Sandy Hook: All of the “solutions” are bad ones
The usual argument on this point is “we need to ramp up our mental health efforts,” but that’s easier said than done. And what we’re really talking about is involuntary detainment and observation of people if they are deemed threatening by “odd behavior.” If you think seeing therapy and mental health treatment is stigmatized now, wait until the government can easily access your mental health records without your consent to determine if you’re a threat to society.
You’ll hear an argument about arming teachers, a solution that has its own problems, among them that the security at any given school will depend upon A) teachers willing to carry weapons in their classrooms and B) their ability to control a firearm at all times. The first time a teacher forgets and leaves their gun where a student can touch it, that whole policy will become the newest scapegoat.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Nope. One solution – restart the mental health system in this country – has broad support and is most likely to make a difference here. It will cost money, and involve revisiting institutionalization, but it is certainly preferable to any of the proposed gun control legislation.
ernesto on December 17, 2012 at 1:28 PM
Yeah, I thought the same thing when this option was brought up. Perhaps just knowing they might be armed would deter shooters, though.
changer1701 on December 17, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Institutionalization. No need to overuse it for everyone with “odd behavior” (whatever that means on any given day)–just those with a history of violent threats or actions.
Mr. Prodigy on December 17, 2012 at 1:30 PM
WTF? So you are ok with some government goon making some decision based on subjective “facts”, then locking american citizens up without their Constitutional rights of due process? Bad idea. Who is to say what odd behavior is? Maybe I’m odd because I question the government, maybe I’m odd because I survived one of our stupid and endless foreign interventions in the name of “patriotism.”
MoreLiberty on December 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM
My highschool in North Carolina had a public resource officer (a fancy name for a police officer) in the building at all times. He was armed.
Why isn’t there at least a cop in the building at all times.
The police officer was loved by all the students and really improved the image of police officers in general among us impressionable yoots.
Defenestratus on December 17, 2012 at 1:35 PM
The ACLU has already sued the United States and won over involuntary institutionalization.
You need a new solution, or you need to break with the left.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM
The people who do these things are not always crazy(ie.Brevick). All the breathless coverage is understandable but it pretty much guarantees that more events like this will happen. These are people who feel hard done by and they want to respond by committing heinous acts which will guarantee their fame and that their grievances will be aired.
I think the CT authorities are doing the right thing by not publicizing the ‘reasons’ or the manifesto behind this latest attack.
lexhamfox on December 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM
How about a system for a weapon for faculty?
Lock box, modem connection to local PD.
Button pressed, PD makes contact to confirm, signal unlocks box.
blatantblue on December 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM
They have huge penisons and now we can’t afford them, or a retired ones.
But traffic cops are too busy giving tickets. It’s more about revenue now.
I think there needs to some armed staff. You can’t have a cop everywhere.
I fear more crazy people will try more shootings, bombing, arson, or whatever in the future.
FYI, I when I was in high school a bomb went off. It was placed near the natural gas pipes. It blew up without setting off the the gas.
Oil Can on December 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM
If a person “forgets” he or she has to control a firearm, then that person has no business with a weapon. And should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law should an incident arise due to their negligence of not controlling the firearm. These things are not toys. Only serious people need apply.
Mitoch55 on December 17, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Look to Utah. Teachers have been permitted to carry weapons for nearly 20 years. Zero school incidents.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 1:45 PM
Not all the teachers need to be armed. But we don’t need to advertise that they aren’t. And CCW permit holders who are teachers should be permitted to carry concealed.
MechanicalBill on December 17, 2012 at 1:52 PM
I think allowing teachers to carry who are willing and already have permits would be a good thing. All of my son’s schools have had teachers who were former military. It seems silly to disarm them. The one unarmed security guard earned a Bronze Star in Desert Storm, but he wasn’t allowed to carry on campus. That’s why I got my carry permit. I wanted at least one good person to be armed during carpool.
As Washington Nearsider said, letting teachers carry worked in Utah, and now one district in TX is trying it. Works in Israel too.
Or, failing that, have armed security guards and plenty of them.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM
Yeah, about that….
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 1:57 PM
Arming and training teachers seems to work very well everywhere it is tried.
