Armed Teachers Can Save Children's Lives
By JJ Ark of Portland, Oregon. JJ lives in Southeast Portland with his wife, two daughters, and a dog. He works in telecommunications and first got into politics fighting the OCA's measure 8 in 1988.
We have just lived through another horrendous school shooting. Sadly, the residents of Red Lake, Minnesota have found themselves in the same unenviable position as those in Littleton, Springfield, and Erfort, Germany.
But as terrible as the events in Red Lake, Minnesota are, it could have been worse. Far worse. Given the specter of international terrorism, and the post 9-11 awareness of internal targets, we could have faced another Beslan, North Ossetia. That event claimed 207 souls, many of them children.
I would suggest that we do one simple thing: Remove the restrictions that prohibit Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders from carrying their personal firearms while on school property.
This is a deceptively simple act. Nothing more or less is needed to increase exponentially the safety of our schools.
This session in Salem, Ginny Burdick has proposed several laws that prior to the tragedy in Minnesota would have been considered just another piece of anti-gun legislation from a single-issue politician. In other words: Business as usual. In light of recent events, however, we have a need to re-examine newly proposed Senate Bill 335 and Senate Bill 956. Both have been referred to the judiciary, and SB335 has had one hearing so far.
A bit of background: Current state law allows CHL holders to carry their personal protection anywhere not specifically prohibited. Most of those prohibited locations are commonsense: Don't bring your firearm to court, to visit your buddy in jail or a mental institution, or to the airport. Some are a bit less obvious--state parks, for instance. The last group of places are locations on private property that specifically disallow firearms, or more commonly, weapons of any sort: Lloyd Center, my place of work, and my mom's house are great examples.
The state of the schools' ban on weapons is somewhat in the air. While the schools I checked on don't have any signs specifically posted declaring their schools a weapons free zone, the district has stated that they do not want firearms on campus, so most schools K-12 fall into that last category. At best, the possession of a legally carried firearm will get you kicked off campus, or at worse, a misdemeanor trespassing charge that would cause a CHL holder to lose his or her their right to carry, and thus defend him or her self (and those under his or her care).
SB335 would outlaw firearms not only on school property (eliminating the declared but not posted ambiguity), but, would prohibit CHL holders "from possessing firearms in or on a public building that is a public school or the site or premises of any student program or activity that is sponsored or sanctioned by a public school."
In other words, if the children from my local school were to come to New Seasons to look at how produce is sold on the open market for their field trip in economics, the holder of the CHL "packing" while shopping for eggs and kohlrabi is in violation of the law, and can be fined, arrested or both.
Broken logic has led us to the belief that if we have zero weapons allowed in our schools, we will have safer schools. The reason? While the vast majority of children will follow the rules and leave their knives, nail clippers and aspirins at home, a criminals are not inclined to conduct themselves with the same law abiding nature.
Currently, the only folks with firearms in the schools are those who are intent on creating mayhem and bloodbaths. This of course excludes our Portland Police who do carry firearms in campus. Sadly enough, they are often required on campus, but their numbers are not such that they can stay at all schools at all times. Their numbers and our budget issues will not support such a deployment.
What we have created in removing any and all weapons from schools and the places where large numbers of children congregate is a freefire zone for any murderer with a grudge against our most vulenerable citizens: Our children. With SB335, we are now considering extending that same freefire zone to any place children are present, further reducing the number of defenders for our most vulnerable citizens.
Further, the lack of firearms possession in all of our nations schools that came about post-Columbine has opened up the places where we teach our children as prime targets to those for whom terror and sorrow are stock in trade. Al Qaida would be have to be blind to not see unguarded schools full of unarmed teachers and our children as tempting and perhaps surviveable targets. This was the case in Beslan.
The goal of removing the CHL restrictions in schools is not to bypass the need for law enforcement, but rather to bridge that 3-5 minute gap that allows those deranged individuals a bloody playground to play in before law enforcement with their numbers, body armor and radios are able to arrive. A teacher who wisely locks the door to her room, has the kids get behind tipped over desks, and waits for help with her pistol drawn is the smart teacher.
I see no reason why any competent person should be disallowed the ability to protect themselves and the students under their protection. Indeed the converse is true as well; we cannot expect every teacher to bring a firearm to school along with the grading and next days assignments. In no way am I proposing we forcibly arm teachers, only allow those who wish to carry and protect their charges the opportunity to do so.
The major concerns voiced seem to boil down to one of training. It is important to note that while Portland Police are trained in the use of firearms, they rarely find themselves in this particular type of tactical situation. Police are typically confronting the shooter, not hunkering down and defending a position. We are not asking our children's caretakers to confront the source of the trouble. We are asking them to do their best to protect our children.
Without question, there is a valid fear of stray shots hitting innocent kids in a fire fight. While that would be horrible, it is important to note that we are not planning for a Rose Court event. If the teacher is forced to hunker down behind locked doors, all the "safe schools" plans have been proven worthless, and children are dying. At that point, there is already a probability of stray bullets. Truthfully, a teacher who fires maybe once or twice at someone coming through the classroom door is not making things much worse.
This is not a costly solution. It is a no-cost solution. I see no need to issue any sort of special CHL license. The current holders of a CHL are with our children already. They are already sitting next you, riding the Max; they are at your favorite restaurant, and at your local café. We haven't seen a wave of shootings perpetrated by CHL holders, despite 1 in 20 adults in Multnomah Country possessing this license. We are not asking these teachers to do anything more than they would wisely do at home: hunker down with the family behind, hand off the 911 call to a competent person, and wait, prepared for the worst. By both Oregon law and common sense, using that firearm is the last resort. In both cases.
I can hear the cries of fear for our children's safety now. The gnashing of teeth. The fear for our children's safety. I acknowledge that fear completely. I have to. I have two children of my own. However, we must keep in mind that the CHL provided for in our state offers up a more stringent screening process than most teachers in our state receive. Those that carry their weapons on their person legally have yet to be involved in crime. They have had their fingerprints taken to facilitate the federal, state and local background checks. The police know who they are, and the CHL holder is unlikely, based upon that knowledge, to take up a life of crime.
Our teachers deserve the right to protect themselves and their pupils. Our children deserve the protection afforded by those who we entrust with their safety. It is time for us to seriously consider this idea.
|
April 9, 2005 |
guest column | Comments (153 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: LT | Apr 9, 2005 7:11:58 PM
Some high school boys are over 6 feet tall and large. Some teachers (esp. young ones) are closer to 5 feet tall and closer to 100 lbs. And yet they could never be physically overpowered if they had a gun?
How could 1 guard, even with a gun, have overpowered the 2 boys who shot up Columbine high school?
Didn't the kid who did the Red Lake shooting steal his relative's gun and bullet proof vest?
I just don't see how allowing concealed weapons in public buildings (churches, schools) solves the problem of anyone willing to shoot up a place.
It would seem to me that Sen. Morrisette should be the authority on this, though, not the author of this guest opinion. After all, he was Mayor of Springfield when the Thurston H.S. shooting happened. Would one armed guard have stopped a kid who had already killed his parents?
Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 9, 2005 7:28:33 PM
#
I can hear the cries of fear for our ... safety now.
Hear this: You are the one senseless in fear, that is your mental illness talking to you.
Your fear-mongering is Liars Larson on spellcheck, but the lies are still in it and it is still a lie. These are cries for your rehabilitation, in arrested public custody because you no more get to walk around unregistered in your neighhood with your amygdalic mental dysfunction than a predatory psychosexual dysfunctional does.
It is not contagious, your sickness is in your head, and maintained there by the closed logic showing in what you wrote, it is not transmitted to others by your wording of your headbucket of worms.
On the other hand, it could be just a set up, or a empty head on a stick raised up in a space-wasting thread to draw fire and gauge where it's coming from. Here's a shot across your brow: We consider a public safety measure to arrest you, detain you for mental evaluation, profiling and medication if appropriate, and ... you are tagged ineligible to own a gun unless supervised.
Fear-inflating psychology cases are the cancer cells in society, they never stop eating at themselves, never stop doubting their senses and being spooked, (particularly by expressions on ordinary people's faces which they can't decode socially and appropriately, since the pathology of the fear abnormality is in the part of the brain where facial-features decoding and interpretation is processed).
Such cases are out there, (and increasingly prevalent with violence-depicting media saturation -- and sextremes-depicting, that's the other emergent category of mental misapperceivers out there), and this post is a pretty good copy of one but not the real thing. I don't believe it for a minute, it's a set-up, the good fluency of the grammar contradicts the stupidity of the thought in it.
#
Posted by: doretta | Apr 9, 2005 7:56:06 PM
It would seem to me that Sen. Morrisette should be the authority on this, though, not the author of this guest opinion. After all, he was Mayor of Springfield when the Thurston H.S. shooting happened.
I knew when I saw the subject of this thread it would get weird fast. Being an elected official in an area when an event happens makes you an authority on that sort of event? I guess that makes Christine Gregoire a vulcanologist and George Bush an expert on how to prevent terrorist attacks? (Were it only so!)
It seems entirely possible that if all teachers kept guns on their persons and were trained in using them, you might be able to cut down on the number of casualties in Columbine-type incidents in progress.
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, it may be even more likely that with so many more guns in schools those guns themselves would end up being available for creating mischief--the most likely kind of mischief involving a gun being people getting shot.
It may even be that there would be more Columbine-type incidents (think of the romance of a shoot out with that hated teacher). We've already got kids on the streets of my fair city who treat real guns like they are the video game versions. A reported 19 empty shell casings were found in front of the local Fred Meyer after one recent incident. I question the wisdom of normalizing carrying guns in schools.
