How to stop or at least seriously curtail gun violence in schools

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (67 posts)
  1. Leland Johnson profile image90
    Leland Johnsonposted 7 months ago

    The federal government could declare a state of emergency and post at least 2 well trained, armed personnel, either police or military, within our public schools.  Gunmen attack soft targets.  They like to assault "gun free zones."  I believe 20 years of wrangling over mental health issues and gun control have only placed our children at greater risk because no real solutions have been reached.  Israel implemented a 1 guard per every 100 students policy and all but ended the gun violence problem there.  That was in 1974.  We can argue and debate the morality issues later, but for now how about we just start protecting our kids?  There are armed guards at rock concerts, football games etc.  I think are kids are more important than those events.  This problem could be fixed in 6 months.

    1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
      TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Wow. How about just changing the constitution and just banning guns?

      There is nothing particularly impressive about the American constitution. The South African constitution is considered the best in the world - not the American one. And the Charter of Human Rights (United Nations) is pretty awesome as well.

      Australia had one massive school shooting about 30 years ago, banned guns, and never had the issue again.

      According to Mental Health organisations in America, one in four people are permanently mentally ill. Another 25% will have episodic  mental illness. That means half of Americans experience mental illness. It is the only country in the world that has that kind of mind-blowing mental illness. That doesn't even include personality disorders like sociopathy and psychopathy.

      Why?

      Life in the States is beyond harsh. The degree of stress that people experience leads to mental illness. Mental illness has a genetic predisposition that is generally triggered by events.

      The kind of people who insist on having guns are generally not well-adjusted people. Their reasoning is absurd. It is, of course, impossible to convince someone who is insane that they are insane.

      Your above suggestion would make you a candidate for the crazy ward in any other country.

    2. Jean Bakula profile image97
      Jean Bakulaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      I agree. But in America, the NRA has too much power and the politicians all need their monetary contributions to win their campaigns. They don't care about the people, and forget they SERVE them.

      I lost hope when the group of 1st graders were gunned down in Sandy Hook, and our government did nothing. My son teaches that grade. He says for drills, the teachers tell the children to hide in the coat closet, making them sitting ducks for a shooter with many rounds in an automatic weapon.

      Many schools in NJ have doors which lock after the last student and teacher walk into the building. After that, they must announce who they are at the front door before being admitted into the building. It helps, but not enough. Even in the 1970's, when I was in HS, we had a large school with over 3,000 students, the Freshmen couldn't even fit there in the Baby Boom years. We had two policemen who got to know many of us, and in those times it was because of drugs. But again, it did add to the feeling of safety. However, in a neighborhood of people of color, police may be seen as the enemy.

      I would also like to see the second amendment changed. It was written at a time when people hunted for food, and by religious fanatics who didn't want a King, and were afraid the government would try to take over their weapons and land. America should revise the Constitution to reflect current times, but never seems to act in their own best interests. Plus we have an old, out of touch, unstable President right now, who is surrounded by cronies who suck up to him because they want to protect their own political careers. At least the students are speaking out in anger this time, maybe their generation can knock some sense into these idiot's heads. Most politician's kids go to private schools.

      It has to stop. At least mentally ill people and felons should not be able to purchase guns. And nobody needs a gun with so many rounds of ammo that can be shot off so fast. None of the lists of such people are updated, a local issue which could actually create jobs..Maybe the gun seller who sold a weapon to a mentally unfit individual should go to jail or be fined a lot of money, and they would watch who they sell weapons too. But we already have more people in jail than any other country, for non violent issues like pot, which could add a lot to our economy. The current administration wants to turn the clock back about 100 years.

      1. Leland Johnson profile image90
        Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Jean- To the original point, if the federal government would just place armed guards around the perimeter of the schools as Israel does, I believe it would deter and stop shooters.  I think looking too far down the road and airing too many opinions just alientates people you could otherwise work with.  I have very liberal and libertarian friends that agree that stepping up security should be the first step.  Calling the Presidend of the US names, critiquing the Consititution, doesnt do anything to stop future shooters, in fact it's a distraction.  When you go to a doctor you can only address one issue at a time, same is true for car issues.  It's like a puzzle.  The piece we're currently working on is how to keep our kids safe.  Lets talk about that.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Do you have a suggestion as to just how a gun dealer will know when a person is "mentally unfit"?  Should we make public the names of any and all people that have ever been in a mental hospital or have ever visited a psychiatrist or psychologist?  Maybe a list of all those people, along with the diagnosis, and then require any gun dealer to by a professional psychologist as well as businessman so (s)he can understand that diagnosis?

        1. Jean Bakula profile image97
          Jean Bakulaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness,
          I think some kind of list of mentally unstable people could be made up, and distributed to gun dealers, so at least they had some kind of idea of a background of instability or some felonies. Most businesses are computerized. I realize the person who sells at gun shows probably isn't, although most of us can access the internet through our phones in the 21st century. There should be a waiting period (and I believe there is in some states, I don't know a lot about guns). I am not asking a gun dealer to make a mental health determination, that wouldn't be their area of expertise.

          But all the lists we have of dangerous people could be updated in the U.S. What about convicted felons or even the no fly lists that still let people into the country who shouldn't be? All these lists are outdated or maybe don't exist. This shooter was expelled from the school, and everyone local knew he was a potential problem. He should have been on a list of some sort, and the local police should have been keeping an eye on him.

          I just know our children shouldn't be slaughtered for going to school. My son was willing to die to protect his 1st grade class, but as a 3rd degree black belt with 20 years of training, realized he couldn't do that without a gun either. He got disillusioned by the low teaching standards and this safety issue.

          Nobody needs a gun that shoots so many rounds so fast in the civilian world. The NRA needs to be stripped of so much power.

          Leland,
          Most issues in life are complex and need more than one step to solve a problem. Stepping up school security would be a good start. So would sensible gun control. Thoughts and prayers aren't keeping our children alive.

          1. Leland Johnson profile image90
            Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I have to disagree.  Most issues are MADE complex by people more willing to live in the theoretical realm than taking action.  You seem to have an abundance of ideas, Jean.  What actions have you taken so far?  You say "thoughts and prayers aren't keeping our children alive."  What are YOU doing beyond offering forum opinions?

            1. Jean Bakula profile image97
              Jean Bakulaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              I council many young people and spend a lot of time listening to them as they discuss the problems and issues they face. I have always had a strong rapport with young people, because I am young at heart. I have an astrology and tarot business out of my home. But by the time I work with a younger (or even older) person once, my role seems to be more about sensible advice, and I am a life coach now. I, my son, and nephews have lost more people to death at a young age than many of my/their peers, and often they and friends come to me to discuss and work through their grief. People in the US want to sanitize death, and don't talk about it enough.

              I am the Treasurer of my town's Democratic Club, only because I once worked in the corporate world. Although I mostly care about environmental issues, I find many of my neighbors and friends come to me to discuss other town matters. My son has been as active as "getting out the vote" as my late husband and I always were. Once again, I am the one often sought out by younger people, though I am respected by my peers.

              I am currently taking part in several events in my state regarding changing laws because the youth who experienced the Parkland, FL shootings have been so intelligent and vocal about insisting our politicians not be bought by the NRA.

              What are you doing?

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                I believe that your work with young people (and older as well, but mostly the young) are more likely to help the problem of violence in our country than any gun law we might pass. 

                We have hundreds of laws and it has not helped for the problem is not a piece of iron but the mind and mentality pulling the trigger (or pushing the knife or swinging the bat, or striking the match, whatever).  Change that mentality, turn it from insanity to sanity, and you will accomplish far more than pushing it to find a different, possibly more deadly, weapon ever can.

                1. Jean Bakula profile image97
                  Jean Bakulaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  So you think the focus would be better placed in the mental health category? You could be right. I don't know why everyone is so stressed out now than ever before. We talked about this in earlier posts. Then we need to find a way to reach people who need help with mental health issues, get them help, and not stigmatize them. Health care plans don't cover a lot of mental health care.

                  I like that idea, but not if they are put on too many psychotropic drugs. I have a bipolar friend. The meds make the person less violent, but are so heavy it is very depressing and it looks like it makes it hard to function at all.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    I'm not sure that "mental health" is the term to use.  There is something that has changed in our culture, something is very wrong here, that leads people to become murderers, and particularly those murders like Florida.

                    But is it really a mental health issue if society accepts and condones whatever is causing it?  Yes, the urge to murder is, but "healing" murderers, one by one, before they murder sounds like an impossible task.  Better to attack whatever it is in our culture that is causing that illness.

                    There really are rare individuals that are born amoral (without morals) and there are more that have a physical impairment of the brain that causes mental illness, perhaps even the urge to kill.  But I believe the problem we're dealing with in these school shootings is much deeper - way down there in our cultural norms.  It isn't insanity in and of itself, but it is causing insanity in our people.

                    And, of course, the fact is that whatever we believe, however we rationalize it, history - real world experience - has over and over shown that guns are NOT the problem and all the gun laws in the world will not stop killings.  The best they can possibly do is force killers to choose an different weapon, and quite possibly a more deadly one as was done in Australia.

                    Am I getting this rather fuzzy message across?

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I didn't see this - wish I would have.

