That's pennies. We need dollars.Originally Posted by techman05
|
|
|
|
|
That's pennies. We need dollars.
I agree with this. There are consequences to living in a free society, and dealing with problems like this is one of them. Arming teachers might lead to fewer shooting deaths, or it could lead to catastrophe. I'm not saying I'm against it, but there is a whole lot of risk associated with doing it that needs to be discussed before it is implemented. Whatever decision that is made needs to be something that is thought out and not a knee-jerk emotional response, which is what both parties like to do.
The more I think about this arming teachers, the more concerns I have. I'm not against the idea, but we have to be very careful how it is implemented and managed. I think my idea of having designated teachers during their planning periods being "on duty," and it would be more than one, since there is always several to a bunch, depending on the size of the school, might work.
There was a video on FB recently showing some kid confronting his teacher in a heated argument in the classroom. The student got violent and knocked the referral paper out of the teacher's hand, and the student cussed the teacher (using the F word a lot), and the teacher maintained his cool and kept telling the student to leave the classroom and report to the vice-principal. What if that teacher had a holstered gun on his person....could it happen that an irate student tries to grab that gun?
Then...the afternoon bus loading. As a former teacher I know that many fights erupt at 3:00 when two students who have been bubbling with resentment all day....and those two live in different parts of town, or the parish (county)...finally explode before they get on separate busses. Then you have dozens, maybe hundreds, of students who will rush in to watch the fight. It's total chaos! And in high schools you have many students who have their own vehicles who could easily have a gun in it. Very easy, during the rush to the busses when school dismisses, for a student to go to his vehicle, retrieve a gun unseen, and then...so, what? Are teachers suppose to engage in a gun battle with hundreds of students running all over the place? I suppose the answer to that is "yes," because that student with the gun, at that point, represents a real danger and will shoot as many as he can, even if teachers aren't shooting back.
My point is, if we arm teachers, and quite possibly solve one problem, we will undoubtedly open up other problems. Such as an irate student grabbing a gun from a teacher and people getting shot. The naysayers will say, see! that never would have happened had teachers not been armed and had a gun. And, if we arm teachers nationwide, something like that will happen eventually. There are many thousands of schools across the nation. It never matters to the anti-gun crowd that guns save lives, or are not a problem 99% of the time. It's that isolated incident that stirs the pot.
This is why the mental health element is so important. We can implement all kinds of safety measures, but a mentally unstable person doesn’t care about safety measures, especially if they have been lucid long enough to study the security of a target. I think we need more SRO’s in schools. With 3-5 SRO’s you should be able to watch most of the facility most of the time. Just like shooting are the 1%, the SRO in Florida hiding like a baby is probably the 1% as well. With 3-5 on campus are they all going to be that 1%? I would think not.
Parkland is a bit of an extreme in that usually you don’t have so many indicators of coming violence. More commonly there are signs but the people in a position to see it either fail to recognize them or appreciate the gravity of them.
And, again, not trying to stigmatize people with mental health conditions - violence is not normal for people with mental health conditions.
If we are going to address mental health, we need to do it for the sake of mental health and not to curb violence. How about more mental health experts in schools to just make sure the kids are living their best lives possible?
The media needs to choose to be more responsible in how they cover these shootings so as not to inadvertently create idols of these maniacs that other troubled individuals will want to mimic.
The media won’t change if they continue to have viewers for such coverage, ergo...
I agree that people with mental health issues are not always going to commit violent acts. We should have comprehensive mental health efforts. Even if you only deal with minor depression or anxiety, it can still be debilitating at times. We are slowly breaking through the taboo issue of mental illness, but have a long way to go.
If we are talking about people who have their mental faculties in order as the ones committing these acts, then I hope we can put security measures in place that will make them think twice about acting.
The media loves chaos and carnage because it keeps people watching.
That can't happen as liberals only use emotion to try and solve issues. There is zero real factual and common sense and thought utilized.
Irony.
True.
Libtards are incapable of rational thought.
Case in point above.
Irony.
But to your credit you did overcome your original emotional reaction of more guns being the solution to recognize the potential unintended consequences of doing so. That is a good starting point and gives me some hope for you. Ray and BMtransplant, not so much.
TT, what solutions based on facts have conservatives done to solve this issue of school shootings? They control the executive branch and have majorities in both houses of congress. Surely they would want to change things since this has been happening for decades now.
Change them how (and I would hardly call Congress conservative)? Change for the sake of change? Throw a dart at the wall, pass some laws?
I don't think there is any law that could have prevented this. Banning bump stocks won't even stop a firearm from being bump fired (look it up on youtube and see it being done if those videos have not been cleansed). Banning a semiautomatic firearm just because it "looks" like an assault weapon won't stop people from shooting each other....won't even slow it down. Banning high-capacity magazines is no big deal because you have plenty of time to reload when you're in a gun-free zone and nobody is shooting back.
Passing laws to restrict gun ownership is much like passing the affordable care act....you break everything for the majority to address the minority.
Besides....
Murder is illegal, so that law did not work.
It was a gun free zone, so that law did not work.
Trespassing was also illegal, so he ignored that one as well.
A common theme in all of these shootings is that the shooters all seem to be on antidepressants. These drugs are effective in most cases of helping a patient overcome anxiety or depression, but in some cases they actually cause the person taking them to be violent or suicidal. Psychiatrists give this stuff out like candy, and when the patient walks out of the office with their prescription there is little done to monitor the effects on the patient until they return in a few months for a follow up visit. These things to do not impact all patients the same way. So, how do you give psychiatrists the power to determine if their patient is stable enough to have their constitutional rights without stigmatizing the person undergoing treatment?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