Posted by: Trey | Apr 10, 2005 4:36:34 AM
When I saw the heading for this post, I thought for sure there MUST be a misprint. Unfortunately, I soon discovered there was no misprint at all.
I agree with all the comments so far. This is an absolutely ludicrous idea. We don't need MORE weapons in schools, we need LESS.
Others have suggested potential bad headlines. Here are two more:
Teacher Shot with Own Weapon
Third grade Teacher Bill Jones was killed today when an angry student wrestled Jones' gun away from him and shot him.
Two Students Die in Gunfight
An armed student entered X High School and was intercepted by math teacher Bill Jones. In an exchange of gunfire between the gunman and the teacher, two students walking down the hall were hit by stray bullets. Both died at the scene.
Do you genuinely want to see headlines like this?
Posted by: Cicolini | Apr 10, 2005 7:50:02 AM
This guy is a dangerous idiot who has perhaps seriously misread J. Swift.
+++
Portland Police Use Taser on 11-Year-Old
On October 4, Portland Police officer Jonathan Hunt (#39646) used a Taser to temporarily paralyze an 11-year old student at Buckman elementary school in Portland. Considering that the weapons have been involved in over 70 cases where suspects have died and more information is coming out questioning their safety, Portlanders should be very concerned.
According to the October 8 Portland Tribune, the boy was "tearing up" a classroom, breaking windows and "lashing out" at teachers with a metal compass (presumably the pointy tool used for drawing circles and not a directional magnetic device). The good news, if it can be called that, is that the first officer on the scene, School Police officer Gene Gillock, backed away when the boy "threatened to stab him," whereas in other circumstances police might have shot at him (see shootings article).
Explaining her decision to authorize the use of the 50,000 volt electroshock device, Capt. Dorothy Elmore told the Tribune, "We couldn't get close enough to use pepper spray, and with the sharp object...we couldn't feel safe tackling him." It is still not clear why the staff of psychiatric hospitals are able to restrain unruly patients without the use of guns, batons and Tasers but the Police are so dependent on these weapons that they will use one on a child.
The Bureau's tentative new policy on Tasers does encourage officers to "give consideration" to other options before using the weapon on the elderly or young people. However, Tasers are considered "less lethal," not "nonlethal," as evidenced by Multnomah County Sheriff's Deputy Paul McRedmond and Portland Police Sgt. Brian Schmautz, both of whom say that civilians brandishing the new "Citizen Taser X26" could be shot by police (KATU-TV, September 16 and Oregonian, September 28).
Along those lines, the New York Times revealed that a study touted by Taser International as proving Tasers safe may actually say the opposite. The November 26 article cites Air Force scientist Dr. James Jauchem's research showing that repeated Taser shocks cause acidosis, a dangerous condition in which the pH of the blood drops, and which could lead to death. The Arizona Republic outlined 71 cases in which suspects died after being hit by Tasers between Sept. 28, 1999 and the article's publication on September 15th of this year (the total was 77 as of December 17). While a few of the deaths were linked to the Tasers by medical examiners, manufacturer Taser International continues to insist they are not responsible and "the deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway" (NY Times).
Posted by: cc | Apr 10, 2005 7:57:33 AM
The whole idea is.......... I'm not even sure of the word I'm looking for. Horrific. Absurd. Ludicrous. Stupid. A word that encompasses all of those words... that's the word I'm looking for.
Here's the deal... there are an average of four school shootings worldwide per year (most of them in the US of course). Yes, four is far too many - one is too many. But the point is that when you think about how many schools there are - I have no idea how many that'd be. Thousands? The threat is so incredibly minimal. Kids are in more danger on their way to and from school than they are AT school.
And by that account, they're probably in more danger when they go with their parents to the bank. Guns find their way into more banks than they do into schools. Should we arm all of the bank tellers, too?
I'm not saying we should ignore high-risk students or pass off someone's threats or cry for help as teen angst. But the last thing we want to do is arm teachers or allow teachers to arm themselves - that just puts more guns in the hands of these disturbed students. Because when the teacher pulls out her little .22 pistol to defend herself and her students against a crazed student with a semi-automatic weapon, not only is she surely dead, but the shooter has now added another weapon to his/her arsenal.
There's nothing pretty about what happened in Minnesota, Columbine, Jonesboro, Springfield... and I'm sure most of us could name more. But adding more guns to the mix will not prevent the problem. The problem in most cases is a student who has some serious emotional problems who has flown under the radar for far too long. The student usually wants to die. It's suicide. The problem lies with each of these kids and their individual problems that need to be noticed and addressed by parents, teachers, clergy, etc. Then you take suicidal kids and give them access to more weapons? Somehow each of these kids managed to get ahold of guns in the first place! Kids aren't supposed to get guns. THAT's a problem that needs fixing.
Other threats to kids at school - drugs, alcohol, unprotected sex. All of these can and do kill kids. These problems are also waaaaaaaaaay more prevolent than guns/shootings. Unfortunately none of those are newsworthy unless it's a story on 20/20.
This idea is crazy. It's like taking a band-aid and soaking it in salt-water before putting it on a papercut. Not only isn't it going to fix the problem, it's going to make it worse. The more I think about it the more I'm hoping you're just playing devil's advocate... because I just can't see how you'd think this is a good idea.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:30:34 AM
First off, I want to thank everyone for responding. I intend to respond to each and every concern in a thoughtful manner. As such that will take time. In order to track the responses, I will be responding to the concerns by the name of the poster.
Edward writes:
>The inherent dangers of every teacher packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution.
Edward: please go back and read the article again: "In no way am I proposing we forcibly arm teachers. " I don't believe there to be any benefit to arming ALL teachers. Merely letting those with a CHL, who have passed the requisite background checks and CHL safety and concealment training course bring with them the handgun they already carry during their offhours. I know my father and stepmother wouldn't be bringing a firearm into the school. Most teachers wouldn't.
>How many teachers have had personal effects stolen from them while they were at work? Tons.
I am not advocating we place a gun in every room, locked up in a glass case ala "In Case Osama Shows His Ugly Mug, Break Glass". These guns would be 1. on their person, physically, and 2. concealed. Not open carry, with is quasi-legal, but dubious in the intelligence department---kinda like a big "hey, mug me!" sign. If you think that teachers are gonna get jumped because they *might* have a gun, then we don't have a school. What you are describing isn't my local elementary school, but a prison riot in the potential.
>Allowing more guns around is just a recipe for more people to get shot.
eh? How do you figure? When was the last time you heard of a CHL holder getting in a firefight with someone? (insert sound of crickets here). Like it or not, 5% of Multnomah county residents have a CHL permit. By your logic, we should have a lot more folks getting shot.
>Mr. Jones, teacher at your kids' school was cleared of wrongdoing for shooting one of his pupils. "The kid was very belligerent and unreasonable and he pulled out something metallic. I thought it was a gun and shot him to prevent a violent rampage. Turns out it was his cell phone, but better safe than sorry."
No, not better safe than sorry, and that teacher wouldn't be cleared of wrongdoing. Under Oregon State Law, what that teacher did was illegal. He will go to jail, at *least* until the Grand Jury hears the case, and will probably end up in prison. No where in my post was I asking for a change in the way we approach defense and the way Oregon treats that defense. Having a CHL does not give someone a "Licence To Kill"...only being 007 does that. What it does give you is the ability to legally pack an effective tool. Period.
Additionally, if you are seriously concerned that teachers would be doing such things against students you might want to look into your screening process for those who are taking care of our children for 8 hours a day. That doesn't sound like any of the teachers I know, but perhaps you know some I don't.
>Now, if you want to talk about allowing a school guard to have some type of weapon(s), maybe pepper spray or a stun-gun, you'll get a much better response out of me.
No, No, No, and I will tell you why. Oregon law afford our folks the right to defend themselves and the folks under their care as long as certain conditions are met: If you are attacked with deadly force, and cannot get away, you are allowed to meet that deadly force with deadly force of your own. You first have to try to get away...barricade the door, hide, try to leave school (if it is safe). If those courses of action are not fruitful, then you are legally allowed to use deadly force to *remove the threat*. In other words: shooting them, whacking them over the head with a book, etc. If things have gotten to the point that lethal force is being considered, then things are already way out of hand, kids and adults are dying, and putting a bottle of aerosolized hotsauce and a hopped up cattle prod in the mix wouldn't be much of an effective tool. Don't get me wrong: Pepper spray is GREAT, but in a crowded lunchroom, it can have some ugly effect. Stun guns LOOK impressive, but sometimes have to be used 5 or 6 times to really STOP the assailant. Taser weapons (the kind the police use) miss, and have some of the same problems as stun guns.
If I was expected to stop a Columbine single handed, like THE school guard with a Taser--I have to assume we are talking about 1 per school here since we aren't looking for a prison to house our children in, and we can't afford a police officer in every room. I would want the most effective tool possible. Handgun vs. Taser. Fact: One has a distance of 25 yards or so (accurately), and the other about 12 feet. You tell ME who is going to win that battle. Additionally, if that security guard is armed with *anything*, they will be target #1 by the student shooter intent on a rampage. Kill the guard, and then get on with their business at the school.
Further, we have the issue of Less Lethals and abuse. Bear in mind, they aren't NON Lethals. People die from tasers, they die from pepper spray. But folks forget that these tools are not NON Lethals. They become some sort of punishment in the minds of the folks that carry them. Recently A suspect was taser'd in order to get him to give a urine sample. He gave it. Those things HURT. I *can* see a mentally ill teacher using a taser on a kid that they think might be bringing a gun to bear which turns out to be a cell phone. I can't see a teacher doing the same thing with a gun, and statistics seem to prove out my hunch. Look at the extreme incidents of tasering, and look at the lack of CHL involved shootings. you tell me which is safer.
Lastly, I wanna make a comment on Tools: You don't go to chop firewood wood with a paring knife. You don't go to make scrambled eggs with a toothpick, and you don't bring a knife to a (known) gunfight. You just don't. Do you give the teacher a room with no roof to teach school? Do you give them a mathbook without pages to teach algebra? No, you give them the whole book. You give them access to the tools that are appropriate for the job at hand. These people are are in charge of our CHILDREN. Our future. The mere fact we are having to discuss them bringing a toothpick to make scrambled eggs or a paring knife to chop firewood is ludicrous. You want them to defend YOUR child with a toothpick? A pencil?
Posted by: Kevin Sudbeck | Apr 10, 2005 8:32:44 AM
Talk about crazy. This from the liberal democrats. Will the teacher be required to join the NRA like they have to join the NEA? When I was a kid, we brought guns to school. But they stayed in the truck and we went hunting after school. But I guess southern Oregon is different from the north. Although we were immature, we were taught by our responsible parents that shooting someone was wrong.
As a military officer, who is responsible for an armed security force, what you suggest will result in deaths. In the military, the consequences for just losing a round is an article 15 hearing and revocation of their authorization to carry a weapon (ie they lose their job). There are not strict enough controls in place to accomplish this safely within a school system.
Additionally, just what I need is a liberal teacher indoctrinating my children with a weapon. No thanks. Years ago, I believe the Russians, Japanese and Germans showed the fallacy in this manner of education.
Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:48:31 AM
Oh... greaaaaat. Armed gym coaches. They would be the only ones who would actually bring them.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:49:14 AM
LT writes:
>And yet they could never be physically overpowered if they had a gun?
Two things, LT:
1. What kinda school is this that we have teachers being *overpowered* by students. If this is the state of education, can we go back to the drawing board.
2. Concealed is just that. Concealed. Hidden. Not open for view. If the kids KNOW you have it, the point is mute.
>How could 1 guard, even with a gun, have overpowered the 2 boys who shot up Columbine high school?
VERY good point. I doubt that one guard could have. But that *isn't* what I am suggesting here. Please reread what I wrote:
"A teacher who wisely locks the door to her room, has the kids get behind tipped over desks, and waits for help with her pistol drawn is the smart teacher."
What I *am* suggesting is that the teachers do the smart thing and bridge the gap between the time the shooting occurs and the time the police arrive in numbers.
and FWIW, Columbine wasn't stopped by the Police, Red Lake wasn't stopped by the Police. Neither was Springfield. Springfield was weird, tho...it was stopped by a bunch of kids that were smart and thought things through. I am asking that we do the same, before bullets start flying.
>Didn't the kid who did the Red Lake shooting steal his relative's gun and bullet proof vest?
Yes. Again, this isn't a 100% cure. I don't have that cure. You don't have that cure. What I am suggesting is that *in this scenario* we protect the maximum numbers of students possible with the most effective tools possible.
>I just don't see how allowing concealed weapons in public buildings (churches, schools) solves the problem of anyone willing to shoot up a place.
Well, how is the opposite working out for us? Shall we continue with our current course of action? How *many* deaths are acceptible to you? 30 a year? how about 5? how about 1? How long shall we sit still, not worrying about the effect this is having on our society? Kids worried about going to school, and their safety when they get there.
Oh, I don't ahve any illusions: this plan will not STOP all school shootings. don't get me wrong, there will undoubtedly be deaths when they occur (and we can all agree that they don't seem to be stopping). But at the moment we aren't doing anything to dissuade them from occuring.
>Would one armed guard have stopped a kid who had already killed his parents?
maybe. maybe not. we have no way of knowing one way or the other. A gun doesn't give someone mystical power. Any more than a hatchet or a machete. Or a pencil. It is a tool. What DID stop the shooters were kids that knew that sooner or later, Kinkel had to reload.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:56:38 AM
Tenskwatawa writes:
>Hear this: You are the one senseless in fear, that is your mental illness talking to you
Cicolini writes:
>This guy is a dangerous idiot who has perhaps seriously misread J. Swift.
Please have the decency to respond without personal insults. Belittling folks because they have put forward an idea isn't the type of discourse I am used to seeing from dinezens here.
I have not read J. Swift. But the Taser article is a good example of less-lethal abuse. Thanks for proving my point!
Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:57:48 AM
Here's a story for those of you considering arming ex-jocks...
"Ex-NFL Player Saw Siegfried, Roy As Threat
Sunday, April 10, 2005 8:47 a.m. ET
LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A former pro football player accused of shooting at the compound of Siegfried & Roy wanted to "warn the world" of the threat posed by the illusionists, according to a psychiatric report.
The evaluation was performed by psychiatrist Norton Roitman after Cole Ford was charged with firing several shotgun blasts at the Las Vegas home of entertainers Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn.
Ford, 32, a former kicker for the Oakland Raiders, has been ruled incompetent to stand trial and sent to a mental health facility for treatment.
Ford maintained he never intended to harm anyone and his actions were intended to "warn the world of the illusionists' unhealthy danger to them and to animals," according to the report published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
"While watching Siegfried and Roy, he had a sudden realization that what was wrong with the world was linked to the illusionists' treatment, dominance and unhealthy intimacy he saw them having with their animals," Roitman wrote.
Ford told Roitman that he thought the entertainers' contact with their animals was sexual and related to the development of viruses such as AIDS.
"He felt they threatened (the) world, and he began to figure out how he could stop them," Roitman said.
No one was hurt in the Sept. 21 drive-by shooting, but police said shotgun pellets shattered windows and left a hole in an outside wall at the magicians' home.
Roitman said Ford was not paranoid schizophrenic but had shown symptoms of the illness...."
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1016788&tw=wn_wire_story
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 9:05:43 AM
doretta writes:
>Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, it may be even more likely that with so many more guns in schools those guns themselves would end up being available for creating mischief--the most likely kind of mischief involving a gun being people getting shot.
I know it seems counter intuitive, but that just doesn't seem to be the case, Doretta. Comb through news reports and see if you see the RASH of shootings caused by the folks with CHL's. It just doesn't pan out number wise.
And we have to consider that there are ALREADY guns in schools. Cleveland has at least one police officer onsite most days when I drive by. so the guns are already there, but no mischief. Unfortunately, tho, we can't keep cops onsite 100% of the time.
While I would LOVE to disarm schools forever. I would personally love a magic machine that removes all firearms when everyone walks in the building. I am willing to fork over a months salary to anyone willing to invent that machine...any takers? Safe School rules only work when EVERYONE pays attention to those rules. Unfortunately, kids like Kinkel don't. When that happens they are the only ones with guns. No one else has the tools to defend themselves against them.
Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 9:21:31 AM
New Harvard University Study Shows Direct Link Between Gun Availability And Gun Death Among Children
Most Comprehensive Study Ever Conducted on Impact of Gun Availability Sends Simple Message: IT'S THE GUNS, STUPID
Louisiana Among Top Five in Nation in Gun Ownership—Louisiana Children More Likely to Die by Firearms Than Children in Low Gun Ownership States
WASHINGTON, DC—A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) shows that children, five to 14 years old, are dying at dramatically higher rates in states with more guns. The article, "Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5-14 Year Olds," appears in the current February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma.
[Editor's note: Remainder of copyrighted story deleted, and link inserted.]
Posted by: Trey | Apr 10, 2005 9:41:20 AM
Almost EVERY school shooting incident I've read about involves one or more students who were bullied and/or ostracized by other students. For me, THIS is the area that needs to be addressed -- adding more weapons to the mix doesn't mitigate this situation at all.
The point of any type of preventative action is to PREVENT the action BEFORE it has the opportunity to transpire. I think teachers should receive more specific training that will help them identify students who are being ostracized by their classmates and to work with these students on more appropriate ways to deal with their anger and feelings of rejection.
Allowing teachers to be armed addresses the situation too far along in the process. It's a strategy that points to the failure of educational staff toward addressing the situation BEFORE it becomes an unmanageable problem.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 10, 2005 10:29:17 AM
My son recently became a teacher. It is still a recent enough event that I remember the classes he took, and have seen his transcript. There is no class in gun safety on that transcript.
I would hope that teachers carry around respect, regard, and caring for their students - not guns.
Our schools, forced by the Federal Government, put into place an anti-weapon policy in the 1990's. Students were not allowed to carry even the smallest pocket knife, or nail clippers with that tiny 1.5 inch blade. Thurston / Kip Kinkle happened after that policy.
If making more and more and more rules in our society actually solved a problem, then the problems would have been solved long ago. That paradigm is worn out, tired, and pretty much pointless. Another rule can't solve this problem, in fact I fear teachers packing guns will make the problem of student deaths from fire arms worse not better.
What we have here is a complete buy into the Republican frame of reference on this problem. Ironically, their frame of reference is that this is a "gun" debate. The more accurate "frame of reference" is that this is a social services debate. What has happened in each one of these student outbursts with weapons in schools is that mentally unbalanced youth, who were in each case already known to the authorities as having problems, were given inadequate services. Kip had a juvenile record, but his probation officer had little time or resources for him. At least one of the boys in Colorado was known to the under staffed and overworked authorities. The boy in Minnesota was known to mental health folks - who only had time to throw medications at him. These events involving guns have underlying social system delivery issues that the Republicans would rather divert into a debate on guns.
And we fell into that trap.
Posted by: doretta | Apr 10, 2005 11:07:03 AM
JJ,
Have you seen anyone here ranting about the danger of CHLs in general? No, much to my surprise, you haven't.
Apparently it surprised you so much you decided to refute that argument anyway. Well, don't change the subject.