The Rogue Tomato on December 17, 2012 at 1:58 PM
What does Wile E. Coyote have to do with arming teachers?
The Rogue Tomato on December 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM
The school district of Philadelphia has roughly 11,000 teachers. Are we seriously planning to arm 11,000 people in potentially high-stress situations?
We can barely train enough teachers to teach.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:01 PM
Where has it been tried? There’s a program currently that arms and trains teachers?
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM
I just thought it was funny that the poster was using Utah as an example, and their gaurds(of all people) are getting attacked and injured by coyotes. Guess she didn’t get the memo.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM
That wasn’t a teacher, or at a school. We don’t even know if she was armed.
Most people aren’t advocating training all teachers and making them carry guns. Read the thread and see what people are saying.
You really need to read more carefully. Read the the article at the link you provided, and read the thread.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM
For example, Israel and Thailand.
The Rogue Tomato on December 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Maybe he/she thought the coyote was carrying an assault rifle, hence the relevance.
The Rogue Tomato on December 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM
This reminds me that TX is going to try again to get (college) campus carry passed in the upcoming legislative session. It failed last time because of some kind of committee machinations in the senate. I hope it passes this time.
If you live in TX, you might want to contact your rep and senator.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 2:10 PM
I’d love to see someone go onto Hardball and say to Chrissy “We need to have a frank discussion about ‘the blaze of glory’, the medias creation of it, and the need for reasonable media controls”
agmartin on December 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM
I apologize. A Utah gaurd getting attacked by a coyote isn’t funny.
The article is about arming public teachers to protect against murderers, and a Utah gaurd unable to protect herself against a coyote has no place here.
But lets arm the public teachers. And since we’re arming them, should they get hazard pay as well? Who’s paying for the purchase and upkeep of their weapons? Who’s paying for their training? How often are they getting trained?
Philadelphia has 11,000 teachers. You’ve comfortable with the city(or state) arming each one? Would you, personally, be comfortable with that?
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM
I already stated what I think, here:
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/12/17/sandy-hook-all-of-the-solutions-are-bad-ones/comment-page-1/#comment-2220294
Like I said, read the thread.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Firstly, that’s only in the West Bank. Secondly, they have to had two years of military training.
Other than the West Bank, Isreali protects its schools through armed gaurds(who aren’t from Utah), not through armed teachers.
And Thailand? Where are you pulling that from? Since 2005, 154 “school personnel” have been killed there. That’s an effective program?
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM
As stupid as most teachers are in union/liberal strongholds, I shudder at the thought they would be armed. Perhaps give an intelligence test also to qualify.
trs on December 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM
So you’re pretty much disagreeing that we should arm teachers, so there’s that.
But I’m stuck on the reason why you got your carry permit. To be armed during the carpool. Wow.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Where is Ernesto and what have you done with him?
jawkneemusic on December 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM
There are how many million CHP holders in the U.S. now? I’m not aware of a rash of “oh I left my gun on the store counter and some bad guy grabbed it” stories.
As has been noted above, if you really think teachers are too incurably stupid to responsibly supervise a weapon by keeping it on their person, presumably in a concealed holster, then it’s a simple matter of storing them in a locked but accessible pistol safe in the room.
The shooter is always going to get the drop on their first victim. It would be nice to have the chance at least to draw and try to return fire, but the real advantage is having one or six or twenty armed adults coming from adjacent areas, able to confront the shooter and end the shooting. A desk safe fills that role very nicely.
But it’s actually not preferable to concealed carry–the safes would be known to all and subject to break-in, theft and tampering. Plus, we really want adults comfortable and competent in the handling of a sidearm, not ones who went to a class once and then had a gun put in their room, never to be touched again.
It would be absolutely fantastic if the end result of all this was a gun range in every high school and regular practice for armed teachers, and likely access for students and the larger community as well. And yes, I’d like a pony, too.
TexasDan on December 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Whatever.
Anything and everything has a downside. That does not mean it’s a bad solution. Not allowing citizens to possess guns has a downside — tyranny — which is what Geraghty alludes to with government access to medical records. Does that mean we should get rid of government? His concern is certainly an issue and should be kept in mind when crafting policy, but to ignore the solution is just plain dumb.