            There are major problems, to me, with your suggestions.  First, that "no-fly" list is secret, cannot effectively be argued and no one knows how they got on it.  As a tool to remove second amendment rights it would be an absolute horror; we DO believe in the concept of a jury trial, the right to counsel and the right to confront our accuser after all.

            Second, that "everyone local knew he <the Florida shooter> was a potential problem" doesn't mean squat.  It's an indication he wasn't liked, but not a one of those "everybody local" is qualified or competent to perform a mental exam and, again, remove constitutional rights based on that exam.  To put him on some kind of "list of evil people" because the neighbors didn't like him is unacceptable.

            Third, I absolutely abhor the idea that any time you visit your shrink your medical diagnosis and history will be forwarded to the FBI for purposes of removing your rights.  It's hard for me to conceive of a more egregious violation of privacy.

            Fourth, I cannot agree to stripping the NRA of power any more than I can to stripping the NAACP of it's or the ACLU of it's.  I don't agree with all their decisions and actions, but any organization founded primarily to protect the rights of all Americans does not need to be banned, disbanded or even cut down in size.

            Fifth, that "Nobody needs a gun that shoots so many rounds so fast in the civilian world." has nothing to do with constitutional rights (even though I agree with it).  That document does not address "need", only "desire" and anyone desiring a gun has a right to own one...including a gun that others determine that owner has "no need of".

            We have a desperate need to reduce violence and violent killings (and not just in schools or of children or even mass murders) in our country, but violating our own laws or eliminating the right of others to do/own something we don't like is not the answer.  Instead we desperately need to put our resources, always limited, into attacking the root, the cause, of the problem; what makes us such a violent people?  Why do so many of us decide to murder strangers that have done nothing and mean nothing to them?  What kind of insanity are "we the people" suffering from and how do we stop that insanity instead of putting bandaids on the symptoms of the disease while we let the disease itself fester and grow?

            1. Jean Bakula profile image97
              Jean Bakulaposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              1. Why do we have these lists if nobody knows who is on them and for what reason? It shouldn't be a secret if a dangerous person is going to be let into our country, they would have been banned from entering the U.S. for a serious reason. I believe that by the time they make the list, the person has been to court with mental health professionals and the court has decided the person is dangerous to themselves or others. It won't hurt to delay someone from a flight, be safe, and ask questions later. Don't charge anyone with anything until it is researched. But this can only work if all these lists are updated. Some probably don't belong on them, and years later, more should be added. It's a fluid situation.

              2. The shooter at Parkland was expelled and local cops knew he was a person with problems. There was no need to pry or take away his rights, but they could have been watching him more closely, just in case. There are people in my town who are known problem causers who are watched more closely by local police, and usually they have known hang out places.

              3. Many people see psychologists for issues like grief, anxiety, marriage counseling.They are not dangerous. It's people with tendencies to cause danger that need to be watched, once again. If a psychologist or psychiatrist suspects a patient will commit a serious crime, they are obligated to alert the authorities. I don't want to intrude on anyone's privacy or rights.

              4. The NRA pays for the campaigns of too many people and they are beholden to them. I just saw Marco Rubio sweating and getting booed at an appearance in FL for the amounts of money he has taken. Of course, in return, the NRA expects to never have any changes in the amount or strength of weapons American citizens can buy.

              5. So we agree about the fact most of us don't need military type weapons. I think they should be banned. It's simple. Leave them for the military.

              Your questions about how to solve these questions are great. We need all kinds of change and all ideas are welcome. There can be many solutions when there are many problems, and that's just how my mind works, I connect many things at once. Thus my conversation with Leland which has fallen on deaf ears, though his heart is in the right place. I think the U.S. still has a lot of that old West "Shoot 'em up" kind of mentality, we are an independent people who don't like being told what to do. Many of our soldiers come home with PTSD and it's ignored, until they usually commit suicide. They normally are more disciplined and won't take out their depression on children or someone they perceive as weaker. They should be assigned to other vets or someone to discuss their traumas about what they have seen and experienced as soon as their tour is over.

              The President seems to be considering changing the ages of ability to buy a gun from 18 to 21. That's a band aid. We both knew people at 18 who could go to Vietnam, but not vote, and the age to buy a beer or glass of wine was 21. Any 18 yr. old has friends or someone 21 who will buy a gun for them, just like they would have bought a six pack of beer. The meeting with the Parkland, FL kids went poorly and they all thought what he said was BS.

              As the Mother of a teacher and friend to several, the idea of them carrying guns is ludicrous. Trump went to Reform School, and many teachers there are male. Most elementary and HS teachers are female, and could still be over powered by a strong teen. Teachers are not respected in America, and are seriously underpaid, even though they have to major in another subject besides getting into a teaching program. They won't make back what they spent for college for years. They shouldn't be burdened by learning to shoot. Could the National Guard be at the schools? Or who could be? I think the children would need to get to know whoever is protecting them and build relationships of trust, or it won't work. Then the protectors would get to see who may bear out closer scrutiny.