The statistics about CHLs in general are irrelevant. NO school-aged kid is the holder of a CHL. For good reasons, they don't give CHLs to anyone under 21. What you are talking about is introducing more guns into environments filled with school-aged kids.
Some of your arguments are simply ludicrous. Do you really think that over time it wouldn't be common knowledge among students who was packing and who wasn't? Some of their information might be wrong but it would be right often enough.
I've already granted you your central contention, Yes, when a mentally ill kid like Kip Kinkel gets a gun fixation and a death wish and takes firearms to school people are probably more likely to die in that school on that day if he has the only guns than would if the teachers were armed.
However, as has been pointed out, that ignores all the schools and all the other days of the year when that doesn't happen and ignores what introducing a lot more guns into them might cause. Those other days and other schools are many orders of magnitude more numerous.
Please don't presume you know more about the politics and the facts and figures of the CHL in Oregon than I do. Not only have I followed all that fairly closely for years, I have twice taken firearms training that meets the competency requirements for qualifying for a CHL in Oregon. There's been a CHL in my wallet since the early 90's.
Posted by: doretta | Apr 10, 2005 11:18:05 AM
Somehow I lost the last paragraph of my previous post.
It was:
I nevertheless question the wisdom of introducing more guns into the school environment.
Even more dangerous than the guns themselves is the idea that the way to solve the school shooting problem is to be able to shoot back. As Steve pointed out, that only leads us to paying even less attention to the solutions that should be our first choice. Armed teachers wouldn't have saved Kip's parents, more attention to the real issues might have.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 10, 2005 11:31:25 AM
Interesting that you bring up Beslan as an object lesson. One of the most tragic parts of that story is that it's believed armed civilians--ie, parents of the children--casued the final killings of the hostages--ie, their children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3634114.stm
This report doesn't mention it, but I have read others that attributed deaths of both children and law enforcement directly to armed civilians.
Fighting violence in schools with more guns is like fighting pregnancy in schools with porn.
Posted by: bungalowbill | Apr 10, 2005 11:35:15 AM
Finally someone with the courage- against overwhelming popular opinion, and in the face of logic- to argue for MORE GUNS IN THE CLASSROOM.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 1:49:30 PM
Trey writes:
>I agree with all the comments so far. This is an absolutely ludicrous idea. We don't need MORE weapons in schools, we need LESS.
And how do you proppose we accomplish this? We already have metal detectors at some schools, random locker searches, or in some cases, no lockers at all. We have zero tolerance policies that disallow nail clippers, asprin and handguns.
Again, if ya gots the magic machine that I want to see installed, the one that automagically disappears the firearms from everyone when the step in the door, pony up. Until then, we have open targets for any psychopath who wants to take out their grudge.
>Do you genuinely want to see headlines like this?
Do you really believe that those headlines are somehow *worse* than the ones we already see 3 or 4 times a year?
Do YOU want to be the person writing a headline that a CHL carrying teacher might have been able to stop the death of even one kid, but could do nothing cuz they didn't have their firearm on their person? Does that make a child any safer?
We can wring our hands and continue our present course, or do a radical change, give our teachers the tools to mitigate or stop the damage, and go from there. I am betting on the intelligence of our teachers.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 1:49:30 PM
Trey writes:
>I agree with all the comments so far. This is an absolutely ludicrous idea. We don't need MORE weapons in schools, we need LESS.
And how do you proppose we accomplish this? We already have metal detectors at some schools, random locker searches, or in some cases, no lockers at all. We have zero tolerance policies that disallow nail clippers, asprin and handguns.
Again, if ya gots the magic machine that I want to see installed, the one that automagically disappears the firearms from everyone when the step in the door, pony up. Until then, we have open targets for any psychopath who wants to take out their grudge.
>Do you genuinely want to see headlines like this?
Do you really believe that those headlines are somehow *worse* than the ones we already see 3 or 4 times a year?
Do YOU want to be the person writing a headline that a CHL carrying teacher might have been able to stop the death of even one kid, but could do nothing cuz they didn't have their firearm on their person? Does that make a child any safer?
We can wring our hands and continue our present course, or do a radical change, give our teachers the tools to mitigate or stop the damage, and go from there. I am betting on the intelligence of our teachers.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:10:39 PM
CC writes:
>The whole idea is.......... I'm not even sure of the word I'm looking for. Horrific. Absurd. Ludicrous. Stupid. A word that encompasses all of those words... that's the word I'm looking for.
Ok...so my idea is bad...what is yours?
>The threat is so incredibly minimal. Kids are in more danger on their way to and from school than they are AT school.
The problem we have with school schootings is that they get a lot more press than they should, right? I think we both agree as to the statistical improbability of a school shooting at the schools in our area. However, that does not absolve us of a responsibility to protect our young. We aren't doing that now.
> Should we arm all of the bank tellers, too?
Having never worked at a bank, I don't know if they do or don't. I *DO* know that most big banks have armed guards. Why is it that we protect our money more than we protect our children? (side note: this isn't germain to the topic at hand, but it *is* something I marvel at whenever I see armored cars and school buses side by side at a stop light).
>I'm not saying we should ignore high-risk students or pass off someone's threats or cry for help as teen angst.
We are LUCKY if someone even notices their cries for help. folks, we don't have the money in our schools to apply a solution like this. It just isn't there. We can pie in the sky all we want, but unless we start taking kids and putting them all on drugs, we can't anticipate every child's actions.
>Because when the teacher pulls out her little .22 pistol to defend herself and her students against a crazed student with a semi-automatic weapon...
What makes you think that the person who is carrying that mouse gun can't hit a penny at 10 yards? And is that teacher better off *NOT* having a gun and getting killed the same?
>There's nothing pretty about what happened in Minnesota, Columbine, Jonesboro, Springfield... and I'm sure most of us could name more. But adding more guns to the mix will not prevent the problem.
I agree 100%. I don't think it would prevent the problem. Not realistically. It might dissuade some kids from starting something, but the truth is:
>The student usually wants to die. It's suicide.
Perhaps we can shortcircuit some of the suffering of some of the parents. Or maybe even large-scale suffering. One can hope. It is clean *now*, however, that we are doing none of the above. plates of suffering all around due to inaction on our part.
>Somehow each of these kids managed to get ahold of guns in the first place! Kids aren't supposed to get guns. THAT's a problem that needs fixing.
When you figure out how to stuff 1/2 the households in the USA back into the stone age, gimme a call. there are enough firearms out there that we won't be doing that in the next 200 years at the inside. Short of a constitutional rewrite (and we can see how THAT would leave us), we are stuck with guns, and most likely with children having access to guns. We would be foolish to not plan for that eventuality.
>These problems are also waaaaaaaaaay more prevolent than guns/shootings.
Hey, you are talking to the youngest ever safer sex education from Willamette AIDS Council. I was teaching kids about condom use and how to clean their "works" back when I was 15 years old. But that isn't germaine to the SB's in the mix this legislative session.
>The more I think about it the more I'm hoping you're just playing devil's advocate... because I just can't see how you'd think this is a good idea.
I am waiting for you good idea. Keep in mind it has to be free (or very, very cheap), can't trample the rights of our students, and must be consistently applicable for both rural and urban environments.
Posted by: David Wright | Apr 10, 2005 2:18:47 PM
Seems to me that people here are missing the point that JJ Ark has been making. What I take as the argument in favor is:
- School shootings happen
- In the event of a school shooting, a person with a gun has a better chance of defending him or herself than a person without a gun
- Some teachers have permits to carry concealed weapons
- Those teachers who have qualified to carry a concealed weapon, if allowed to do so on school grounds, could help save students' lives
This does not sound to me like it was offered as a solution to school shootings, simply that it was offered as a way to improve the odds of survival for those who are fortunate enough to have a weapon available for defense in the event of a school shooting.
Those who complain that this wouldn't prevent school shootings might just as well complain about aspirin since it doesn't prevent headaches. The point in this case is not to prevent it from happening, but to deal with it effectively once it does happen.
There would seem to be some deterrent effect as well, knowing that any teacher might be packing could cause a malicious student to think harder about his decision than the current situation where he would know that nobody in school is supposed to be packing. Take out your frustrations against people who can't shoot back, or against people who might shoot back? It seems to me that the common link between all of these shootings, apart from mentally unbalanced kids of course, is that these are punitive measures the kids take to "get back" at perceived wrongs. It's about the power of having a gun and the power to take someone's life. It's about control. But if the other person also has a gun, then you lose some of your control.
Of course, as I said, these kids are obviously unbalanced in the first place, so expecting them to consider their actions rationally may be a bit much. In which case, we get back to the point that it's going to happen anyway, what can we do when it does happen?
I've seen many complaints in this thread about putting more guns in the classroom, putting guns in the hands of unqualified teachers, etc. All of which seem to miss the point that this is not about putting guns in the hands of unqualified teachers. It's about allowing teachers who already have guns and are qualified to use them to carry those guns in school.
The article about gun deaths among children was frankly irrelevant. Places with more guns have more gun-related [insert anything you'd like right here]? Well, duh. Add more of anything, you'll get more of whatever's related to that thing. But I'd be curious to see what, if anything, that study had to say about the environment in which the gun was kept. The classic tragedy is the kid finding his parents' gun when they're not at home, and accidentally shooting himself or another kid. That's one scenario. How many kids are involved in accidental shooting deaths or homicides with "dad's gun", when dad is home and has the gun on his person?
The cry of "oh no, more guns in the classroom!" sounds a bit like we'd be tossing a couple of pistols in the middle of each room, just to see what would happen. We're talking about responsible adults, who have already proven themselves qualified, keeping a weapon on their person.
Now, having said all of that... I'm not advocating for this idea. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it. But I just saw a whole lot of arguments against the idea that weren't really relevant and just went to the emotional GUNS ARE BAD theme without really addressing the specifics of this plan.