Pretty much the same applies with issue having firearms available in schools, and as a whole Geraghty’s column is lazy blather.
Dusty on December 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM
I’m okay with my tax dollars equipping and training those who wish to have their 2nd Amendment rights follow them into their classrooms.
Not all 11k teachers in Philadelphia would choose to carry weapons. The 2nd isn’t compulsory. You aren’t FORCED to buy a gun the way you are forced to buy health care.
Parents trust schools to protect their children. This has generally included bullies, playground accidents and trips and falls. Today it also includes active shooters. That’s the reality.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM
You better believe it, buster.
So you would rather that women and children be left completlly undefended against any male attackers. Wow. Double wow.
BTW, a woman at another local elementary school was out front waiting for her kid, when her husband came up and started stabbing her. A nearby concealed carry permit holder stopped the attack by pulling his gun, and she survived.
If we followed your policy, she’d be dead. Maybe the man who saved her would be too.
Do we ever hear about these things on the national news? No, because they have an agenda.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM
No – she’s saying communities and individuals should be free to defend themselves. If communities decide that teachers should be allowed to concealed carry then that should be their prerogative.
But I guess to the liberal mind “disagreeing that we should arm teachers” is synonymous with not supporting a super state mandated and funded effort to train and arm teachers.
gwelf on December 17, 2012 at 2:44 PM
I do not believe there is any moral superiority in a woman being beaten, raped and strangled to death by her own pantyhose instead of that same woman placing a hole in her attacker’s chest.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 2:44 PM
The only way that arming teachers would be effective is if it was compulsory. Otherwise, it would be as effective as a particular teacher is comfortable with carrying a gun. I believe you and juliesa are saying that you would get rid of gun-free zones, which is different than implementing an armed teacher program.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:45 PM
Again, I think you guys are confusing the elimination of gun-free zones with the implementation of programs to arm teachers.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM
No. I’m saying we should allow teachers who already have CCWs AND want to carry on campus do so. Gun-free school zones are different. Virginia Tech (and most other colleges) are not defined as gun-free, but the schools have policies banning guns from campus. A distinction without a difference perhaps, but still.
Just like the draft, this is not something you can compel a person to do. I don’t want you watching my back if you don’t believe in the mission. Likewise, I don’t want you drawing a weapon to protect a child if you aren’t comfortable with the weapon itself.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Good thing that guy didn’t have a gun.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM
I agree with this sentiment. Which is why I don’t agree that we should implement a program that arms teachers.
Honestly, we should have cops in the schools and be done with it. Philadelphia has an armed police officer in every school and there has never been shooting in a school that I can remember.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM
And if he had had a gun, it would’ve turned out better if all the law abiding people on the scene didn’t have one, right?
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM
I’d support that.
Tactically, though, one cop won’t make that much difference.
Active shooter in classroom A. Cop on the other side of the building. 30 kids are still dead.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 2:53 PM
I do believe gun free zones only work if there are metal detectors and armed guards at every entrance to physically keep guns out. Other wise, they are just victim disarmament zones.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM
Even that doesn’t work.
Playgrounds don’t have doors.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Firstly, has their ever been a murder by a law abiding gun owner?
Secondly, it’s ironic that you identified a situation in which it could have been worse if all parties were armed.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM
I think you may be on to something there……..
GWB on December 17, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Yeah, that’s what I mean. If you don’t have doors and armed guards, it doesn’t work.
Another thought: I think policemen and armed guards can be very effective if they are all over the school, but these intelligent crazies who plan out everything sometimes target the uniformed guy first. That’s what Harris and Klebold did. So it’s better if there are some teachers and parents (or adult students) around who are also armed. That would’ve made a huge difference at Columbine and VaTech. Those campuses had armed police but they were ineffective.
Fortunately, these well-planned attacks are exceedingly rare, percentage wise.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM
If you think laws deter criminals from obtaining things, then why don’t you check out Chicago’s gun crime rate.
Criminals will have guns no matter what laws we pass. It’s better for their potential victims to be armed.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM
That was to segasegaz.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »