Armed teachers? Maybe ... maybe not...

[DaSharkie]

Isn't the rate of violent crime at a record high in the Uk, Canada, and in Australia? And isn't there still alot of gun crime?

Look at Israel and Switzerland, countires in which every citizen is trained and allowed to care guns. Their (other than terrorist incidents) violent crime rates aren't very high. Why it's not a question of "IF" someone is packing it's a question of "WHAT"


IF YOU CRIMINALIZE GUNS ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS.

Oh quit clouding the issue with facts. The level of violent and street crime in London and other cities has ballooned apparently. And a large number of these scumbags are using firearms to commit crimes. Add to that, many constables are now carrying weapons, or at least special teams are.

An unarmed populace only makes it easier for criminals. Unlike the "idealistic" notion of the failure that is Socialism, the government cannot, will not, and does not protect the individual citizen. And the SCOTUS has even ruled as such in the very recent past.

The Canadian government blames the United States for the influx of weapons. Well then crack down on your borders and shipping, don't bitch. Just as the BATFE needs to crack down on straw purchases and questionable business practices of the less than 1% of firearms dealers that violate the laws.

For those that support the outright banning of firearms, tell me where else those that are innocent and have not committed a crime are barred from the ownership of an item that is legally manufactured?


We have the RIGHT to own firearms in our nation. It is expressly written into our constitution. Many states have taken the steps to further that right by allowing one the express right to self defense.


I will not give up my personal rights easily. I am not a sheep, and I will not rely upon the government to protect me. They cannot, do not, and will not.

[PattyV]

IF YOU CRIMINALIZE GUNS ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS.

For a short period, but then they cant get replacement parts, they cant get new guns, the cant replace the guns they had to throw to the bottom of the harbour after the last robbery they have to keep them for later use. By keeping the guns on them they have increased their chances of being charged and convicted.
Im not saying that our system works perfectly, but it sure as hell works better than yours.

[PattyV]

The amount of firearms used in crimes is actually on a decrease in Australia.
I had a look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics and found some good reading. Australian Bureau of Statistics
Cant really copy and paste it cause its that annoying .pdf format. Just go to pages 16 and 17.

[BruenRescue2003]

Oh quit clouding the issue with facts. The level of violent and street crime in London and other cities has ballooned apparently. And a large number of these scumbags are using firearms to commit crimes. Add to that, many constables are now carrying weapons, or at least special teams are.

.

"Violent street crime" doesn't mean that a firearm was used. It could be anything used as a weapon. Even if certain places have experienced increases in violent crimes involving firearms, the rate is still much lower then what you see in the US. While gun crime has risen in England and Wales since 1996 (the year the ban was introduced) the official figures reveal that this is largely owing to big increases in the number of incidents involving airguns, imitation guns and other weapons such as paintball guns for which there are few controls. Total gun crime, and handgun crime in particular, has fallen significantly in Scotland since the mid-1990s. In England and Wales handgun crime has fallen for the last two years, as has the total number of crimes, if those involving airguns and imitation guns are excluded.

[DaSharkie]

"Violent street crime" doesn't mean that a firearm was used. It could be anything used as a weapon. Even if certain places have experienced increases in violent crimes involving firearms, the rate is still much lower then what you see in the US. While gun crime has risen in England and Wales since 1996 (the year the ban was introduced) the official figures reveal that this is largely owing to big increases in the number of incidents involving airguns, imitation guns and other weapons such as paintball guns for which there are few controls. Total gun crime, and handgun crime in particular, has fallen significantly in Scotland since the mid-1990s. In England and Wales handgun crime has fallen for the last two years, as has the total number of crimes, if those involving airguns and imitation guns are excluded.

I never said that the crimes involved firearms. I said violent crime - rape, robbery, murder. And frankly, I don't care what in the hell I am murdered with, I am still just as dead. So with the increase in violent crime, the denial of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to personal ownership of a firearm, the number of vilent crimes committed with other implements has increased. It has increased to the point that Parliament has considered a ban on (get this) large kitchen knives by private citizens.