I do agree that more should be done to try to prevent these school shootings from happening in the first place. But until we eliminate them entirely, it does make sense to me to also address effective measures for dealing with them when they do occur.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:24:23 PM
Kevin Sudbeck writes:
>Talk about crazy. This from the liberal democrats.
I pride myself on being a left libertarian, actually.
>Will the teacher be required to join the NRA like they have to join the NEA?
Good lord, I hope not. I don't like the NRA. I am not actually asking that we *require* anything. That seems to be misinterpreted here. I am not asking for a seperate review panel, nor a membership, nor anything other than what the teacher already has. If they have a CHL, they are permitted to bring it to school. End of story.
>But I guess southern Oregon is different from the north.
You know, southern Oregon *is* different, but that isn't what we are talking about here. We aren't talking about a massive takedown, we are talking about a teacher bridging the gap between indident and police response.
>Although we were immature, we were taught by our responsible parents that shooting someone was wrong.
Same here. I don't wanna shoot nobody. No how. I don't wanna go to jail, I don't wanna have the nightmares, and I don't wanna see the effects. Plain and simple. Now, can we figure out a way to bottle that feeling and make it pervasive...sort of put it in the air conditioning or something? It would be nice for a change.
>As a military officer, who is responsible for an armed security force, what you suggest will result in deaths.
With all due respect to you service to our country, I am not suggesting an armed security force. We can't afford it, sad to say. We are not willing to spend the money, and frankly, I don't wanna see our kids go to school in a prison behind locked doors and windows, with 15 foot high fences. I am suggesting we let the folks who go about the daily activities legally carrying a firearm for personal defense carry that same firearm at work. In this case, the work is with our children. I don't want to see fireteams and room clearing exercises. That is for professionals such as yourself. I want to see teachers given access to a tool that may save lives.
>There are not strict enough controls in place to accomplish this safely within a school system.
Dude! These folks carry EVERY DAY. I don't see reports flooding in of folks losing their firearm in the grocery store, or leaving them on the max. Indeed, in my years of living, I have "made" one person with a firearm, and that is only because his fanny pack broke, and the barrel was peaking out.
>Additionally, just what I need is a liberal teacher indoctrinating my children with a weapon. No thanks. Years ago, I believe the Russians, Japanese and Germans showed the fallacy in this manner of education.
Do you honestly believe that we would have teachers instructing down the barrel of a gun? Are you serious? If you think that is the case, you might need to look at your teacher selection process my friend.
Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 10, 2005 2:32:19 PM
#
...respond without personal insults. Belittling folks because they have put forward an idea isn't the type of discourse I am used to seeing from dinezens here.
You're right in your faith that good denizens speak to you as a friend, and when that faith is rewarded you need to heed what friends have to say, just in respect for yourself as being worthy of trusting in your sensibility. The thoughtlessness that tosses away anything contradicting you, is thoughtlessness for your better self.
The 'idea' is nonsense, a non-starter, dead on announcement. It's like someone saying hey there's a cash shortage around here, let's go rob a bank. Ain't even going to get a discussion on it, but there is to discuss how serious you are, and how often you 'think' such things -- we should talk about it: your mental rocks, not the dust cloud emitted when they collide in your head.
It is not a personal insult when you're broken and somebody points out that you're broken. It's a diagnosis. Really, there are knowledgeable professionals trained to spot such aberrations and call them like they are. Not that I am so professional at it, but I have cred enough on the easy calls that I can play one on the blog. Seriously, there is medication for psychopathological, dissociated, paralyzing fear; and you should have your degree of it checked.
#
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:32:59 PM
afs writes in multiple posts:
>Oh... greaaaaat. Armed gym coaches. They would be the only ones who would actually bring them.
actually, I don't see many coaches being armed. working out with a weapon *concealed* isn't very easy to do. gets in the way when you are doing situps.
Of course, I don't *have* a CHL. I am just guessing that that small of back holster wouldn't be comfy in the pool.
>Here's a story for those of you considering arming ex-jocks...
"Ex-NFL Player Saw Siegfried, Roy As Threat
Ummm...is that a new proposed law? No arming ex jocks? Well, at least I don't have to worry about that one.
>New Harvard University Study Shows Direct Link Between Gun Availability And Gun Death Among Children
I am sorry if you got the impression that we were going to be creating armories in the schools. That isn't the case. I don't think that would be very useful. The state can't afford to, and isn't about to accept that liability. The guns are NOT going to be available for use "hmmm...its time for math class! I think I will be the 30.06 hunting rifle!".
Posted by: jj Ark | Apr 10, 2005 2:42:17 PM
Trey writes:
>For me, THIS is the area that needs to be addressed -- adding more weapons to the mix doesn't mitigate this situation at all.
An ounce of prevention? I like that thinking. I am not seeing it take place, but I wouldn't object to seeing more prevention. I am worried tho, that prevention seems to be a disposable cost center: We don't have money for intervention, so we will just give the kids some speed (ritalin) and hope for the best. It was trending that way when I graduated high school and got much much worse when my brother and sister graduated 8 years after me.
>Allowing teachers to be armed addresses the situation too far along in the process. It's a strategy that points to the failure of educational staff toward addressing the situation BEFORE it becomes an unmanageable problem.
I agree 100%. WAY too far in the process. But by the time that teacher is forced to hide out with children in a classroom from a shooter, that very process is irrevocably broken. We must consider how best to get the maximum number of children out safely from that situation. Discussing only Prevention is 1 part of the solution. We also must discuss Response. I am sorry, but if the Response we have selected is a bunch of handwritten letters to parents expressing our sorrow at their loss, that is simply not good enough. We owe it to our next generation to do better than that. I am open to ideas.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:08:44 PM
Steve Bucknum writes:
>My son recently became a teacher.
My Dad too. So is my StepMother and my SisterinLaw.
>There is no class in gun safety on that transcript.
Well, I am not sure how many universities require it in order to graduate. But in order to carry a concealed handgun in the State of Oregon (in a school or out of a school), he has to take a class in just that. I am sure he can find one. Call the Sherriff's office. They are usually quite happy to help.
>I would hope that teachers carry around respect, regard, and caring for their students - not guns.
Me too, actually. I don't envision everyone toting guns on their hips like an old western (or firefly for the sci fi fans among us). Won't work, too confrontational, and frankly, inciteful. I have a feeling that only 1 or two teachers per school would *EVER* avail themselves of this failure of SB's. But that is potentially 30-60 students (or 35-70 students given modern class sizes) that would be protected if the systems broke down and the unthinkeable happened.
>Our schools, forced by the Federal Government,
I didn't hear anyone complaining at that time. Indeed, the NRA was weirdly silent, if memory serves (and I don't like the NRA, so I tend to ignore them, so I may be wrong.)
>If making more and more and more rules in our society actually solved a problem, then the problems would have been solved long ago. That paradigm is worn out, tired, and pretty much pointless. Another rule can't solve this problem, in fact I fear teachers packing guns will make the problem of student deaths from fire arms worse not better.
Please reread what I wrote. I am NOT asking for another rule. Quite the opposite: remove a rule. Let the folks who are already given more stringent background checks than most teachers (and have passed the legal requirements *already in place*) carry their firearms *concealed* if they so choose. Not mandate one way or the other. We trust these folks with our kids, we trust them to fill their minds with information, we trust their safety to them. Why don't we give them the sharpest tools to do the job?
>What we have here is a complete buy into the Republican frame of reference on this problem. Ironically, their frame of reference is that this is a "gun" debate.
Nope. Wrongo. This isn't a debate about "guns". It is a debate about people and tools. We could change the name of the tool to reflect Rwanda and call them machetes. Or the cutlass. You want the only people to have that cutlass in school to be the bad guy. Becuase you find that cutlass to be an instrument of evil, only those who are evil have them. Ironically, you have no problem relying on other men to bear your cutlass, but you wouldn't have mere instructors weild that cutlass to defend your children against those who would hack them bits.
>The more accurate "frame of reference" is that this is a social services debate. What has happened in each one of these student outbursts with weapons in schools is that mentally unbalanced youth, who were in each case already known to the authorities as having problems, were given inadequate services.
And will continue to do so. Again: we aren't devoting the resources to solving these problems, we won't be any time soon, and as such, we have to consider both prevention and response. You would respond with a shrug of shoulders and handwritten letters. I want to respond with tools in (judged by the state already) competent hands.
>These events involving guns have underlying social system delivery issues that the Republicans would rather divert into a debate on guns.
I am not a republican. I haven't voted republican since...er...er...I think I voted for hatfield the first year I voted. I voted for kerry, wrote in dean, and so on. calling into question my political history is an interesting tactic, but frankly, I would expect a bit better of a smear. If you don't *like* what I have to say, fair enough, but if you are gonna smear me, you gotta do better than shouting "Republican" in a crowded Country Fair.
Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 10, 2005 3:10:38 PM
#
And, in the end, the bullets you take is equal to the bullets you make.
If you want to go backwards that way. Long long way. Short dock. Just leave our children behind, they're aiming to the future.
#
Posted by: Edward | Apr 10, 2005 3:16:13 PM
This whole proposal strikes me as a back door method to change the rules for CHL holders. Currently, a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon can do just that -- carry a concealed weapon anywhere s/he goes -- except where specifically prohibited. That means: schools, courts, and the peace-nick vegetarian restaurant down on the corner that have rules against carrying can expect Concealed Handgun Licensees to not carry their weapons in those places.
I like the current rule.
JJ Ark's proposal would create a fundamental change to CHL rules, allowing a person to carry a weapon anywhere and, ... dare I say it, contemplates infringing on private property rights.
