School safety/Gun control now???

[bakerjw]

Good post Q9.

There is a way to curb gun violence.
If you commit a crime and a firearm is involved, it is a mandatory 20 year prison sentence. No pleas and no early release allowed. It is 20 years. Case closed.
If you are disallowed from firearm ownership and you are found in direct possession of a firearm, it is a mandatory 20 year prison sentence. No pleas and no early release allowed. It is 20 years. Case closed.

We do not have strong enough penalties when it comes to illegal use or ownership of firearms. With great rights comes great responsibilities. If someone wants to break the rules, then the penalty should be severe.

As it is 99.99%+ of gun owners never commit a crime or use their firearms in an illegal manner. Yet we are constantly vilified. I say that it is high time that those that do use them in an illegal manner be held accountable.

 

[chuckyone]

Im from the uk where we aren't allowed to bare arms (hand guns and assault rifle) apart from licenced shot guns and im glad were not to be honest, theres enough gun crime all ready in uk. I know you guys in states have there right to as part of your constitution but cant understand why you'd rarther have that right when so many innocent people are loosing their lives because of them.

 

[dainerra]

chucky, we want that right for the very things you said in your post. YOUR country has gun control, very very strict control. Yet it hasn't stopped gun crime. Why? Because criminals don't care that it isn't legal for them to have a gun. What they DO care about is that anyone they victimize WON'T have a gun. That means that they will always have the upper hand.

In areas in the states with high gun crime, do you know the factor that has done the most to lower the crime rate? Encouraging citizens to bear arms. Criminals want to go with an easy target. When they know that anyone in the community might be armed, they look for other targets.

 

[cravenchx]

Shouldn't pressure cookers be banned now?

 

[Mike Winters]

Japan has low crime in general also because they put family honor, education and the well being of others before their own needs. which is opposite of probably 90% of the world.

I read somewhere they had a bank robber steal around 1000 US dollars and 3 weeks later the guy sent a letter to the bank thanking them because he needed the money for child support or something like that.

 

[Q9]

Japan has low crime in general also because they put family honor, education and the well being of others before their own needs. which is opposite of probably 90% of the world.

I read somewhere they had a bank robber steal around 1000 US dollars and 3 weeks later the guy sent a letter to the bank thanking them because he needed the money for child support or something like that.

My point exactly. It seems to me that the level of violence in a society can be traced directly to its culture and the unstated cultural assumptions held by most people, as well as geographic factors (it seems that small, isolated nations have lower rates of violence than others) and local traditions.

In a historical context, the United States was a violent frontier up until quite recently, where the way to survive was to kill before you could be killed (which goes from self-defense to initiating aggression), and I think that there's an inherent violence in inner-city culture as well. Great Britain and Japan? Utterly different situations; both have been extremely stable for a long time.

 

[Demosthine]

This debate will go on forever, but the truth is that no set of laws are perfect for every society. I am one who will not give up my gun rights to the anti-American government we are currently under. As the head of a household with three precious girls, it is my responsibility to ensure their protection and well being. It has been held in any number of court cases that law enforcement is not to be held responsible for the injury or loss of life to any individual, but only for the enforcement of the laws. It is each person's responsibility to ensure their personal safety. I do not take that responsibility lightly.

But that brings to light the epic failure of the last several generations of Americans. I believe a lot of it started with the "Hippy" movement. The generation born in the '50s and '60s endured a period where there was a huge push for peace and happiness. Anti-gun and anti-violence spread like wild fire. The animal rights movement surged as well. With these movements, I believe America began to experience a disconnection of reality. Commercialism and vegetarianism grew, removing the "living animals" from our views. It became a package of meat, rather than an animal that you spent months or years tending to. Or even that elusive prey you spent days hunting, skinning and processing. As the food came more and more from the store, the hunting and butchering skills were greatly lost. A key to both those skills is proper respect for guns and knives. That level of teaching was lost to that generation of parents.

Fast forward to the years where the "Hippy" generation are the parents and they lack all of those skills previously mentioned. Not only do we have a generation that is unable to and/or unwilling to teach their children gun safety, gun handling and the sanctity of life, but they are teaching their children that any form of violence is completely unacceptable. During my generation and on, it was increasingly frowned upon to get in any form of fight. In days past, a "violent" disagreement on the playground meant a hands-to-fist fight that was over in a matter of minutes. You would turn around afterwards with the problem resolved, shake and become friends. There was a great level of respect for those who stood up for their beliefs. Likewise, there was always some kind-hearted kid who would help the weaker ones stand up to the bullies. But somehow, especially in the schools, this became taboo, resulting in suspension and/or expulsion. It is no longer ok to even defend yourself from a physical attack, less you be suspended also. So my generation was taught to be the victim, essentially, and that causes a lot of contained emotion to build up inside of a person. There must always be an outlet for this, one way or another. It's like shaking a soda bottle. If you slowly crack the cap and allow the potential energy to leak out a little at a time, you can fully open the bottle without much of an issue. However, if you open it suddenly, you cause a violent explosion that results in a disastrous mess.

So as an outlet for this abuse, bullying and lack of understanding regarding both guns and life, my generation has taken to violent movies and video games. Especially in these first-person shooter games, such as Call of Duty, there have been studies to show that the fight-or-flight response is identical to a real-world encounter. A study in 2006 by the Indiana University School of Medicine showed that playing these games versus a game like Need for Speed: Underground caused an increase in the section of the brain involving emotions. Meanwhile, the activity in the part of the brain controlling inhibition and self-control decreased dramatically. Classic conditioning tells us that repeat exposure to these situations causes a set response to the stimuli. In a bully situation, the body reacts in the typical fight-versus-flight situation. Your heart rate and blood pressure increase, adrenaline gets pumped into the system, fine motor skills start to deteriorate and the body reacts the way it was trained to. Often times, that is grabbing a weapon just like in the movies and video games, and exact revenge on your enemies.

With several generations of this conditioning, how can we expect any other behavior than what we've provided to them. It is not something that our government can change or control, though, without becoming much more of a nanny-state. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and raise them with the traditional values. Parents need to control what their children do and do not watch. They need to stop allowing the television to be the babysitter. Until then, the problems will only increase, regardless of what gun control laws are enacted.


Now, in answer to your questions:

No, additional gun control will not have any affect on our violence because the laws currently on the books are not enforced. For example, the Department of Justice has reported that there were nearly 80,000 background checks that were rejected in 2010 due to "lies or inaccuracies." And yet, only 44 of those were prosecuted, which equates to .06% of the rejections. Let me state that a different way, less than one-tenth of one percent of the rejections were prosecuted. If we are that unable to or unwilling to prosecute background checks that are conducted through legitimate, authorized firearms dealers who are trained in getting the appropriate information, how would expanding these checks be at all beneficial?

Also, after researching countless reports and documentation, roughly 3/4 of the weapons used in the mass shootings over the last two decades were legally purchased. Another interesting thing to note is that rifles accounted for roughly 30 out of nearly 150 weapons used in these crimes, and that is not specifically "assault rifles." Roughly 20 would qualify as assault rifles under the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." Over half of the weapons were standard handguns, including a Walther P22 (.22LR) that was the primary weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shooting rampage in American history.


No, gun restrictions will not decrease the likelihood of school murders. As shown by the recent event in Boston, there are ample other ways to cause mass casualties with little to no training. Schools are already designated "No Gun Zones," as are nearly every other mass-shooting site of concern. If you are willing to break the law by taking a weapon into a gun-free zone, in order to break the law by murdering one or more people, then you are willing to break the law by obtaining a gun illegal.


The response of individual schools and/or school districts varies as greatly as the weapons used. Some states and districts have already implemented training for having an armed attacker in the school, while others allow their staff to carry a concealed weapon provided they pass the state's law enforcement training for weapons handling. In Arizona, we have passed legislation that will allow schools in rural areas to maintain a trained staff member in the use of the firearm and have it on campus, provided certain criteria are met. Additionally, retired law enforcement is permitted firearms on these campuses as well. Sheriff Arpaio, who covers my county, has armed Posse Members patrolling the areas in and around any schools that do not have a local jurisdiction, such as the county islands. These Officers attended training specifically covering these types of situations.

In my particular district, we maintain a very close with our local police department and sheriff's office. They do regular patrols in and around the schools in their areas, as well as having a Resource Officer in most schools. Several of the smaller schools are covered by overlapping Officers, but there is a regular presence. Also, especially the elementary schools, are closed campuses. With the exception of the front entrance, all other doors are supposed to be secured at all times. There is supposed to be disciplinary action for anyone caught propping a door open. There are closed-circuit cameras in many of the schools and they have been in the process of reviewing and updated security protocols following the tragic shootings in recent months.