              I don't know the answers, like you, I am asking questions and trying to decide what could help. I still believe military weapons should be banned among civilians. If we mess with the Constitution, we will continue to change it, so I don't believe it should be touched. Maybe it should be interpreted a bit differently since we live in such changing times, and it was written in a different era.

              But the Trump administration stole a Supreme Court seat and replaced it with a conservative, and he is slowly doing that with many judges in secret. None of his appointees will ever vote against gun control. The Supreme Court should be a mix of conservative and liberal judges. Imagine if Obama stole a seat. I don't think it should be a lifetime appointment either. I understand it should be long, so the court isn't swayed by trends. But maybe 20-25 yrs.is enough. Some people stay sharp and informed as they age, but some have not evolved or grown and that's a sign of immaturity and intellectual laziness. Our highest court should never fall prey to that.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                Do you know what the no-fly list is?  It has nothing to do with anyone entering the country; it is to keep American citizens from boarding a plane  anywhere in the country.  And no, there is no judge reviewing names before they go on the list and there is no psychologist report either.  There is a bureaucrat somewhere deep in the bowels of DC that decides you are a terrorist threat.

                Sure they could have watched him closely.  But how many cops can we afford to pay, or want to have around, doing nothing but a continued 24 hour surveillance for life on people they think are "troubled"?  But you know, without real probable cause that surveillance will not last long - it can't in a nation of laws and freedom.

                I can't support the age change, either, and for the same reason.  I do remember as a teen myself the thing about "We can go die for our country, but can't buy a beer?!?".  Doesn't make sense, and doubly so for guns.

                Teachers with guns I CAN support...as long as it is not a requirement for the job - that it is totally voluntary.

                Military weapons are already virtually banned in the country.  Precious few people have one (legally) and there hasn't been a murder using one since the days of the Mafia and their "tommy guns".  But you don't want only military guns banned - you want anything that looks scary gone from the scene.  Because that's the fraud being perpetuated by the "assault weapon" crap from the anti-gun crowd.  The term "assault rifle" has a specific meaning - an automatic firing, military grade, rifle -  but the politicians and those spreading an irrational fear of guns has created a second definition while hoping a listener is using the first one.  It raises the fear factor much higher to think your neighbor has an army machine gun in his closet, but it's naught but a lie to promote an emotional response rather than a reasoned one.

                What the SCOTUS needs is judges that don't care what the liberal, conservative, Democratic or Republican platform is.  That will decide based on law instead of their personal morals or what the party that they pay obeisance to thinks is best for the party.  Good luck with that! sad

    3. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Creating smaller schools and smaller class sizes and dumping standardized testing would give teachers the time to get to know kids and their families and spot problems early.  Putting 2000 kids in one building with only 100 adults to supervise them is asking for problems.  It's a money saver, of course, which is why they do  it, but it is not conducive to building feelings of trust and community within the school environment.  The reason I mention standardized testing is that it pushes teachers to "teach to the test" and eliminates any extra time they might have to really  communicate with kids. .  I taught for 26 years, some of which were spent in the days before ginormous schools and forced testing.  Can't tell you how many kids I was able to keep off of drugs, keep from running away, etc.  Was able to build self esteem and foster personal growth.  These things are important because they eliminate problems and allow for real learning.  They've ruined the schools and with them many of the kids.  Time for a big change.

      1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
        TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        South African schools (the white ones) during apartheid years always had between 30 and 40 kids in them. At the time, our matric (A levels, graduation) was considered one of the best in the world.

        We also had standardized testing, and there was no such thing as work during the years countig towards your year-end mark.

        If you didn't pass math, science, and three languages, you failed and repeated the year.

        Standard testing in America only tests maths and English. I once asked a teacher why she hated it. She said because she had to teach grammar, and she didn't know how to teach grammar because she had never been taught it.

        Standardized testing is used in many countries in the world (it's just another word for exams), and in the best educated countries in the world, standardized testing is a way of life.

        None of this has anything to do with angry people going around shooting students.

        1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Totally disagree...and I'm speaking as someone who was in the trenches for 26 years.  You clearly have no understanding about how standardized testing is handled in the US...so you shouldn't judge   They have everything to do with taking time away from learning which children are becoming destabilized, and that is an extremely important point.  As for US teachers not knowing grammar?  Oh please.  If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I"d like to sell you!  One teacher out of thousands tells you she doesn't know grammar and you make a sweeping statement about this situation that encompasses millions of highly qualified educators.  Shame on you!

