even Gandhi decried the taking of guns from Indians as a moral abrogation of basic rights.

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest ...

Even the Dalai Lama said:

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

Gun control is a very immoral act that leaves guns in the hands of criminals and the government. Both are dangerous characters when the lawful citizens are deprived of the basic right of self defense.

Alaska444
December 30, 2012, 07:29 PM
Employers with certain religious values do not want to provide abortion or contraceptive health care services. Those who see those services as a right seek to force them to pay for it. Both sides are attempting to force their values on the other. It remains to be seen which will prevail.

A recently passed California law prohibiting minors from being counseled away from homosexuality is being challenged in court. Those in favor of the law are attempting to force their view that if any child is confused about his/her sexuality, it should always default to gay.

For some, gun control is a moral issue. They think that guns are only for killing people and that there is something wrong with anyone who owns them. They want to hold their need to "feel" safe over your right to self defense.
I would further add that a company that acts upon the owners moral values is acting within their constitution rights. The employees have the right to work some where else if they disagree with that decision. Sorry, that is NOT forcing their values on someone else, they are simply exercising their rights of self determination.

In fact you have it backwards, the Obama administration is now forcing their moral values on the company to go against their religious convictions and offer contraception. In this case, their only recourse is to either go against their religious convictions or to face prosecution with possible fines and prison time as the consequence. That is direct coercion.

The employee on the other hand has the recourse of working somewhere else and not lose anything. The employers have all of their assets at risk to lose. Very different situation.

JN01
December 30, 2012, 08:43 PM
I would further add that a company that acts upon the owners moral values is acting within their constitution rights. The employees have the right to work some where else if they disagree with that decision. Sorry, that is NOT forcing their values on someone else, they are simply exercising their rights of self determination.

That is true, they do not have to work there. Perhaps not "force" exactly, but the employers expect that in this instance, their morality should prevail. I, incidentally, agree with them.

In fact you have it backwards, the Obama administration is now forcing their moral values on the company to go against their religious convictions and offer contraception. In this case, their only recourse is to either go against their religious convictions or to face prosecution with possible fines and prison time as the consequence. That is direct coercion.

Agreed. I was questioning the assertions that 1) morality can't be legislated, and 2) if it is, it is usually religious people that attempt to do so.

Alaska444
December 30, 2012, 08:47 PM
That is true, they do not have to work there. Perhaps not "force" exactly, but the employers expect that in this instance, their morality should prevail. I, incidentally, agree with them.



Agreed. I was questioning the assertions that 1) morality can't be legislated, and 2) if it is, it is usually religious people that attempt to do so.
Looking for and securing a job is a voluntary decision. As long as all prospective employees understand the insurance guidelines at the time of coming on board the company, then it is their choice to do so or to decline. Obama is not allowing free choice to the employers. That is a much different situation.

tpaw
December 31, 2012, 12:39 AM
9MMare states: And by your thinking, then since we already have armed guards in many schools, we're good then? Perhaps examine where more might be truly needed, and left up to the school?

Please, for heavens sake, don't think for me. You have neither the capasity or knowledge to acquire that ability. Form your own opinion on the subject and put it to rest.

Happy New Year!

9MMare
December 31, 2012, 01:59 AM
[U]9MMare states: And by your thinking, then since we already have armed guards in many schools, we're good then? Perhaps examine where more might be truly needed, and left up to the school?

Please, for heavens sake, don't think for me. You have neither the capasity or knowledge to acquire that ability. Form your own opinion on the subject and put it to rest.

Happy New Year!

I asked only clarification on this statement:



What if it were YOUR child? Would cost be a factor between life or death?

Think about how much tax payer dollars pay for Obama's family vacations to Hawaii. Starting with Air Force One, it's flight crew, fuel and all other expenditures. Now, wouldn't you rather see YOUR tax dollars go to a more meaningful cause? One being your childs safety. Is his vacation more important than your children. I'm sure he has dozens of agents protecting HIS children everywhere they go. Are they any better than yours?????