If you want for your local school to allow its CHL teachers and other CHL visitors to the school to carry their weapons, go ahead and propose it to your local school board and have the debate. My understanding is that they currently have that power. What I really disagree with is taking away the decision making power of local schools.
And, by the way, just where are these CHL teachers and school administrators? Can we get one of them to speak up and go on record as either for or against this proposal?
This is clearly a solution in search of a problem, a rhetorical trick to give CHL holders more rights than they currently have based on the fear of school violence.
And JJ, I did read your article. And you're right, I overstepped. My bad. Let me rephrase what I said initially: The inherent dangers of ANY teacher (even a CHL teacher) packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution.
And lastly, please, everyone who reads these posts and feels strongly about the issue, continue the discussion by contacting your elected representatives in state government and tell them how you feel about the issue.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:19:38 PM
Steve Bucknum writes:
>My son recently became a teacher.
My Dad too. So is my StepMother and my SisterinLaw.
>There is no class in gun safety on that transcript.
Well, I am not sure how many universities require it in order to graduate. But in order to carry a concealed handgun in the State of Oregon (in a school or out of a school), he has to take a class in just that. I am sure he can find one. Call the Sherriff's office. They are usually quite happy to help.
>I would hope that teachers carry around respect, regard, and caring for their students - not guns.
Me too, actually. I don't envision everyone toting guns on their hips like an old western (or firefly for the sci fi fans among us). Won't work, too confrontational, and frankly, inciteful. I have a feeling that only 1 or two teachers per school would *EVER* avail themselves of this failure of SB's. But that is potentially 30-60 students (or 35-70 students given modern class sizes) that would be protected if the systems broke down and the unthinkeable happened.
>Our schools, forced by the Federal Government,
I didn't hear anyone complaining at that time. Indeed, the NRA was weirdly silent, if memory serves (and I don't like the NRA, so I tend to ignore them, so I may be wrong.)
>If making more and more and more rules in our society actually solved a problem, then the problems would have been solved long ago. That paradigm is worn out, tired, and pretty much pointless. Another rule can't solve this problem, in fact I fear teachers packing guns will make the problem of student deaths from fire arms worse not better.
Please reread what I wrote. I am NOT asking for another rule. Quite the opposite: remove a rule. Let the folks who are already given more stringent background checks than most teachers (and have passed the legal requirements *already in place*) carry their firearms *concealed* if they so choose. Not mandate one way or the other. We trust these folks with our kids, we trust them to fill their minds with information, we trust their safety to them. Why don't we give them the sharpest tools to do the job?
>What we have here is a complete buy into the Republican frame of reference on this problem. Ironically, their frame of reference is that this is a "gun" debate.
Nope. Wrongo. This isn't a debate about "guns". It is a debate about people and tools. We could change the name of the tool to reflect Rwanda and call them machetes. Or the cutlass. You want the only people to have that cutlass in school to be the bad guy. Becuase you find that cutlass to be an instrument of evil, only those who are evil have them. Ironically, you have no problem relying on other men to bear your cutlass, but you wouldn't have mere instructors weild that cutlass to defend your children against those who would hack them bits.
>The more accurate "frame of reference" is that this is a social services debate. What has happened in each one of these student outbursts with weapons in schools is that mentally unbalanced youth, who were in each case already known to the authorities as having problems, were given inadequate services.
And will continue to do so. Again: we aren't devoting the resources to solving these problems, we won't be any time soon, and as such, we have to consider both prevention and response. You would respond with a shrug of shoulders and handwritten letters. I want to respond with tools in (judged by the state already) competent hands.
>These events involving guns have underlying social system delivery issues that the Republicans would rather divert into a debate on guns.
I am not a republican. I haven't voted republican since...er...er...I think I voted for hatfield the first year I voted. I voted for kerry, wrote in dean, and so on. calling into question my political history is an interesting tactic, but frankly, I would expect a bit better of a smear. If you don't *like* what I have to say, fair enough, but if you are gonna smear me, you gotta do better than shouting "Republican" in a crowded Country Fair.
Posted by: cc | Apr 10, 2005 3:23:26 PM
Ok...so my idea is bad...what is yours?
There's a saying that you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. (An even catchier INXS lyric that goes "You're part of the solution or part of the problem - you're gonna have to dance with one." Anyway... The thing is that your idea would not be part of the solution. It would only serve to enhance the problem. You may think it's a solution, but it's not.
I, unfortunately, do not have any ideas for school shooting defense - that would make me part of the problem as well. But at least from my vantage point, I'm not adding fuel to the fire. I'm not worsening the problem. There will not be another life lost in a shooting because there was access to more guns, more bullets... because the idea of someone taking defensive action against shooters would make the student angrier causing him (or her) to shoot more people.
My best idea would be metal detectors but they cost money - money we don't have. Huh... funny how just about everything can go back to the lack of funding for education. More money for education means more teachers - smaller class sizes - the ability for a teacher or counselor to actually spot problem children before they bust into the school with a sawed-off shotgun that they got - already loaded - from their grandpa's unlocked gun cabinet.
The thing is we don't need school shooting DEFENSE we need a good OFFENSE. An offense we simply can't afford.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:42:06 PM
Doretta:
>Have you seen anyone here ranting about the danger of CHLs in general? No, much to my surprise, you haven't.
No, I haven't but folks haven't seemed to get the point (now made by David Wright) that it isn't armed vigilates we are letting into the schools, but rather folks who have already been licensed by the State to carry their weapons around little children. No harm has yet to befall them.
Or maybe they *have* gotten the point, and trust the CHL holders less than the teachers. In either case, this isn't a change in subject. They are clearly related.
>The statistics about CHLs in general are irrelevant. NO school-aged kid is the holder of a CHL.
The statistics about CHLs are relevant. These are the folks I am suggesting we allow to carry their guns. I am not suggesting, nor would I ever suggest we allow kids to bring their guns to school (although clearly some are).
>What you are talking about is introducing more guns into environments filled with school-aged kids.
Yes, we agree on that front. However, the point has been made by others that I am not suggesting tossing 4 pistols into every room, or creating an armory. Indeed, I am not sure that *any* teachers would avail themselves of this change.
>Some of your arguments are simply ludicrous. Do you really think that over time it wouldn't be common knowledge among students who was packing and who wasn't? Some of their information might be wrong but it would be right often enough.
Often enough for what? To mark the teachers at the top of their hit list? To kill first? Fair 'nuff. That would be an issue. But they *already* make hit lists. They already mark certain teachers as the first to go, regardless of whether or not that teacher has any ability to defend themselves.
The point is that once the bullets fly, all the fancy rules and all the careful and hard work of prevention go out the window, and the cops are 5-10 mins away. Do we want to leave the teachers without effective tools to defend themselves and their students for that period of time? That is our current course of action. *I* don't wanna have to write the letters to the parents.
>However, as has been pointed out, that ignores all the schools and all the other days of the year when that doesn't happen and ignores what introducing a lot more guns into them might cause. Those other days and other schools are many orders of magnitude more numerous.
Doretta: what sort of activities will this cause? Riots? Student takeovers? Robbery? Assault? I am still waiting to hear the kind of mayhem this is likely to cause. History hasn't proven this out. Look at Israel. There aren't a lot of student takeovers in the schools and a LOT of teachers there carry their firearms daily*
I agree that there is a potential for abuse, but most folks would be abusing others by the time that they became teachers, and that is why the CHL has federal, state, and local background checks: to catch that sort of abuse pattern before the person gets their CHL, and is given permission to travel amongst innocents with lethal force in their front pocket.
>Please don't presume you know more about the politics and the facts and figures of the CHL in Oregon than I do.
I wouldn't dream of it. I don't know everything...I have said so repeatedly here. I certainly don't know more than most firearms owners in the state. Heck, I don't even HAVE a CHL.
>I have twice taken firearms training that meets the competency requirements for qualifying for a CHL in Oregon.
Me too. Interesting class.
*I have been hesitatant to use this example because most of the folks that carry at school in Israel do so openly, and that is not what I am suggesting here.
Posted by: Tenskwatawa | Apr 10, 2005 3:43:00 PM
#
Beatles - The continuing story of bungalow bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
He went out tiger hunting with his elephant and gun
In case of accidents he always took his mom
He's the all American bullet-headed saxon mother's son.
Hey,Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
Deep in the jungle where the mighty tiger lies
Bill and his elephants were taken by surprise
So Captian Marvel zapped in right between the eyes
All the chidren sing
Hey Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
The children asked him if to kill was not a sin
Not when he looked so fierce, his mother butted in
If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him
All the children sing
Hey,Bungalow Bill
What did you kill
Bungalow Bill?
It is the disfigured one who does damage to all, by aiming to fix an evil at the wrong end of the gun.
#
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:50:21 PM
Torridjoe writes:
>This report doesn't mention it, but I have read others that attributed deaths of both children and law enforcement directly to armed civilians.
I hadn't seen that before. It doens't surprise me, tho. A Lot of the problem in beslan was that law enforcement and officials were in on the deal (tho they didn't realize what their collusion was accomplishing).
>Fighting violence in schools with more guns is like fighting pregnancy in schools with porn.
So when the bullets are flying, and the kids are literally dying, your solution is?????
I see that the current solution is wait for the police. Of course that is the wisest move. The Police have three things that the armed civilian does not (or cannot have): lots of ammo, lots of people, and radios to coordinate both. But what about between the first time 911 is called, and the time that the police amass enough officers to sweep the building? How long? 5-10 mins? 30?
It is bothersome to me that so many of us are willing to write off those kids that will be shot in those minutes. We can't save everyone...it is foolish to try, I have questions as to whether that is the best idea on the table. So far, it seems to be the only one.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 3:54:28 PM
bbungalowbill writes:
>Finally someone with the courage- against overwhelming popular opinion, and in the face of logic- to argue for MORE GUNS IN THE CLASSROOM.