In the City of Boston (Massachusetts) after the ability of (again) LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to become licensed to own a firearm was severely restricted by state and local law in the late 1990s, there was the same proportional increase in violent crimes, murders, and batteries with knives, bats, pipes, etc. Should we ban them too?

And it is convenient that to get the results in crime that you want, you have to exclude "....those (crimes) involving airguns and imitation guns......"

So Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. all have a rediculously high murder rate by firearms. Yet they are next to impossible to get legally. Thereby the point has been made, when you outlaw firearms then only criminals will have them.

Further to Patty V's point, exactly how long are you willing to wait for those parts to break? I own 3 firearms, have had my oldest for 9 years. No breaks. So how long are you willing to wait? Until your grandchildren are dead?

You would have to march across the globe and confiscate every single individually owned firearm from every single person (something many in the United Nations would love to do given this Summer's festivities at a meeting held by the UN.) You willing to pay for that? You willing to be held accountable when those actions fail? More importantly, are you PERSONALLY willing to do collect those firearms?

Even in Canada, where personal ownership has been heavily restricted there are still incidents. Last year, 2 or 3 Mounties were killed in an ambush BY A CRIMINAL, and last month in Toronto there was a multiple shooting at a university. Laws do nothing to stop criminals......that is why they are criminals.

Yet the anti-gun crowd wants to tell me, a person with no criminal record and who has served his nation and took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America", that I cannot own a firearm. I cannot own a firearm, not because of any particular action that I did, but because of what a rediculously minor number of people did - most of whom were doing so in the commision of a crime AND who had long-standing criminal records of their own.


And if one recalls history, those nations with totalitarian leaders began by initiating firearms ownership lists, then restriction, then confiscation. Followed by oppression of its citizens. And you want me to trust the government?

By your very notion to have the federal government tell me that I can no longer own a firearm, after following the laws and rules from the local, county, state, and federal legislative and law enforcement entities. You want me to surrender my right (again - an expressly written Constitutional guaranteed amendment/right) to a government that does not trust me?

So let me ask you this......If you want me to give up my individual right (because you do not agree with it), exactly which individual and Consitutionally guaranteed right(s) are you willing to give up?

Perhaps your RIGHT to free speech? Your RIGHT to "peaceably assemble?" Your RIGHT to criticize your government? Your RIGHT to unreasonable search & seizure? Your RIGHT to a speedy trial? Your RIGHT to fair treatment as a prisoner?

Exactly what are you willing to give up while I give up (forcibly) my rights?

How dare you have the unmitigated gall to tell another person to give up their individual rights, liberties, and freedoms! That, ladies and gentlemen is Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism.

How wonderful we have become as we have gained "enlightenment."

Liberalism truly is a mental disease.

[PattyV]

If rape was legal in your precious constitution would you disapprove that they changed that because they are taking away your rights. Just because it was a good idea 200 years ago or whenever it was written does not make it right for today's society.
I dont think that every single person should have their weapons taken off them; I myself am applying for the Australian Defence Force because i wish to protect my countrymen. I am just saying there is a time and place for guns.
Just a quick question: You have just taken $200 dollars out of the local ATM at night, there is no one else around except for some guy whom has just introduced you to his nice little 9mm. What good is a gun to you then when he will shoot you down before you can even get your hand to it?

The issue here is not so much the criminals having guns. If they really want a gun they will get a gun. The issue is letting your average joe blow have a gun. How many times have you said to yourself 'Man i wish i could just kill that [email protected]'? The problem comes when you give an emotionally charged person a firearm. Someone with a slight mental disorder might be having a bad day and just lose it for a bit. Now if all they could get their hands on was a knife then the chances of a citizens arrest or the victim overpowering/escaping them is greatly increased.

[PattyV]

I have just been going through that page from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and I can not for the life of me figure out how anyone can claim that violent crime is at an all time high for Australia
Below is the total number of crimes reported for the year 2001 and 2005. I wont show the in between years because the pattern shows a pretty much linear decrease.
Murder:
2001 = 311
2005 = 270

Attempted Murder:
2001 = 460
2005 = 273

Kidnapping/Abduction:
2001 = 767
2005 = 731

Robbery:
2001 = 26,591
2005 = 16,787

This is for all types of weapons and the crimes using a firearm have been decreasing even sharper.