And I thank you for your response.

Happy New Year.

Double Naught Spy
December 31, 2012, 08:38 AM
Putting armed guards in all schools would be prohibitively expensive and it's just not a reasonable response to a small threat.

Putting armed guards in each school would be hugely expensive, no doubt, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to getting everyone the mental health treatment they need. So I think the financial argument is without merit.

However, that isn't to say we don't need to get people mental healt care. We do, but it will be an amazingly horrific expense.

Then there are issues like this...
Couple minor points to consider. Not one off the last 5 mass shooters had ever been arrested or committed to an institution. Not one had committed a prior violent act.

Lots of violence is committed by folks who haven't even considered seeing a mental health care professional.

It's true, Mental Health is the issue.
The guy that set up and murdered the firemen was in jail for 17 years for killing his 92 year old Grandmother with a HAMMER.
Obviously a mental incapasitate, WHY was he released?

Mental health may be the issue, but how do you fix those people with mental health issues that appear normal or maybe just slightly abnormal, say, high-strung?

As for the shooter who killed high grandmother, did time, was release, killed firemen and tried to burn down the neighborhood, why was he released? Simple. He did his time and me the qualifications for relase.

William Spengler raised no alarms in prison for 17 years and for more than a decade afterward. Well-spoken, well-behaved and intelligent, his demeanor was praised by four straight parole boards that nevertheless denied him parole, worried that bludgeoning his 92-year-old grandmother with a hammer showed a violent streak that could explode again.

After his sentence was up in 1996, he stayed out of trouble until 2010, police said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/29/new-york-woman-arrested-in-connection-with-murder-2-firefighters/#ixzz2GdWEXJvX

Of course, 2010 was when he started getting guns.

JohnBT
December 31, 2012, 11:05 AM
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It might be the only method that's even partially accurate.

"denied him parole, worried that bludgeoning his 92-year-old grandmother with a hammer showed a violent streak that could explode again."

Ya think? Maybe they needed the bed for someone else. Space was very limited before the past few years of budget cuts.

John

Double Naught Spy
December 31, 2012, 04:51 PM
Ya think? Maybe they needed the bed for someone else. Space was very limited before the past few years of budget cuts.

I highly doubt Spengler was released on parole because they needed bed space. However, it would not have mattered for the current crime. He would have been out of prison since the most time he could receive is 25 years, which would have put him out in 2006, which is when his parole ended. So by 2012, he would have been out, parole or not.

JohnBT
December 31, 2012, 10:16 PM
Some states have regs to keep such creatures out of circulation even after they do their time. A life sentence would have been simpler.

But they turned him loose, so they can try to live with it and claim that it wasn't their problem.

Double Naught Spy
December 31, 2012, 11:05 PM
Just how do states keep people out of circulation AFTER they have fulfilled their incarceration requirements? How would that even be legal?

He was sentenced to 25 years and the attack on the firefighters et al. and arson came well after his sentence was up. They would have had to release him. He didn't get a life sentence. Don't blame the state for following the rules, LOL.

X-Rap
January 1, 2013, 02:05 PM
These recent disscusions prove to me that there are many more questions than answers to this mentel health problem and they need to be dealt with before the gov takes anymore knee jerk actions against guns or their accessories.

Alaska444
January 1, 2013, 03:02 PM
Just how do states keep people out of circulation AFTER they have fulfilled their incarceration requirements? How would that even be legal?

He was sentenced to 25 years and the attack on the firefighters et al. and arson came well after his sentence was up. They would have had to release him. He didn't get a life sentence. Don't blame the state for following the rules, LOL.
+1 DNS, good to hear from you again. The answer in the issue at hand is to charge the woman who bought this known felon the guns with accessory to murder in addition to all of the other gun charges.

JohnBT
January 1, 2013, 03:32 PM
"Just how do states keep people out of circulation AFTER they have fulfilled their incarceration requirements? How would that even be legal?"


Here's one example, from a federal prison in NC in 2010. Five of the prisoners were challenging it in the Supreme Court.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122452485

"Currently, 84 such prisoners are indefinitely confined for treatment at a federal prison in North Carolina. Five of them are challenging the law under which they have been detained with no end in sight. "

www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html?_r=0

"Extended Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Is Upheld"

Alaska444
January 1, 2013, 03:37 PM
"Just how do states keep people out of circulation AFTER they have fulfilled their incarceration requirements? How would that even be legal?"


Here's one example, from a federal prison in NC in 2010. Five of the prisoners were challenging it in the Supreme Court.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122452485

"Currently, 84 such prisoners are indefinitely confined for treatment at a federal prison in North Carolina. Five of them are challenging the law under which they have been detained with no end in sight. "

www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/us/politics/18offenders.html?_r=0

"Extended Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders Is Upheld"
Different subject, the man that killed his grandmother was not a sex offender. You are talking apples and oranges. For repeat, serial sex offenders who are likely to offend again, protect society at all costs. That is a societal value to argue about. Indefinite confinement for everyone that has committed a crime, good grief. Maybe we could get China to give us some advice on how to do that.

DammitBoy
January 1, 2013, 03:40 PM
If your argument that mentally ill shooters in schools are too rare to justify securing all schools is accepted, may we not also argue that such shootings are too rare to justify the expense of tracking or incarcerating all America's mentally ill? The same logic applies to both; if you make the two mutually exclusive or accept one but reject the other, your proposal fails on logical grounds.

Your argument against armed security also depends logically on acceptance of your premise of excessive expense. I would make two points here: one, that merely allowing teachers and administrative staff to exercise a legal right to carry creates no added public expense; two, that the idea of "excessive" expense is not a fact but a value judgement on your part. You have effectively decided how much monetary value a child's life should carry to society.

The idea of stripping any citizen of civil rights or physical liberty on the basis of what they might or might not do in the future is an absolute violation of the 5A; our justice system is predicated on the assumption of innocence and the requirement of due process of law.

These arguments for "better" mental health care merely trade one sort of police state for another. Further, penalizing voluntary seekers of treatment and then coercively institutionalizing people who don't voluntarily seek help is both logically unsound and (in my purely subjective opinion) very poor public policy.

It is time to dust off "Freedom isn't free" and take a hard look at it... sometimes the price of our freedom is enduring others' abuse of theirs. Freedom isn't free; freedom isn't even entirely SAFE. The problem is, tyranny is a lot less free, and no matter what a sweetly spoken would-be tyrant tells you, it isn't any safer, either.

Excellent post, I agree on all your points. As for finding the money to pay for putting police officers in every school, simply take the funds spent on foreign aid. Our tax dollars would be better spent protecting our children than being spent supporting countries that hate us.

JohnBT
January 1, 2013, 10:01 PM
"Different subject, the man that killed his grandmother was not a sex offender. You are talking apples and oranges"

Not at all. The question asked was how it could be done. I simply pointed out how it has been done. You pass a law, implement it and wait and see what the Supreme Court says. They agreed that it was okay to extend sentences for one group. Now it could just be a matter of expanding it to other groups.

John

Alaska444
January 2, 2013, 12:42 AM
"Different subject, the man that killed his grandmother was not a sex offender. You are talking apples and oranges"

Not at all. The question asked was how it could be done. I simply pointed out how it has been done. You pass a law, implement it and wait and see what the Supreme Court says. They agreed that it was okay to extend sentences for one group. Now it could just be a matter of expanding it to other groups.

John
America is a land governed by law, or that is the way it is supposed to be. Involuntary detention is not one of those laws nor would I want to live in a nation that has that type of "law." Once again, perhaps set up the Russian or Chinese work camps perhaps.

In all seriousness, America already puts more people in prison for longer sentences than just about all the rest of the world with only a couple of nations with longer prison terms than we have.

There is no way to prevent the return to a violent life of a felon who has served his time.. There is also no way to prevent madmen trying to kill great numbers of people. All you can do is to allow people the right to self defense.

DeMilled
January 2, 2013, 02:15 AM
There is no "magic bullet" cure for the issue of sick, dangerous folks taking medication that has been proven (by the companies that make them, no less) to cause side effects which are very, very bad to an already troubled mind, and having those patients live among the general public.


What I suggest is a plan that uses several steps to address the risk these patients pose to schools, and the public in general.

A. Allow faculty and staff the option to be trained and armed as a first response to an attack on their school. Policy would be written at the local level and communities would take what steps they think are necessary and pay appropriate taxes to the county they live in. I'm sure many communities would come up with the volunteers, instructors, guns, ammo etc. from within their communities without troubling the fedgov for any money.

B. Educate the public about the risk of the side effects of specific medications, expose the drug companie's efforts that have so far kept these facts from being common knowledge, put the screws to our politicians for ignoring the issue after the last several school shootings. Make sure parents understand that the kids suffering from the side effects of the meds. have no problem using kitchen knives when guns are not available. This is not new news and it is well documented. I believe this is the real fight to focus on right now; answering the question of Why?

C. Build mental hospitals designed to humanely house the patients that are not able to safely live in the general population.

HorseSoldier
January 2, 2013, 05:53 AM
I think that is all pretty reasonable responses to the situation.

The trick is going to be trusting our government to choose reasonable and productive actions over knee jerk dumb ones. Even without considering the anti-gun agenda on the left side of American politics, both parties at the federal level seem to have a really hard time admitting they can't legislatively bubble wrap the world.

NightmareCreature
January 2, 2013, 07:17 AM
There's mentally ill people like myself, and than there's people like Adam Lanza. NOT all mentally ill people are like Adam Lanza.

Society blames violent video games and horror movies. I've watched violent tv shows and horror movies since I was a toddler. I played violent video games for half of my life. While I did violent things that was only when I was a small child with no responsible parents. That largely became a thing of the past when I was around 11 years old. I still to this day watch violent tv shows and horror movies.

I'm a fairly easy going person. I mainly stay to myself. I talk to people in passing outside.

Mp7
January 2, 2013, 07:29 AM
one of the best thread here ever.


I think the US society as a whole must work towards extending their
patriotism towards their fellow citizens .... ... no, that is not communism.


If all the $$$ that go into military and jails would be invested
in infrastructure and education ... the US would really be the
greatest nation in the world.

JohnBT
January 2, 2013, 08:31 AM
"America is a land governed by law, or that is the way it is supposed to be. Involuntary detention is not one of those laws nor would I want to live in a nation that has that type of "law.""

But we do live here and we do have a law of that type already. Approved by the Supreme Court, too. The question was asked about how sentences could be extended indefinitely in a land that has laws. I answered it and provided links.

John

Crash_Test_Dhimmi
January 2, 2013, 11:13 AM
We should also screen Congressmen and public servants for mental health problems, a psychopath in government is more dangerous than a psychopath with a gun, because he is a psychopath with MANY guns

Vern Humphrey
January 2, 2013, 12:33 PM
Mental Health is the Issue, Not Guns and Armed Guards in Schools is not the Solution

Putting armed guards in all schools would be prohibitively expensive and it's just not a reasonable response to a small threat. The costs would greatly outweigh the benefits.

Do you see the disconnect in the part quoted above and the part quoted below?

Back in the 1980s we (as a society) decided that treating the mentally ill by institutionalizing them was cruel and inhumane. And it was expensive.

Add to the cost the suffering of thousands of people who have never committed a crime, and who never will -- but are locked up and kept drugged because someone thinks they might be dangerous.

Now consider this -- these mass shootings rarely occur in a place where there are armed citizens. Why do mass killer pick schools, malls with "no guns" signs, theaters with similar signs, and so on?

We can simply allow concealed carry in schools. We can sweeten the pot by giving a small incentive to school adminstrators and teachers to get their CCWs and carry on the job.

