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

[9MMare]

Originally Posted by tpaw

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff White

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff White

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]

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]

[QUOTE=tpaw;8601563]9MMare asks:

[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]

Originally Posted by steelerdude99

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff White

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]

Originally Posted by 9MMare

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]

I'll bite. What is constitutional carry?

[aka108]

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]

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, 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]

Originally Posted by Cesiumsponge

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff White

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff White

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sam1911

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Sam1911

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]

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.