[LuckyThirteen]

Guns won't make the number of violent crimes go down. If you take away guns, people will kill each other with other methods. It happened for centuries before guns even existed.

As far has being worried about someone emotionally disturbed or mentally ill having a gun, the facts are the same. If someone wants to do harm or kill someone, its going to happen whether they have a gun or nut. A kill is a kill is a kill. Doesn't really matter how it happened. Again, you take away one thing and people will find something else to do it with.

To quote Archie Bunker, "Would it make you feel any better little goil if they was pushed out of a window?"

You have just taken $200 dollars out of the local ATM at night, there is no one else around except for some guy whom has just introduced you to his nice little 9mm. What good is a gun to you then when he will shoot you down before you can even get your hand to it?

That is were proper training and mental preparedness come into play. Anyway your just introducing "what ifs". We could sit here all day and come up with what if scenarios. Is the system perfect, no. Nothing is perfect in this world. To think otherwise is dillusional. But our system works good for us, regardless of what your opinion might be.

[Schwaa]

School staff with guns = more guns in the schools = more kids getting ahold of teachers guns during show and tell...

I have a better idea. Metal detectors and stricter visitation policies.

[LuckyThirteen]

School staff with guns = more guns in the schools = more kids getting ahold of teachers guns during show and tell...

That's a good point. Who's to say a couple of students couldn't overpower a teacher and grab their gun away.

Metal detectors and stricter visitation policies.

Metal detectors are a good idea. While they won't stop it completely in all cases (people find ways around everything), they definitely stem the tide of weapons (of all types) from entering schools. It helped big time with the Central High School in Bayville, NJ. They used to have alot of problems with weapons in school (not so much with guns, but with knives). Metal detectors cut down incidents with knives to almost non-existent.

The only thing that metal detectors will not do is stem incidents that happen outside the building. No system is perfect, of course, but detectors are an effective tool for at least keeping them out of the building.

[FTMPTB15]

I can only speak about the areas which I am familiar with in NC. CMS (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools) has School Resource Officers (CMPD SROs) at ALL (roughly 20) High Schools and also at atleast 26 (if not ALL ~32) Middle Schools. In addition to that, CMS has its own Police Force. CMS Police are all sworn officers with arresting powers (and yes... they carry weapons and WILL arrest you). The CMS Police have several different "Divisions" including Investigations, Patrol, Truancy, Dispatch, etc. etc. ON TOP OF THAT.... there are also CMS Security Officers who do not carry any weapons, etc., but basically are there to patrol the campus, round up kids skipping classes, escourt kids to "lock-out" or detention, etc. etc. They maintain radio contact with the SROs and are able to report any problems.

Also, I have lived in a small town that ALSO provided SROs at the local Elementary - High Schools. There were also school system Security Officers who patroled the schools as well.

The High School I attended in CMS has rough 2600 students and a little over 300 staff members. So for a school with roughly 3000 people, here's the security we had:
- AT LEAST 2-3 (sometime 4+) CMPD School Resource Officers (2-3 permanently assigned)
- AT LEAST 4-6 (sometime 6+) CMS Security Officers patroling the campus on foot and/or via the John Deere Gators
- Occasionally 1+ CMS Police Officer, but mainly just for Events, etc.
- Also, ALL High Schools (not sure about Middle/Elementary) have CCTV cameras just about EVERYWHERE. The SROs/Security constantly monitor those cameras.

Keep in mind, this was for a regular day of school. For sporting events, other special events, or if something occured which would require "increased security" there would obviously be more Officers than what is listed above. Another thing, our school has 14 Buildings spread across 75 acres. It's not your typical "everything's contained in one/two buildings" school. Most High Schools in CMS generally had the same number of SROs/Security Officers, although some might only require 1-2 SROs and maybe 2-4 Security Officers.