Cosmoline
January 2, 2013, 12:39 PM
But that would only address the extremely rare school shootings. It's a mistake to legislate based on rare, highly sensationalized events. I think we all know other examples of that. In the case of the dangerous insane, though, the bulk of the crimes they commit are more likely to be assaults. They go to jail, everyone knows they're loopy as a bat, but then they go right back out on the street.

I don't think there's a cop or a jailor who doesn't have a dozen stories about dealing with the frothing-at-the-mouth crowd. When they start self-medicating and mix illegal drugs with their RX cocktail, things get really wild. The bottom line is there are thousands on the streets and with ill-equipped families who should be cared for in secured treatment facilities. The shootings just call attention to the larger problem.

That doesn't mean everyone who sees a psych should get locked up. The law truly needs to distinguish between the routinely crazy and those dangerous *TO OTHERS*, because that's the major concern. Not suicide.

DeMilled
January 2, 2013, 07:42 PM
Cosmoline brings up a very good point!

There are plenty of people attacking kids in school but they use something other than a gun and so it is not treated the same by the politicians, or press.
The link is, again, dangerous meds. and an unstable mind.


Here is a site listing some of the attacks on kids by patients on said meds.
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

This article has some more recent info and links to good resources, books and a couple videos.
Like I said before, this is nothing new.
http://www.cheeseslave.com/school-shootings-linked-to-pharmaceutical-drugs/


Here is an archived story from 2001 where the guy used a machete on the kids.
http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_action=doc&p_topdoc=1&p_docnum=1&p_sort=YMD_date:D&p_product=NewsBank&p_text_direct-0=document_id=%28%200EEC85EAA1723741%20%29&p_docid=0EEC85EAA1723741&p_theme=aggregated4&p_queryname=0EEC85EAA1723741&f_openurl=yes&p_nbid=T48V47OFMTM1NzE3MTU0NC43NTc2OTQ6MTo3OnJmLTE1MzI&&p_multi=YDRB


The politicians can't try and play dumb/ignorant of the issue; they even proposed a bill in New York requiring that the crimes committed by persons on these meds. be reported to the Department of Criminal Justice Services.

Here is a nice little tidbit from the article
"Between 2004 and 2011 there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch of psychiatric drugs causing violent reactions including 300 cases of homicide, 3,000 cases of mania and 7,000 cases of aggression. By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher."

http://www.cchrint.org/nybillpsychiatricdruguse/

Here is another item of interest.
"This research, which has been published in peer reviewed publications such as the American Journal of Psychiatry, The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Journal of Forensic Science, has shown, among other things, that: certain drugs can induce mania (a psychosis which can produce bizarre, grandiose and highly elaborated destructive plans, including mass murder); some patients on psychotropic drugs have an increase in suicidal thoughts and/or violent behavior; self-injurious ideation or behavior started or intensified during treatment with a psychotropic drug; users of certain drugs can become aggressive or suffer hallucinations and/or suicidal thoughts; and certain drugs can produce an acute psychotic reaction in an individual not previously psychotic."



I'm not going to waste my efforts on swaying the minds of politicians that have an obvious agenda and are using the current tragedy to manipulate the grief our nation feels over the dead children in our schools.

I'm going to focus on educating the parents about the cause of the violence and bust our politicians out for being bought and paid for by big pharma.

Alaska444
January 2, 2013, 08:05 PM
But that would only address the extremely rare school shootings. It's a mistake to legislate based on rare, highly sensationalized events. I think we all know other examples of that. In the case of the dangerous insane, though, the bulk of the crimes they commit are more likely to be assaults. They go to jail, everyone knows they're loopy as a bat, but then they go right back out on the street.

I don't think there's a cop or a jailor who doesn't have a dozen stories about dealing with the frothing-at-the-mouth crowd. When they start self-medicating and mix illegal drugs with their RX cocktail, things get really wild. The bottom line is there are thousands on the streets and with ill-equipped families who should be cared for in secured treatment facilities. The shootings just call attention to the larger problem.

That doesn't mean everyone who sees a psych should get locked up. The law truly needs to distinguish between the routinely crazy and those dangerous *TO OTHERS*, because that's the major concern. Not suicide.
We already have those distinctions in treatment and protection of self and others today. Learning from the many similarities of these creeps for profiling of at risk individuals focusses resources and opens the eyes of parents, family, friends, teachers and others that come into contact with these individuals. One other common factor is that during the months prior to an event, these creeps speak of their plans to one or more people not associated with the plan.

Thus, focussing on education of people with kids identified as at risk and what signs to look for and addition teaching parents to simply look and see what is in the kids rooms. Parents have the right to "invade" the privacy of their kids rooms. I did this on more than one occasion and was able to intervene on different issues, not a Columbine attack, but parents have the right to be parents. It was MY house, my food, my clothes that I paid for, and my roof and my heat and air conditioning. That was my house and I was responsible for whatever happened inside the four walls. Parents need to be parents.

There are many levels we can focus our efforts without bankrupting school districts, state and Federal governments.

USgunguy
January 3, 2013, 12:09 AM
We should focus on both mental health reform and post a police officer at every school. I disagree that it cost too much. If a small town has 20 police officers and two schools they can spare 10% of the force to protect our kids. The other 90% can still be revenue generators while saving us from those viscous drivers that go 5-10 miles over the speed limit.

To say the answer is strictly mental health reform can be easily disproven. If we quadruple our mental health funding and the result is that we have the best mental health system in the world....would you simply lock all your guns in a safe upstairs or in the basement? Or will you still want to keep one handy at night.....just in case?

Alaska444
January 3, 2013, 12:28 AM
We should focus on both mental health reform and post a police officer at every school. I disagree that it cost too much. If a small town has 20 police officers and two schools they can spare 10% of the force to protect our kids. The other 90% can still be revenue generators while saving us from those viscous drivers that go 5-10 miles over the speed limit.

To say the answer is strictly mental health reform can be easily disproven. If we quadruple our mental health funding and the result is that we have the best mental health system in the world....would you simply lock all your guns in a safe upstairs or in the basement? Or will you still want to keep one handy at night.....just in case?
I agree in principle with the exception that we can afford to implement the type of mental health reform needed AND armed guards in each school. We are talking about substantial revenues for this at a time when we are truly headed into very dangerous fiscal waters.

No, Utah has the solution that offers the best cost neutral protection. The problem is gun free zones. The answer is to eliminate these artificially created gun free zones with a volunteer cohort of teachers and administrators that take seriously self defense for themselves and for their kids. We have much evidence that Israel has already solved their problems way back in 1974 with very simple and cost effective measures.

Couple this with education of known risk factors to identify those at risk on several levels is the most cost effective manner in which to approach this. You don't need a sledgehammer when a directed drill solves the problem.

USgunguy
January 3, 2013, 12:52 AM
If we have 600 kids in a school and the parent of each child paid $1 a week it would basically pay for a police officer in the school. Okay with benefits let's make it $30k a year with benefits....$1.50 per child. Now in reality schools are usually funded by real estate taxes so everyone's tax may go up $10-15 a year.

As for mental health funding we are still talking minimal dollars when spread across the entire tax base.

In my opinion, the fiscal problems state & federal are not the lack of income from the tax base. The problem is no matter how much they bring in the more they spend and they seem to have a knack for spending it on stupid stuff. Grounds for divorce, huh?

DammitBoy
January 3, 2013, 01:13 AM
Big Pharma has the Whitehouse in it's pocket - don't expect to see too much time spent on discussing Big Pharma's role in today's mental health issues.

DeMilled
January 3, 2013, 01:18 AM
I agree in principle with the exception that we can afford to implement the type of mental health reform needed AND armed guards in each school. We are talking about substantial revenues for this at a time when we are truly headed into very dangerous fiscal waters.


In the long term I think an overhaul of the mental health system will come, in time we may have police officers in every school but Alaska444's point of the US being on a course into dangerous fiscal waters is very pertinent to what we can do soon.

I am going to focus my state/local activism efforts on educating everyone on the side effects of meds. and what to watch for, how this is nothing new and all this info is easily cross checked/confirmed by independent sources, the failure of politicians to act, and the business practices of the companies selling the meds.

Attacks on school will drop off when parents know what the meds. may do to their children. Parents may decide to go another route beside meds., at least they will monitor them more closely, they would know what resources (little though they may be) they have available when they see the warning signs.

Allow the faculty/staff the option to be armed, let each school district write their own policy, keep this at a local/state level and things can get done soon. If the neighborhood has the funds they can hire guards, if they have the assets they can post police officers, if they want to form a volunteer group that's their prerogative.


What we should avoid is countering the gun grabbers arguments with options that no one wants to pay for at this time.

Show the public that there are options besides gun control, or paying for armed guards in every school and they will listen.

DeMilled
January 3, 2013, 01:32 AM
Big Pharma has the Whitehouse in it's pocket - don't expect to see too much time spent on discussing Big Pharma's role in today's mental health issues.


I am not asking for the White House's permission to discuss big pharma's role in what has happened.

I am not going to attempt to discuss this issue with the White House.

I am not going to wait for the White House to take up this discussion.

I am going to discuss it with my local news folks, politicians, neighbors, and pretty much anyone on the internet that is willing to listen.

I have a very big problem with big pharma right now and I intend to share the history of what they have been up to with anyone and everyone.

Whether, or not, the White house takes this up as a talking point means little to me.

9MMare
January 3, 2013, 02:21 AM
While allowing teachers to carry...if they choose...is a great option, IMO it is only their right to begin with.

OTOH, no matter what one state's record, this is still not going to stop a mass shooting. A mass shooting, in terms of numbers, consists of one classroom of kids, unfortunately. Again, just like having a single armed guard and expecting them to magically appear when a shooter barricades himself in one classroom of cornered kids....all a shooter has to do in a school with teachers carrying is walk into the classroom, take out the teacher, and we are back to square one.

If schools adopt this policy...do they make it public? Keep it hidden? Either opens a whole 'nother can of worms with parents paranoid about guns.

But anyway, we have to face that there is no complete solution to these *rare to begin with* shootings. Cosmoline is on the right track.

We can make recommendations but the minute the NRA or gun rights activists *declare* that such and such will save lives and should be implemented, then we get blamed when they dont work.

Let school districts decide to allow CC in schools. That is already on their radars, as we've seen movement in that direction since the CT shooting. Let parents decide to invest in armed security. Encourage it, but dont proscribe it. Because if and when it fails, *WE* are blamed for the failure and focus comes back to guns.

We, as the gun activists, need to support solutions that focus on the shooters...not the tools.

TreeDoc
January 3, 2013, 02:31 AM
Armed officer's is a bandaid, it'll help some, make people feel safer, but won't stop violence from happening. Open up some mental health hospitals, again it'll help, but won't stop mass killings. Gun control on law abiding citizens won't help anyone. IMO this 'problem' stems from multiple areas in our society.
We have strayed from core beliefs as a country. Can anyone at this time say that our future is brighter than ever? Doesn't it seem like there is more problems than ever? Alot of children are spoiled, well meaning parents, wanting better for their kids, have given them everything. Kids given a trophy and praise for 'trying', everyone is a winner, there are no losers. Can't paddle your kids, thats child abuse. They've learned there is no consquences for their actions. Smart phones, laptops and the internet haven't helped, but have spend the problem up. Now kids are learning not to socialize with one another, thats plain talking to you and me.
It goes on and on, but is clearly a shift in society. I try to raise the kids right and do my best, as I'm sure you do as well. It's a different world.

Alaska444
January 3, 2013, 02:31 AM
While allowing teachers to carry...if they choose...is a great option, IMO it is only their right to begin with.

OTOH, no matter what one state's record, this is still not going to stop a mass shooting. A mass shooting, in terms of numbers, consists of one classroom of kids, unfortunately. Again, just like having a single armed guard and expecting them to magically appear when a shooter barricades himself in one classroom of cornered kids....all a shooter has to do in a school with teachers carrying is walk into the classroom, take out the teacher, and we are back to square one.

If schools adopt this policy...do they make it public? Keep it hidden? Either opens a whole 'nother can of worms with parents paranoid about guns.

But anyway, we have to face that there is no complete solution to these *rare to begin with* shootings. Cosmoline is on the right track.

We can make recommendations but the minute the NRA or gun rights activists *declare* that such and such will save lives and should be implemented, then we get blamed when they dont work.

Let school districts decide to allow CC in schools. That is already on their radars, as we've seen movement in that direction since the CT shooting. Let parents decide to invest in armed security. Encourage it, but dont proscribe it. Because if and when it fails, *WE* are blamed for the failure and focus comes back to guns.

We, as the gun activists, need to support solutions that focus on the shooters...not the tools.
Wow, I actually agree with everything you stated. How about that. Good post. Thank you.

Alaska444
January 3, 2013, 02:32 AM
Armed officer's is a bandaid, it'll help some, make people feel safer, but won't stop violence from happening. Open up some mental health hospital, again it'll help, but won't stop mass killings. Gun control on law abiding citizens won't help anyone. IMO this 'problem' stems from multiple areas in our society.
We have strayed from core beliefs as a country. Can anyone at this time say that our future is brighter than ever? Doesn't it seem like there is more problems than ever? Alot of children are spoiled, well meaning parents, wanting better for their kids, have given them everything. Kids given a trophy and praise for 'trying', everyone is a winner, there are no losers. Can't paddle your kids, thats child abuse. They've learned there in no consquences for their actions. Smart phones, laptops and the internet haven't helped, but have spend the problem up. Now kids are learning not to socialize with one another, thats plain talking to you and me.
It goes on and on, but is clearly a shift in society. I try to raise the kids right and do my best, as I'm sure you do as well. It's a different world.
One of my friends observed some school kids walking home from school not talking. Instead they were texting back and forth to each other while walking. Go figure.

JohnBT
January 3, 2013, 10:24 AM
"I have a very big problem with big pharma right now"

What are you taking for it?


:)

Blue Line
January 3, 2013, 11:29 AM
Is mental health covered under Obamacare?

CZguy
January 3, 2013, 11:54 AM
Is mental health covered under Obamacare?

Sorry, normally I'd let that go............but isn't that a dichotomy?

Deer_Freak
January 3, 2013, 12:19 PM
Another thing we have going on is people have no way to "put each other in line." When I was a young freak if you got into a fist fight no one went to jail. The fight was broken up if you really hurt someone you paid his doctor bill and that was the end of it. Lately, I have seen people do time in prison for a fist fight.

If we have no way to settle our differences people go off the deep end. Letting people settle their differences will stop a lot of shootings.

The mass shootings are a product of the media. People that would quietly commit suicide see a better way. If they kill a bunch of people they become infamous. When they die they are someone. Their face will be plastered across the TV screen for a week or so. Today's media doesn't take time to find out if what they are reporting is accurate much less consider the ramifications of their actions.

Mass killers are something the medical community has no tools to deal with. How is a doctor supposed to figure out which guy that is a little odd is a mass killer? Being a little odd can not be a reason to deny anyone their second amendment rights.

We already have laws that prevent serious mental cases from buying weapons.

Blue Line
January 3, 2013, 01:25 PM
Sorry, normally I'd let that go............but isn't that a dichotomy?
Exactly!

hso
January 3, 2013, 02:26 PM
Things are simply being repeated over and over again at this point so we'll close this and sticky it for the time being for reading and consideration.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mental Health is the Issue, Not Guns and Armed Guards in Schools is not the Solution" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!