Guns

[PaloAltoCougar]

Columbine changed Law Enforcement response nationwide. Prior to Columbine, Law Enforcement approached these situations as they would a barricaded gunman. The patrol officers established a perimeter, held containment, and awaited a SWAT response. In the case of Columbine, the arriving SWAT officers came from different jurisdictions and couldn't even communicate with each other by radio. Their tactics at the time had them evacuating the wounded and those in hiding. It took them a long time to confront the shooters. This doctrine is now completely different.

Many schools across the nation have already begun quietly hiring armed security.

I'm glad (and would expect) that law enforcement response will change and improve, but that's a different issue from having one or two armed guards on a campus, which Columbine had. I admit I know little about armed response, but I don't see how the presence of one armed guard would be much of a deterrent to a demented killer hellbent on destroying lives. I'd expect him to begin with the guard.

[All-American]

I'm not sure it is. There are around 100,000 K-12 schools in the U.S. Adding at least one armed guard to each would add billions to the budgets of schools already desperately strapped for cash. And while it may be an isolated exception, Columbine's armed campus cop and a motorcycle cop in front of the school were unable to prevent the deaths of many. Indeed, the library massacre occurred after the cops had already engaged the perps in a firefight.

Neither of those cops were in the building. And when the shooting started, they stayed outside and waited for backup.

As for costs, you may be right. So give schools the options: they can hire an armed guard, if they want, or at least let schools decide if they want to allow teachers with concealed carry permits to have guns. Give them $25 a month more if they do.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Neither of those cops were in the building. And when the shooting started, they stayed outside and waited for backup.

As for costs, you may be right. So give schools the options: they can hire an armed guard, if they want, or at least let schools decide if they want to allow teachers with concealed carry permits to have guns. Give them $25 a month more if they do.

I thought one of the cops and Harris exchanged multiple shots, and that was before the worst of the killing commenced. I'm also skeptical an armed guard will always be in the right place at the right time.

BTW, don't schools have those options now? I'm fine with giving them options; I just don't know that they'll do much good. I also vaguely recall a study a few years back that demonstrated that without intense and constant training in combat situations, most people who are otherwise fine shooters usually react very poorly, and marksmanship is dreadful, in the heat of unexpected battle. Anyone else recall this? Are the teachers who want to carry willing to go through the same kind of constant training that SWAT teams receive?

[All-American]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2IA3AErH6

Mostly, I don't think any of those things really move the ball much in any direction. They definitely don't prevent another Sandy Hook or Columbine. The kids at the desk do make for a nice photo op, though.

[All-American]

I thought one of the cops and Harris exchanged multiple shots, and that was before the worst of the killing commenced. I'm also skeptical an armed guard will always be in the right place at the right time.

BTW, don't schools have those options now? I'm fine with giving them options; I just don't know that they'll do much good. I also vaguely recall a study a few years back that demonstrated that without intense and constant training in combat situations, most people who are otherwise fine shooters usually react very poorly, and marksmanship is dreadful, in the heat of unexpected battle. Anyone else recall this? Are the teachers who want to carry willing to go through the same kind of constant training that SWAT teams receive?

Right, they exchanged fire, and the cop then hunkered down and stayed under cover.

Many schools do have those options now. Utah, for example, has a number of schools which allow teachers to carry. Any school that is a "gun free" zone does not, obviously.

Adequate training would still probably be cheaper than hiring an armed guard.

[venkman]

I thought one of the cops and Harris exchanged multiple shots, and that was before the worst of the killing commenced. I'm also skeptical an armed guard will always be in the right place at the right time.

BTW, don't schools have those options now? I'm fine with giving them options; I just don't know that they'll do much good. I also vaguely recall a study a few years back that demonstrated that without intense and constant training in combat situations, most people who are otherwise fine shooters usually react very poorly, and marksmanship is dreadful, in the heat of unexpected battle. Anyone else recall this? Are the teachers who want to carry willing to go through the same kind of constant training that SWAT teams receive?

Sure that's true, but it would be much better than nothing. An armed response no matter how poor would serve to distract the shooter and may cause him to take cover and not focus on mowing down innocents. Maybe he just commits suicide because his little fantasy world is burst. It's like the Trolley Square shooting a few years ago. An undercover cop engaged the shooter...IIRC correctly the cop wasn't exactly a crack shot in that situation, but they both took cover and focused on each other. Just the fact that someone was there firing back likely saved lives.

There are several instances of mass shooting being stopped by an armed civilian. Pearl High School and Appalachia Law School come to mind.

[Uncle Ted]

14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2IA3AErH6

The CDC? Is gun ownership viewed as a disease now? Why the CDC? Shouldn't they be helping Creekster not spread the flu instead?

[All-American]

The CDC? Is gun ownership viewed as a disease now? Why the CDC? Shouldn't they be helping Creekster not spread the flu instead?

Because guns are a health issue. Duh.

[UtahDan]

I see this morning that the NRA is willing to "accept" universal background checks, dropping its long time opposition to the same that has centered around not wanting the guvment to know where all the guns are. I guess when 90% of the public and 75% of your membership favor something, you have to be ready to compromise on some of your principles.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I see this morning that the NRA is willing to "accept" universal background checks, dropping its long time opposition to the same that has centered around not wanting the guvment to know where all the guns are. I guess when 90% of the public and 75% of your membership favor something, you have to be ready to compromise on some of your principles.

I don't think universal background checks will make a lick of difference in terms of gun crimes. But if a majority are dumb enough to think so, I suppose it is inevitable.

[Uncle Ted]

I don't think universal background checks will make a lick of difference in terms of gun crimes. But if a majority are dumb enough to think so, I suppose it is inevitable.

Yeah, I don't think it will make a lot of difference either but criminals need some more rights taken away, IMHO. There are simply too many guns floating around in the black and gray markets.

[UtahDan]

I don't think universal background checks will make a lick of difference in terms of gun crimes. But if a majority are dumb enough to think so, I suppose it is inevitable.

You might find this piece interesting. Writer spoke to Jens Ludwig from University of Chicago who as apparently studied this issue. He seems to believe that it has problems and is not a silver bullet, but will probably reduce gun crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...would-it-work/

EDIT: By the way, I think the effectiveness has a lot to do with how toothy the penalties are for non-compliance. Sure, many people will simply ignore it. But if you put the onus on the sellers (make it a felony to sell to someone who would be disqualified by a background check) you would shrink the number of people willing to risk that quite a bit. Not perfect, but as Ludwig says anything that squeezes the secondary market helps.

[UtahDan]

Here is another thought I has having this morning. I have seen a lot of people asserting that the real problem is not guns but mental health care in our country. I think the NRA spokesperson said exactly this when they were saying they would "accept" background checks. The trouble for me is that I haven't seen anyone point to any evidence that this is the case (or make any particular suggestions) nor do I think I have heard the mental health community respond. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I'm just not aware of what the meat of that discussion is. Can anyone point me to something useful (I'm going to look around myself right now)?

[Surfah]

You might find this piece interesting. Writer spoke to Jens Ludwig from University of Chicago who as apparently studied this issue. He seems to believe that it has problems and is not a silver bullet, but will probably reduce gun crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...would-it-work/

EDIT: By the way, I think the effectiveness has a lot to do with how toothy the penalties are for non-compliance. Sure, many people will simply ignore it. But if you put the onus on the sellers (make it a felony to sell to someone who would be disqualified by a background check) you would shrink the number of people willing to risk that quite a bit. Not perfect, but as Ludwig says anything that squeezes the secondary market helps.

How does a national gun registry help the millions of guns already out there?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is a great website to pass on to your friends and acquaintances who want to ban assault weapons. Shocking to me how many otherwise reasonable people are so clueless on this issue.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/