The single biggest factor that would help is ensuring that people have appropriate access to mental health and that we remove the stigma associated with seeking help for things like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is not something that should be shameful and is completely curable given the appropriate resources. Unfortunately, the health care that the nation receives as a whole is going to get far worse with the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act. It is going to put strains our system that we have never fathomed and is already having negative impacts on our current system. But that is not something that is our government is willing to tackle because it is Pandora's Box. It opens far more problems than they are willing to handle. They are focused on the easy "feel-good" way out of the problem, as with most things in society.

 

[cravenchx]

This debate will go on forever, but the truth is that no set of laws are perfect for every society. I am one who will not give up my gun rights to the anti-American government we are currently under. As the head of a household with three precious girls, it is my responsibility to ensure their protection and well being. It has been held in any number of court cases that law enforcement is not to be held responsible for the injury or loss of life to any individual, but only for the enforcement of the laws. It is each person's responsibility to ensure their personal safety. I do not take that responsibility lightly.

But that brings to light the epic failure of the last several generations of Americans. I believe a lot of it started with the "Hippy" movement. The generation born in the '50s and '60s endured a period where there was a huge push for peace and happiness. Anti-gun and anti-violence spread like wild fire. The animal rights movement surged as well. With these movements, I believe America began to experience a disconnection of reality. Commercialism and vegetarianism grew, removing the "living animals" from our views. It became a package of meat, rather than an animal that you spent months or years tending to. Or even that elusive prey you spent days hunting, skinning and processing. As the food came more and more from the store, the hunting and butchering skills were greatly lost. A key to both those skills is proper respect for guns and knives. That level of teaching was lost to that generation of parents.

Fast forward to the years where the "Hippy" generation are the parents and they lack all of those skills previously mentioned. Not only do we have a generation that is unable to and/or unwilling to teach their children gun safety, gun handling and the sanctity of life, but they are teaching their children that any form of violence is completely unacceptable. During my generation and on, it was increasingly frowned upon to get in any form of fight. In days past, a "violent" disagreement on the playground meant a hands-to-fist fight that was over in a matter of minutes. You would turn around afterwards with the problem resolved, shake and become friends. There was a great level of respect for those who stood up for their beliefs. Likewise, there was always some kind-hearted kid who would help the weaker ones stand up to the bullies. But somehow, especially in the schools, this became taboo, resulting in suspension and/or expulsion. It is no longer ok to even defend yourself from a physical attack, less you be suspended also. So my generation was taught to be the victim, essentially, and that causes a lot of contained emotion to build up inside of a person. There must always be an outlet for this, one way or another. It's like shaking a soda bottle. If you slowly crack the cap and allow the potential energy to leak out a little at a time, you can fully open the bottle without much of an issue. However, if you open it suddenly, you cause a violent explosion that results in a disastrous mess.

So as an outlet for this abuse, bullying and lack of understanding regarding both guns and life, my generation has taken to violent movies and video games. Especially in these first-person shooter games, such as Call of Duty, there have been studies to show that the fight-or-flight response is identical to a real-world encounter. A study in 2006 by the Indiana University School of Medicine showed that playing these games versus a game like Need for Speed: Underground caused an increase in the section of the brain involving emotions. Meanwhile, the activity in the part of the brain controlling inhibition and self-control decreased dramatically. Classic conditioning tells us that repeat exposure to these situations causes a set response to the stimuli. In a bully situation, the body reacts in the typical fight-versus-flight situation. Your heart rate and blood pressure increase, adrenaline gets pumped into the system, fine motor skills start to deteriorate and the body reacts the way it was trained to. Often times, that is grabbing a weapon just like in the movies and video games, and exact revenge on your enemies.

With several generations of this conditioning, how can we expect any other behavior than what we've provided to them. It is not something that our government can change or control, though, without becoming much more of a nanny-state. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and raise them with the traditional values. Parents need to control what their children do and do not watch. They need to stop allowing the television to be the babysitter. Until then, the problems will only increase, regardless of what gun control laws are enacted.

Very well said!, all of it! I would also like to see accountability be brought back into the picture.

Now, in answer to your questions:

No, additional gun control will not have any affect on our violence because the laws currently on the books are not enforced. For example, the Department of Justice has reported that there were nearly 80,000 background checks that were rejected in 2010 due to "lies or inaccuracies." And yet, only 44 of those were prosecuted, which equates to .06% of the rejections. Let me state that a different way, less than one-tenth of one percent of the rejections were prosecuted. If we are that unable to or unwilling to prosecute background checks that are conducted through legitimate, authorized firearms dealers who are trained in getting the appropriate information, how would expanding these checks be at all beneficial?

Also, after researching countless reports and documentation, roughly 3/4 of the weapons used in the mass shootings over the last two decades were legally purchased. Another interesting thing to note is that rifles accounted for roughly 30 out of nearly 150 weapons used in these crimes, and that is not specifically "assault rifles." Roughly 20 would qualify as assault rifles under the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." Over half of the weapons were standard handguns, including a Walther P22 (.22LR) that was the primary weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shooting rampage in American history.


No, gun restrictions will not decrease the likelihood of school murders. As shown by the recent event in Boston, there are ample other ways to cause mass casualties with little to no training. Schools are already designated "No Gun Zones," as are nearly every other mass-shooting site of concern. If you are willing to break the law by taking a weapon into a gun-free zone, in order to break the law by murdering one or more people, then you are willing to break the law by obtaining a gun illegal.


The response of individual schools and/or school districts varies as greatly as the weapons used. Some states and districts have already implemented training for having an armed attacker in the school, while others allow their staff to carry a concealed weapon provided they pass the state's law enforcement training for weapons handling. In Arizona, we have passed legislation that will allow schools in rural areas to maintain a trained staff member in the use of the firearm and have it on campus, provided certain criteria are met. Additionally, retired law enforcement is permitted firearms on these campuses as well. Sheriff Arpaio, who covers my county, has armed Posse Members patrolling the areas in and around any schools that do not have a local jurisdiction, such as the county islands. These Officers attended training specifically covering these types of situations.

In my particular district, we maintain a very close with our local police department and sheriff's office. They do regular patrols in and around the schools in their areas, as well as having a Resource Officer in most schools. Several of the smaller schools are covered by overlapping Officers, but there is a regular presence. Also, especially the elementary schools, are closed campuses. With the exception of the front entrance, all other doors are supposed to be secured at all times. There is supposed to be disciplinary action for anyone caught propping a door open. There are closed-circuit cameras in many of the schools and they have been in the process of reviewing and updated security protocols following the tragic shootings in recent months.


The single biggest factor that would help is ensuring that people have appropriate access to mental health and that we remove the stigma associated with seeking help for things like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is not something that should be shameful and is completely curable given the appropriate resources. Unfortunately, the health care that the nation receives as a whole is going to get far worse with the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act. It is going to put strains our system that we have never fathomed and is already having negative impacts on our current system. But that is not something that is our government is willing to tackle because it is Pandora's Box. It opens far more problems than they are willing to handle. They are focused on the easy "feel-good" way out of the problem, as with most things in society.

 

[Mike Winters]

America is going down hill, and all the people that are running the country ether have their heads in the clouds or up their ***.

to fix gun violents: stop glorifying it on TV, movies and games.

to fix education: get reality TV off of all the educational channels. I'm looking at you The Learning Channel (TLC) and History channel.

to get rid of conspiracy theorist's: stop allowing shows like ancient aliens, Nostradamus effect, bible codes, finding Bigfoot and doomsday preppers to be shown as if they are 100% fact based.

ect

 

[Demosthine]

to get rid of conspiracy theorist's: stop allowing shows like ancient aliens, Nostradamus effect, bible codes, finding Bigfoot and doomsday preppers to be shown as if they are 100% fact based.

ect

The only one I would question of that particular list is Doomsday Preppers. What particular problems do you have against that show? Having watched it for several seasons, it appears to be the most realistic of those above. It shows the lives and preparations of real life people who believe something bad will happen that will cause them to have to be self-sufficient. They rate the preppers in real-life criteria that gives a basic overview of their possible sustainability and how to improve their situation. At the end of each prepper's segment, they give a "likelihood" of that event happening based on industry experts' testimony, almost always saying it is highly unlikely that any of these events will occur.

Perhaps if more people had have seen that particular show and took much of it to heart, we would not have had such a huge catastrophe from natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina or these harsh winter storms. How many people were without clean water after Katrina that a simple quality water filter would have solved, or unable to so much as open a can of dog food. How many have died during the severe blizzard conditions in the Northeast because of power outages? There are a large amount of situations we all need to prepare for that America as a whole does not.

I'm not saying everyone needs to be the overly rich person who dedicates 16 hours a day and buys a $1.5 million missile silo to turn into a bunker, but a little preparation can go a long way for seemingly increasing natural disasters. It goes back to personal responsibility. It is not our government's responsibility to dispatch FEMA every time something happens. Hurricane Katrina was an exception to that, but much of the regularly foul weather should be able to be handled for a week or two at a time.