Not really, no. I am not suggesting that *any* one bring their firearms to school. Indeed, I think it best that they NOT do so. I am suggesting that they be *allowed* to do so. If you arent quite sure what I mean, please reread my post.
Posted by: jj ark | Apr 10, 2005 4:34:23 PM
David Wright wrote:
>this does not sound to me like it was offered as a solution to school shootings, simply that it was offered as a way to improve the odds of survival for those who are fortunate enough to have a weapon available for defense in the event of a school shooting.
Holy toledo, I wish it was. If it was the solution I would have discovered the rosetta stone! No. This is a stopgap measure until more people with more ammo and radios can show up.
Look, the thought of a single teacher (even an overly aggressive gym teacher) hunting down 2, 4, 6 hopped up kids in the halls of a school with 2 clips of 8 rounds in a 1911 is enough to give anyone pause. That isn't what I am suggesting. I want to toss the kids and teachers a safety bone. Give them a chance in the time between the shots are fired and the calvary shows up. No body says "hunt these kids down, and kill them".
I will tell you what got me thinking about this. The security guard in Red Lake. Not the first one, but the second one. The first one heard the buzzer on the metal detector go off. When he confronted the kid, the kid shot him out of hand. The second security guard apparently didn't hear the buzzer, but *did* hear the gunshot that killed the first guard. She was powerless to stop what was rolling towards her, and most importantly towards the kids that she was employed to (and probably felt was her duty) to protect. She was sent into a gunfight without even a knife.
Then there are the teachers. My dad is a teacher. He cares very much for "his kids". I can't imagine the frustration knowing that someTHING is coming down the hallway, and you have nothing with which to stop it from taking those lives of those kids behind you. Nothing at all. You KNOW at that moment that kids will die, and you have no tools to defend yourself effectively.
>The point in this case is not to prevent it from happening, but to deal with it effectively once it does happen.
Hey, the more prevention, the better. Honestly. Look, if my plan is EVER used, we have failed our students. Horribly. Shame on us. But we cannot plan for nothing but blue skies and lollipops. We have to plan for the worst, and then work to prevent the same.
> But if the other person also has a gun, then you lose some of your control.
I actually think they lose that fish in a barrel attitude. In other words, it ceases to be a video game.
> In which case, we get back to the point that it's going to happen anyway, what can we do when it does happen?
Well, a good number of folks here either think it A. won't happen (and I hope they are right), or B. that a certain amount of death is worth the price. As my mother would say, "vale la pena". I happen to think we should not accept any price, or take the lowest price offered, but apparently I am in the minority.
>IIt's about allowing teachers who already have guns and are qualified to use them to carry those guns in school.
Thank you. I °tried* to get this across, but apparently, I failed. Oh, well, there goes my career in politics (snort, yeah right...who is gonna elect ME?).
>I do agree that more should be done to try to prevent these school shootings from happening in the first place. But until we eliminate them entirely, it does make sense to me to also address effective measures for dealing with them when they do occur.
Gimme a plan! I am open to suggestions. All I have heard so far is to rally the wagons, close off the options, and hide in the statistical ratios in the ferverent hope that it Won't Happen Here.
Posted by: Randy2 | Apr 10, 2005 4:49:42 PM
JJ Ark:
What is the state screening/training process on CHL?
Years ago I went through the process and recall a 2 - 4 hour training class on gun safety and a mutiple choice test on the CHL law.
Suggesting that state licensing automatically makes CHL holders into wiser gun users is difficult to get behind if I don't know that that entails.
Posted by: JJ Ark | Apr 10, 2005 4:54:47 PM
Edward writes:
This whole proposal strikes me as a back door method to change the rules for CHL holders.
Funny...I don't have a CHL. I don't see lars teaching school children any time soon. I keep looking around and don't see folks clamoring for this change, CHL or otherwise. Backdoor? I am kinda coming in the front door, actually.
I am knocking on your teeth, really. As front as you can get. I am giving an issue that folks throw their hands up at, and offering up a stopgap measure. Something that may work.
>That means: schools, courts, and the peace-nick vegetarian restaurant down on the corner that have rules against carrying can expect Concealed Handgun Licensees to not carry their weapons in those places.
Stated in my post, yes. Although you left out jails, Lloyd Center, my place of employ, and my moms house.
>I like the current rule.
Cool! I don't think its very effective, but it hasn't been that much of an issue, has it? In all seriousness...when was the last time you saw them taking down folks at the courthouse at gunpoint, or trying to visit their cousin at the jail with a 38 in their pocket.
>JJ Ark's proposal would create a fundamental change to CHL rules, allowing a person to carry a weapon
anywhere and, ... dare I say it, contemplates infringing on private property rights.
Nope. My rule change (it isn't even in ORS code...yet), would not be a fundemental change. It would be removing the legal carry restrictions on school property. Heck, they are actually changing the law this session. As far as private property...huh??? Look, I am all for protesting all you want, but property owners have a right to their own property. simple nuff.
>What I really disagree with is taking away the decision making power of local schools.
Well why didn't you SAY so, Edward?!?!?! I am all for local control! Wait. SB353. Hmmm...I assume you oppose that bill then? It DOES take away local control.
>And, by the way, just where are these CHL teachers and school administrators? Can we get one of them to speak up and go on record as either for or against this proposal?
That is a long story, not in scope for this post, so I won't bore you. You can find records of it, or ask around salem where the hearing was NOT held...hmmmm.
>This is clearly a solution in search of a problem, a rhetorical trick to give CHL holders more rights than they currently have based on the fear of school violence.
I don't even have a CHL. I wouldn't be effected by this one way or the other. I want our children to have a fighting chance. I am still trying to figure out how you expect the teacher to defend your kids against guns with...er...pencils? Pens? Long rulers?
>The inherent dangers of ANY teacher (even a CHL teacher) packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution.
and those inherent dangers are????? Please share your fears with me. I keep hearing of these dangers, but haven't seen them yet.
>And lastly, please, everyone who reads these posts and feels strongly about the issue, continue the discussion by contacting your elected representatives in state government and tell them how you feel about the issue.
Please do. While you are at it, tho ask those same representatives what the plans *are* for this issue. How *DO* they respond to a beslan or a springfield? I am afraid you won't like what you hear.
Posted by: Steve Bucknum | Apr 10, 2005 5:55:38 PM
JJ - I was going to email you this privately, but your JJ Ark email address won't pull up off the screen for that purpose.
You really seem all hot and bothered about this issue. Well, I guess you have a right to get hot and bothered from time-to-time. Out of my prior comments you pulled out that I was accusing you of being a Republican, etc. etc. Not.
My "accusation" is that you have bought into a frame of reference sponsored by the Republicans.
In reality, gun violence in our schools is rare, and it really hasn't changed much over the years. On the day that Martin Luther King was assassinated there was an incident with a gun at the High School I was in (Jefferson H.S. in North Portland Oregon). No one was hurt, but still. This is not an increasing social problem.
You make the point that you are advocating a rule change/removal not a new rule. Okay, got me there. But my point stands: New rules, old rules, changed rules - rules don't fix problems. This paradigm that somehow a rule on a written page fixs a social problem is - stand back and hold your breath - nuts!
We don't solve social problems with rules, we just change how we react to them.
Again, you have bought into a Republican sponsored paradigm: Part one - violence at schools is on the increase and they are now dangerous places. Part two - kids with guns is a new social menace. Part three - guns is the issue (never mind that man behind the curtain). Part four - since guns is the issue, something to do about guns is the solution. Part five - if you shoot someone before they shoot you or someone else, that is a "solution".
No, I'm not saying you are a Republican, only that you are hypnotised by their world view, and respond from it.
The Republicans have pulled the rug out from under the support systems parents used to have to deal with kids with problems. Mental Health and Juvenile services at all levels have been cut, to the point in many cases of ineffectiveness. Each one of these incidents with kids with guns in the last 10 years, EACH ONE, has a direct connection to an underlying social services cut.
A key concept in working on solutions to social problems, one that has stood the test of time for not just generations, but for thousands of years, is "DO NO HARM". Your proposal fails that test.
There are many options to solve the "problem" of troubled youth. Shooting them, as you propose, is I think one at the bottom of the barrel.
I often times think that when I talk with other Democrats and liberals, I agree with them in at least 90% of our world view. Now, you have me doubting that.
Posted by: Terry | Apr 10, 2005 7:17:45 PM
"Not open carry, with is quasi-legal, but dubious in the intelligence department---kinda like a big "hey, mug me!" sign."
Really JJ? How many law officers have been mugged?
Especially since more are woman and there are more single patrols today.
So, when muggers see someone openly carrying a gun, they smile and start stalking for the opportunity to jump the person? Really? Especially, when they know if they don't get the surprise, there is a good chance they will be shot dead or worse, severely wounded and thus caught and thus jail time.
You make no sense.
Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 7:53:04 PM
JJ Ark: All your arguments depend on the ludicrous proposition that being handed a CHL instantly turns the holder of a CHL into some Jackie Chan gun-fu master. In real life, it takes years of constant training for an individual to be capable of wearing a gun in an environment in which they have to be constantly vigilant of having their weapon taken from them. I'm not half so worried about the very rare threat of a Columbine-type situation. There's a greater chance of kids being hit by lightning... twice. What I worry about is a kid getting depressed after being picked on, grabbing a gun off a teacher not paying attention, and blowing their brains out in the bathroom. That's a real threat. Far more real than any of the rantings of a gun extremists like JJ Ark. See that Harvard study? It proves that the presence of guns is the problem... no matter who is initially in possession of a weapon, the mere presence of guns instantly multiplies the risk of greater violence.