I will say this... **To my knowledge** either by the grace of God or because the security measures being taken act a deterrent, there has not been a "school shooting" in any CMS school, during school hours. Sure there have been cases where a kid has brought a gun to school, sure there have been problems after school (off campus, but still close), etc. but nothing which resulted in the death of a student in school. I can honestly say that even though there are tons of psycho people out there... trust me, there were a few in that 3000... I never felt "unsafe" at school. NO ONE should feel unsafe when they are attending school, you are there to LEARN, NOT fear your safety!

Bottom line... If you don't have SROs in your schools, get them. If you don't have enough Officers, hire them. If you have to raise taxes to pay for the additional Officers, do it. If people start complaining because of the increase, ask them what price tag they think a life should cost. Ask them how much they think their child's life is worth. How much would they be willing to pay to know that there is at least ONE sworn Police Officer at their child's school every day? It's a matter of safety... sure, SROs are not the cure-all for this problem, but at least they can provide some initial protection and can also act a deterrent.

Just my twenty-one cents worth...

[NonSurfinCaFF]

The LEO in the school makes the most sense, that and maybe drop the "gun free zone" many states have around schools, that way school officials that have a concealed carry permit can carry while at work. It also makes schools less sure things for school shooters.

There are many places I've seen over the last few years with high potential for crime that have mini-police substations in them. Several shopping malls have done this as have a few schools. It is not a matter of increasing the school budget, simply providing office space for a few officers, they are not at the school 100% but the odds are pretty good at least 1 is there most of the time and there are always officers nearby by, plus they know the layout of the school better than most.

As far as school officials carrying, I am against a blanket policy but all for loosening the restrictions. Most teachers I know (and I've known many since my mother is a teacher) would most likely shoot themselves if they would even accept a gun. As a group they have been the most un-gun and actually un-emergency oriented people I've met, they focus on teaching and the students, the idea of preparing for an emergency is a waste of their already shrinking time for educating. However there are exceptions.

Several years ago a school principal (in Mississippi?) stopped a school shooting when he went to his car and got his handgun, the student surrendered when he faced a gun weilding principal, the student had shot several students at a high school and was headed towards the elementry school next door when he was stopped by the principal. For a short time (basically until the public outcry for the DA's head) the principal was being charged with having a gun on school grounds. Who knows how many of the school shootings over the years may have been stopped with fewer deaths if competent gun owning school officials had been allowed to carry on school grounds. Its not a matter of them clearing the school, that is a law enforcement job, but an armed teacher locked in the classroom with the students is a much bigger deterant than an unarmed one.

Its definately something to consider, I find it interesting how quickly they seem to accept the idea compared to the airline pilots, a group I have much more confidence in when it comes to an emergency situation.

[DaSharkie]

If rape was legal in your precious constitution would you disapprove that they changed that because they are taking away your rights

"If" it is not so your point is moot. I am concerned about people who want to take away an individual's rights for the fear that something might happen.

And you are spot-on right......The Constitution of the United States of America is a mighty precious thing. As it is for any citizen or resident of this country.

Not only does it tell me what I can and cannot do, more importantly it tells the government what it cannot do.



I agree that not everyone should own a weapon. But there are ways to screen people, and the laws need to be enforced. However, it is pretty sad that all of the thousands of local, county, state, and federal laws are all passed, but not enforced. If you are a firearms dealer (or any other type of regulated business) and you violate the law - blatantly now, not just an error in accounting or something "trivial" - then you are out of business because your license is revoked.

And people will use whatever implement they want to kill, injure, threaten, or harass you. Criminals, or those intent on doing harm do not give a rats @$$ about the law.

[PattyV]

But our system works good for us, regardless of what your opinion might be.

Never have i had to be searched entering school except when i visited an American school in Malaysia.
If your system works why do you have so many people going on killing sprees. Wake up to yourselves. Apart from a few very rare incidents; this doesnt happen in the rest of the developed world .

Yes people might use whatever weapon they can get their hands on; guns are the most effective and give the victims the least chance to fight back. With a gun you dont have time to duck if the killer decides to shoot. He can kill you before you have realised that he pulled the trigger. With a knife the victim can at least fight back, if there is more than one victim the attacker can be overpowered.

[LuckyThirteen]

Oh yes, we know just how much of a utopia the rest of the developed world is...