JJ Ark, don't come back here to discuss any of this until you are prepared to discuss only having highly trained individuals carrying weapons into a school. Anybody else is just someone who be eventually shown on camera crying about a dead child on the news because they thought they were paying enough attention to their holster, but were tragically wrong.
Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:00:07 PM
Police Killed With Their Own Guns
by Jaime Adame
September, 2004
"New York City Police Detectives Robert Parker and Patrick Rafferty were shot and killed in East Flatbush on September 10th, allegedly after a suspect, Marlon Legere, 28, grabbed Parker’s gun and used it to shoot both detectives several times at close range.
It is a scenario that, while not commonplace, happens with enough frequency to alarm law enforcement professionals nationwide. Last year, 10 police officers were shot and killed in the United States after a suspect managed to get control of an officer’s weapon. Nearly one in five officers killed as part of a crime last year were shot with their own (or a partner’s) weapon, according to the National Center for Law Enforcement Technology - the highest number of such deaths in 18 years.
New York has been fortunate to have few of these incidents. Before this month’s shooting, the last incident of an officer being killed with his own weapon occurred in the city in 1998. Still, the recent deaths reinforce the danger of being a cop in New York and raise questions about how to best protect officers in the future.
Training and Equipment
So far this year five officers in the U.S. have been shot and killed with their own weapons, including Parker and Rafferty.
One way to address the issue is through regular training. All New York police officers attend mandatory defensive tactics training sessions twice a year that help officers prepare for a variety of violent encounters with suspects. The sessions, which usually last about a day, focus in part on weapon retention.
Even with substantial training, however, the danger is always present. To further protect officers, safety holsters – gun holders with a variety of mechanisms to help “lock” a gun in place – began to be developed in the 1970s. However there are trade-offs: Features that make it more difficult to disarm an officer can also slow down an officer’s ability to draw.
And while uniformed patrol officers in New York routinely wear such safety holsters, plain-clothes detectives wear holsters that are easier to conceal. Police say Parker was wearing an off-duty hip holster, which typically does not have safety features. Neither Parker nor Rafferty were wearing bulletproof vests when they were shot.
New Gun Technology
Recognizing the need to protect officers from being shot with their own weapons, the federal government has spent millions of dollars in research on personalized weapons that can only be fired by their owner.
Ideas range from a ring worn by the user that unlocks the weapon to sophisticated biometric sensors designed to recognize a gun owner's grip. But the reliable technology still remains years away.
Even if “safer” guns are ever mass-produced and sold, they may not meet the demands of law enforcement. New Jersey passed a law in 2002 that will make user-recognition technology mandatory once it’s developed, but law enforcement officers were specifically excluded from the law. Police are understandably unwilling to carry a weapon they believe may not fire when they need it.
Not A Capital Case
Under New York's death penalty law, anyone who murders a police officer can face the death penalty.
But in June, New York highest court ruled that the state's death penalty law was flawed and could not be imposed. Until the State Legislature adopts an amended law, prosecutors and defense lawyers argue that there is effectively a moratorium on capital cases.
Police union officials are angered that the death penalty will not be sought for Marlon Legere, who has entered a “not guilty” plea in the shooting of the two officers last week.
In 1989, Jay “Stoney” Harrison, the last person to shoot two officers in New York, also used an officer’s handgun. Harrison took a gun from an unlocked locker at a District Attorney’s office and shot Detectives Richard Guerzon and Keith Williams. The death penalty was not in effect at the time.
Unanswered Questions
The deaths of the two officers Parker, 43, and Rafferty, 39, are tragic, and colleagues have been effusive in their praise of the detectives.
In the online tribute page to fallen law enforcement officers, some colleagues have left poignant and heartfelt tributes for both officers.
“Their reputation preceded them in the area, in the neighborhood,” Michael J. Palladino, the president of the Detectives Endowment Association told The New York Times. “They were well-known, well-respected guys.”
Police say they may never know exactly how the suspect was able to get Parker’s gun; Parker may have even had his gun already drawn and the suspect somehow wrestled it away, or he may have grabbed it from Parker’s holster.
What is known is that Parker showed enough presence of mind after being mortally wounded to call 911 and describe the shooter."
http://gothamgazette.com/article/20040916/4/1119
Posted by: jj Ark | Apr 10, 2005 8:04:36 PM
Terry:
in 2003,there were 12 officers killed with their own service weapons. This out of 44 deaths due to firearms. I believe (its been about 6 months since I crunched those numbers from Officer Down.) Feel free to peruse the numbers and cause of death yourself.
The numbers for 2002 were similar, but 2001 is all a mess statistically due to 9/11...couldn't really track those reasonably to figure out the cause of death, there were too many. I haven't gone over 2004 figures yet, but in September, the trend seemed to be lower just from a casual glance.
Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:06:45 PM
School gunman stole police pistol, vest
Student killed 9 before turning weapon on himself
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Posted: 2:27 AM EST (0727 GMT)
RED LAKE, Minnesota (CNN) -- A student authorities say killed seven people at his Minnesota high school first shot his grandfather and the man's girlfriend before taking his police-issued weapon, bulletproof vest and squad car to Red Lake Senior High School.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Michael Tabman said Tuesday that 16-year-old Jeff Weise killed his grandfather, 58-year-old Daryl Lussier, and his grandfather's 32-year-old girlfriend, Michelle Sigana, with a .22-caliber gun before driving to the school Monday...."
"...Federal investigators, however, said that while the postings may provide clues to the rampage, it was premature Tuesday to speculate on a motive. The shootings at the school appeared to be random, Tabman said.
He said authorities believe Weise stole his grandfather's police-issued pistol and a shotgun, as well as a gunbelt and vest. Authorities said he had three guns in all.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/
Posted by: afs | Apr 10, 2005 8:15:38 PM
Weapon Retention On and Off Duty
03/30/2005
Member Submission
By: Al Samson, 30 March 2005
One of the most important aspects of law enforcement, on and off duty is weapon retention. Keeping the weapon secured and not letting it get taken away by an assailant is a high priority to every law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers have to make sure they have good weapon retention skills, to avoid having their weapon taken away and used against them by a person whose intent is to do bodily harm.
There are approximately 870,000 duly sworn local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement officers now serving in the United States, which is the highest figure ever. A total of 1,658 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53 hours or 166 per year. Of the 1658 law enforcement officers that died on the line of duty 616 officers were killed feloniously.
Of the 616 law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty feloniously from 1994 through 2003, 568 were murdered with firearms. Of those, 425 were murdered with handguns, 109 where shot to death with rifles, and 34 were killed with shotguns. Fifty-two of the victim officers were killed with their own service weapons.
In 2003 alone there were 145 law enforcement officers killed, 11 of the slain officers were feloniously shot with their own weapons. A review of the number of years of service for the victim officers killed in 2003 showed that the officers had an average of 10 years of law enforcement experience. Uniform Crime Reporting November 2004.
The number of officers killed with their own weapons may be contributed to weapon retention and or lack thereof. With such a glaring need for weapon retention officers worldwide are in search of methods, products, tactics and training to keep their weapon where it belongs, on their body securely, so that their weapon cannot be taken away and used against them. There are several good quality security holsters currently on the market that offer numerous levels of retention and are concealable...."
"....Incarcerated felons have been observed practicing in the prison "yard" on how to take a firearm from the holster(s) of law enforcement officer. However with the UCComfort Concealment Holster System if they can’t see then they can’t get to I as easily… The law enforcement officer and or wearers must practice with the holster until it becomes second nature to just draw that weapon and get it on target....law enforcement officers and those using the holster still must exercise good weapon retention skills to defeat a grab for their weapon, especially when the weapon is out of the holster. Officers must practice the way they position themselves when they are confronting a suspect(s), they should constantly be aware of other people around them and evaluate their environment and their own actions. Having a visible weapon that is accessible to a suspect(s) is a good indicator that he /she could attempt to take that weapon away from the officer and use it against them...."
About the Author: Al Samson is former a Police Detective with the Bronx County District Attorney's office in New York with over 14 years of law enforcement experience. He's worked as an undercover operative in some of the toughest neighborhoods in New York City and is now actively involved in the fight against terrorism and protecting the Homeland.
http://www.policeone.com/policeone/frontend/parser.cfm?object=News&tmpl=&operation=full_newsline&id=98214
Posted by: rebellingboxer | Apr 10, 2005 8:22:52 PM
JJ Arc: "in 2003,there were 12 officers killed with their own service weapons. This out of 44 deaths due to firearms. I believe"
So there were more highly trained police killed with their own guns in 2003 than there were kids killed in "school massacres"... and your solution is to allow a whole ton of barely-trained people to carry lots of guns around kids?
That sure sounds like the above comment "using porn to reduce teen pregnancy."
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Edward | Apr 9, 2005 5:01:53 PM
I am aghast at the idiocy of this plan. The inherent dangers of every teacher packing a gun to school far outweighs the supposed "benefit" of the proposed solution. How many teachers have had personal effects stolen from them while they were at work? Tons. Even from places that were locked, like their desk, closet or even from their locked classroom. Allowing more guns around is just a recipe for more people to get shot.
I can just see the page two story now, "Teacher who shot student cleared of wrongdoing." Mr. Jones, teacher at your kids' school was cleared of wrongdoing for shooting one of his pupils. "The kid was very belligerent and unreasonable and he pulled out something metallic. I thought it was a gun and shot him to prevent a violent rampage. Turns out it was his cell phone, but better safe than sorry."
Now, if you want to talk about allowing a school guard to have some type of weapon(s), maybe pepper spray or a stun-gun, you'll get a much better response out of me. But teachers packing heat? What are you smoking?