          1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
            TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            No, Americans don't understand grammar. They wouldn't know an adverb if it kicked them. It's standard practice to use adjectives as if they were adverbs i.e. "I did it bad." It is "I did it badly." I also did about six or seven writing classes at college in San Diego. 95% of the wannabe writers were semi-literate. There was also a study done in California at the time that said that 95% of American four year students at university couldn't write a grammatical sentence.

            With regard to English grammar, the head of the English department at college sent me an email saying that I must be more positive to other students as she was trying to teach them to write. I wrote back (this was two months in) and told that they didn't need to learn creative writing - they needed to learn English grrammar. This was the same professor who had a Masters in Victorian British Literature but didn't know that the word 'casket' meant a small jewellery container (only in America does it mean coffin). Supposedly, if she had read sufficient Victorian British literature, she would have known that. She also didn't know what an Oxford comma was - nevermind where commas were meant to be used.

            I also spent four years in your college system. I spent so much time going to the Chair telling them the professors were wrong, I eventually just gave up. I always won my point - including twice with the Math department when I proved that the math text book was incorrect. The math department had a vote on it and I won.

            Standardized testing is common in other countries. Our school leaving test is not written by teachers. It is written by the Department of Education and is the same for all schools. It is also not marked by the teachers in one's own school, but by teachers hired for that task by the Department of Education. Guess what? It works well.

            One either knows one's topic, or one does not. The answer to 1 + 1 is always 2. I repeatedly noticed that professors at college graded one according to the weather, their mood, whether they liked you or not, etc. I even had one professor who routinely just gave everybody a mark that averaged the first mark he gave them. I know that because we all began to notice and started inserting wrong answers into our assignments. He marked them correct.

            The real problem with standardized testing in the States is that teachers have had carte blanche to teach what they liked (and this concealed their lack of knowledge), and that is why the general level of American education is so far below that of the rest of the world (except for third world countries in Africa).

            https://www.theatlantic.com/education/a … th/281983/

            The reason standardized testing was brought in was to force teachers to actually teach the subjects that were needed  Math and a good comprehension of language. With those foundations, anything else can be learnt. With a poor understanding of those, every other discipline suffers.

            1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
              TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

              The reason standardized testing was brought in was to make politicians look like they were doing something so that they could collect even more money from the companies that prepare the tests.  If you could see the materials that are used to guide students, how expensive they are, how massive, how slick...you would gasp.  Testing has become big business in the US, but it has been an abysmal failure.  Those teachers and students who don't know basic grammar?  The great majority came through systems that insisted on standardized testing..so of course they haven't learned what they need to know.  I don't know how it is now, but when I began teaching in Florida people were required to take tough competency tests before being granted licenses.  Now that there are massive shortages, I doubt that still is true.  I come from a time when teachers had to know what they were doing or they couldn't teach, so I don't understand some of the comments you made about so many people knowing so little.  It almost appears as though you are the only person who knows anything!  Good luck with that!

      2. Leland Johnson profile image90
        Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        Timetraveller- It's always good to have someone commenting whose been on the frontlines actually doing the job.  You made excellent points.  My wife is a teacher and would agree with you.  I can see how the standardization process could create a disconnect.  Students who were borderline could then be pushed over the edge.  Do you think standardized tests damages a sense of purpose?  Great point I wouldn't have considered in a million years.  Thank you.

        1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

          What I think is that you cannot standardize learning.  Each child learns in his own way and in his own time.  If you push him into a corner that does not connect with his psyche, you create rather than resolve problems.  On the surface, standardized testing seems like a good idea, but the actual practice of it is expensive, time consuming and inhibits real learning.  One of the worst ideas US schools have ever created...ask any teacher!

  2. Leland Johnson profile image90
    Leland Johnsonposted 7 months ago

    As it is with so many issues who you read and who you listen to is extremely important when trying to get the facts right.  In contrast to your post, Australia actually saw a 10 year spike in suicides AFTER the gun ban.  Lifeline Australia, an Australian suicide prevention agency, stated that "suicide is the number one cause of death for Australians between the ages of 15-44.  While Australians kill themselves with guns less often it doesn't seem that they take their lives any less often."  In fact, the Australian government actually reported increases in manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed and unarmed robbery after the gun ban in 1996 while in the US between 1993 - 2011 violent crime actually dropped 72% during gun manufacturing and sales peaks.  Those statistics come from the United States Justice Department.

    1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
      TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Apples with apples and all that.

      I believe I said, "Australia had one massive school shooting about 30 years ago, banned guns, and never had the issue again."

      The topic is mass school shootings. Don't go off topic.

      QUOTE: On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man with a troubled past named Martin Bryant walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, a tourist town on the island of Tasmania, and opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle. He killed 35 people and wounded another 28.

      QUOTE: But Howard’s response to the shooting was about as different from Trump’s as you could imagine. In his first speech to Parliament after the shooting, just two days later, he called for Australian legislators to take up “the vexed issue of gun control,” and vowed to devote his premiership to the issue.

      You can also read about it here.

      QUOTE: Following the spree, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, introduced strict gun control laws within Australia and formulated the National Firearms Programme Implementation Act 1996, restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns as well as introducing uniform firearms licensing. It was implemented with bipartisan support by the Commonwealth, states and territories.[6] The massacre happened just six weeks after the Dunblane massacre, in Scotland, which claimed 18 lives, with U.K. Prime Minister John Major reaching out to his counterpart over the shared tragedies; the United Kingdom passed its own changes to gun laws in 1997.[7][8]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

    2. TessSchlesinger profile image94
      TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      You also need to learn to check definitions. Violent crime, obviously, is not defined as suicide according to the American Department of Justice.

      QUOTE: Suicide is a major national social issue in the United States. There were 42,773 recorded suicides in the U.S. in 2014 according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).[1][2][3] On average, adjusted for age, the annual U.S. suicide rate increased 24% over the 15 previous years (1999 to 2014), from 10.5 to 13.0 suicides per 100,000 people, the highest rate recorded in 28 years.[4][5] Due to the stigma surrounding suicide, it is suspected that it generally is underreported.[6]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_i … ted_States


      QUOTE: The violent crime rate in the United States may be at a historic low, but another form of violence is growing. Suicide rates have been increasing since 2000 after decades of decline, as documented in a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      http://www.vocativ.com/412376/suicide-r … areas-cdc/

      1. Leland Johnson profile image90
        Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        I see nothing you've quoted as helpful to moving the conversation forward.

        1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
          TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Wow. I just derailed everything you contributed and you can't see how I moved the conversation forward? None so blind as those who will not see.

          Let me spell it out for you. GUNS HAVE TO BE BANNED. The American constitution has to be changed.

          Let me spell it out for you further.

          I am currnently living in a third world country. I have better facilities than the USA has. I have also lived in first world countries. America is NOT a first world country.

          In those countries, guns are worshipped... Guns are not worshipped in first world countries.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

            You forgot to mention that the homicide rate after Australia's gun grab did not change; it continued the same slow slide it had been on for years.  It was over 10 years before any change in the rate of decrease was noted, making it extremely unlikely to impossible that a gun confiscation over one years time was responsible.

            You also forgot to mention that the deaths from mass murders rose after the gun buy back.

            The use of the Australian experience to yell out that GUNS HAVE TO BE BANNED is contra-indicated; it is a completely false connection.  Instead it pretty clearly points out that banning those dreadful "assault" weapons (so-called by American media and politicians) was either useless in preventing deaths or actually had a negative effect.

            Try again?  Because for every country you care to name that has a low incidence of gun ownership rate coupled with a low homicide rate I can name you two that have either higher gun/lower homicides or lower guns/higher homicide rate.  There is no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the homicide rate. 

            1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
              TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Wow! Sorry, you are not comparing apples with apples. I just don't have the time to check every little thing you say. When I check one or two and they're wrong, you lose credibility for everything you say. I have already provided evidence that some of what you said is wrong. I'm not going to bother to check the rest. I bet you're a gun owner.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                And what did you find wrong, bearing in mind that I did not mention "gun" homicides, but rather any and all homicides? 

                (You see, I don't find it advantageous to keep people from being shot if they are murdered in some other manner.  I figure the dead don't care how they were murdered.  In that respect I suspect that yes, it is apples and oranges.
                If so, can you support the notion that it worth taking guns from people in order that a different weapon be used?)

                1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
                  TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  And you can't work out that a 16 year old with an automatic military weapon can gun down 50 people in 5 minutes, but if he only had a knife might murder only one, and that he probably wouldn't do so much damage and could be overpowered?

                  I'm sorry, but that kind of lack of reasoning ability is beyod my ability to counter.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    But I didn't say that you, or anyone else, can't "work out" anything at all!  Just that real world experience, and specifically the event you spoke of, does NOT support the conclusion OR the "reasoning ability" used to get that conclusion.

                    You mentioned that you found something wrong - that I provided false information - but you forgot to mention what it was.  Can you provide that information?

                    Finally, had you bothered to educate yourself as you say you did you would know that there are precious few "automatic military weapons" in the hands of US civilians and that there hasn't been a murder with one for many, many decades.

  3. Leland Johnson profile image90
    Leland Johnsonposted 7 months ago

    How many mass school shootings had Australia had prior to 1996?  A rhetorical question in keeping with your "apples to apples" comment.  They didn't, and don't, face the same challenges we face in the US, therefore implementing their policies, policies that didn't do what leftists claim, would not help us.  We need decisive action, not snide banter.  Tess, please read my article regarding this issue. Part of the problem is what we're doing now.  I'm really not interested in bantering back and forth with you playing verbal ping pong while some shooter somewhere is planning to assault a school somewhere, maybe one of my kids' schools.  I'm sure your IQ is higher than mine, but for now I'd just like to see a step up in security at our children's schools.  I'd like to see them better protected, wouldn't you?  Thinking a fire arms ban is feasible in this country of 350 million is not realistic.  It will not happen.  Australia has a population of 22 million.  They confiscated 600,000 guns.  The FBI estimates the US has 200 million.  You made the apples to apples remark.  Lets practice it shall we?

  4. Joshua Crowder profile image93
    Joshua Crowderposted 7 months ago

    You have to start somewhere.  I think that metal detectors should be mandatory. I doubt adding metal detectors and guards is going to stop people from trying to make a name for themselves though.  If the violence doesn’t stop can you really can’t blame people for wanting gun control. After the next few shootings there will be marches for gun control.

    1. Leland Johnson profile image90
      Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      and thank you for putting your thoughts out there.  I see more and more that responses are emotionally charged or condescending.  I appreciate you bringing respectful commentary to the forum.

  5. Leland Johnson profile image90
    Leland Johnsonposted 7 months ago

    Joshua- i agree that metal detectors would be a good ancillary tool, and i understand that people will ask for more gun control.  Please consider this point- The only places being attacked by these gunmen are places where gun control is practiced.

  6. Tony Okey profile image71
    Tony Okeyposted 7 months ago

    Temporarily, my opinions is that schools should get a scanner, same machine used in plane stations. Yes, it might be expensive, but it will be really helpful in checkmating school attacks.

    Secondly,  have read about mounting an armed security officer outside of a school's entrance, but we are talking of mental issues here. A sevurity guard could also go wild, not saying it won't help, it might really help.

    Lastly. teachers should actually have drills, or have sessions (kind of a class) lead by FEDERAL AGENT(S), educating them on how to manage this kind of situations. Or maybe arm them with tasers.

    On a long run, these are all temporary and can fail. tightening gun laws is the only way to curtail this menace.

    1. TessSchlesinger profile image94
      TessSchlesingerposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      You do know that the particular school in Parklands, Florida, was the best prepared school in the USA, and that they had drills continually...

      There are two problems, here.

      1. The first is thatt 50% (YES, HALF OF AMERICANS), suffer from mental illness, and that the particular type of mental illness, is generally male (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/ … lness.aspx), and that mental illness is triggered by extreme stress.

      2. If the government were willing to foot the bill, then it proves once again, that American government has been usurped by private military corporations, as they would be willing to foot the kind of bill that would probably cost more than the foodblll of millions of children!

      No, it's not going to sort out the problem. The real problem is the tremendous stress engendered by the dog eat dog society in the States which leads to madness.

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

        ...not to mention the stress in schools that is caused by the introduction of standardized testing.  Do you even understand that schools get CLOSED when students don't perform and that TEACHERS LOSE JOBS when their student's don't perform.  Talk about STRESS~

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

          Neither of which will unduly stress either the students there OR an outsider that wants to kill some kids.

          I don't think much of standardized tests, either, but I'm missing the connection between those and school shootings by anyone but teachers (hasn't happened yet as far as I've heard).

          1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

            I'll have to disagree.  Preparing for those tests takes most of the school year and kids can be held back if they don't do well on them.  The stress is immense.  Combine that with issues such as family problems, peer pressure, health problems, etc. and you should be able to see the connection.  The testing is just one more negative that adds to the load.  Kids are fragile and many don't have strong support systems.  They can only take so much.  When it's a kid doing the shooting, any or all of these things can push him to it.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

              Wait.  If we didn't have standardized test, depending just on tests teachers make up and other grades, won't kids still prepare all year and be held back if they fail (not that I've seen any kids "held back" for many years)?  I mean, we had "finals" back in the 60's, long before Washington decided it knew better than local teachers what should be taught and school boards (and schools) could and did still fire teachers for not doing their job.

              The family thing, peer pressure, etc. I do get and think it adds to the load on kids.  But I do begin to wonder if we aren't taking the wrong road with our constant protection of kids, whether from physical, emotional or even biological harm.  I wonder if we haven't crossed a line somehow and are raising a generation of kids that never learn to cope, never learn emotional self control...because we do it all for them.  Not talking of the kid from a completely dysfunctional family, one abused at home, etc. - just normal, everyday kids that can't handle any stress or trouble because they've never been forced to do for themselves.  Just a thought that crossed my mind but certainly nothing I would ever be able to provide support for or even propose it as anything real...just wondering.

              1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
                TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                There is a huge difference between standardized tests and teacher made tests.  One assumes every child will learn the same exact information.  The other is based on what the teacher decides kids need to know based on their skill levels, etc.  You never have all kids in the class with the same IQ, and you never have all kids in a class who do well in each subject.  Math is a good example.  Some kids just don't do well with Math...so pushing them into a keyhole that says you MUST do well on this years Math tests just does not work.  They may be able to learn some, but not all of the concepts, no matter what a teacher does.  Same with foreign languages, writing, reading, etc.   However, without the push for standardized testing, the teacher can address those differences and help children to learn their own way.  There are 7 different ways that kids learn. Some learn by listening to lectures, some by literally copying information from the blackboard, some by creating presentations, etc.  Teaching this way takes time and a great deal of attention, but it makes kids feel successful and involved.  You still test them, but you do so once you feel certain they've at least picked up the basics.  You cannot do this with standardized tests because they do not account for differences.  This is not "coddling", this is called TEACHING!   Frankly, while it is true that schools do a certain amount of coddling due to their fear of lawsuits, it is the parents who are to blame for this.  I have seen more parents destroy their  young than any school ever has.  You should spend some time shadowing a teacher at school so you could see what I'm talking about.  Parents want discipline for everybody else's kid, but never their own.  They want to take kids out of school for vacations and then want to blame the teachers because their kids have skills gaps.  They lie on notes to teachers and then wonder why their kids become cheaters.  They send them to school when they're sick, they abuse them, they make them their "friends" rather than their kids...the list is endless.

                Also, the word "normal" is no longer applicable.  A typical classroom of 40 students will have 5 mentally and/or physically impaired, 5 language impaired, 10% serious discipline problems.  IQ levels will range from 80 to 120 and above.  Tardiness and absences are rampant, which means learning gets interrupted often.  Yet, the politicians want everybody to be "standardized" and can't see how this adds pressure to an already bad situation.  Now do you get it?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                  I understand the difficulties in teaching, I think.  I've no experience in the task, but do have eyes and do recognize the importance (and failure) of parents today.  I also recognize the insanity of sticking all students, regardless of potential or ability, in the same classroom.

                  It's the testing thing that is baffling me.  When in college I had a big project to do with a partner (biology) - we did all the work, wrote up a report, Xeroxed it and each signed a copy and turned it in.  She got an "A", I got a "C" for the exact same paper!  When questioned, the professor said it was because "You can do better (but she couldn't)" - the value of the report was not what was graded but the perceived potential of the student.

                  Is that what you're saying is done with teacher compiled testing?  That whether a student progresses to the next grade depends not on whether they've learned the material needed to continue but on whether the student has performed to their ability level?  Because that will surely result in failure the next year - some of the kids will not have learned the prerequisites to move on to more advanced studies!  You can't study English literature if you can't read, you can't study geometry or trigonometry if you can't do algebra.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    +1,000,000,000,000.  Totally agree.

                  2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image96
                    TIMETRAVELER2posted 7 months agoin reply to this

                    Nope, that's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that in order for kids to learn, they must be given different ways to do so that meet their learning styles.  They still have to pass the courses, but they can only do that if they are taught at their learning level and allowed to use their own personal methods of learning.  Your college teacher was wrong to do what she did, obviously.  It would have been different if you each had produced your own work, but if the work was the same, there was no real reason for her to downgrade you.  Not every teacher is fair or perfect, but that's a subject or a different thread.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        As I understand it, the killer tripped the fire alarm, waited until the kids poured into the halls for evacuation and began shooting.  Smart and effective, and once inside there doesn't seem to be much that could have changed anything.

        But I'm interested in that fantastic statement that half of Americans are mentally ill.  I know you don't like the country or it's people, but that seems just way over the line.  Got something to back that up - a study by reputable psychologists, perhaps, that tested even a few thousand randomly selected people for mental illness and found half of them to be insane?

      3. Leland Johnson profile image90
        Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        That's not correct, Tess.  They had two unarmed security guards which the shooter killed.  That means if the security guards had had weapons they could've returned fire.  Your comments are doing two things:
        1.  Making my case for me
        2.  Endangering our kids even more
        Criteria for being a hub contributor is that you have more than theoretical knowledge of a subject.  Please stop insulting our country and other contributors who offer thoughtful insights.  Thanks.

  7. 2besure profile image82
    2besureposted 7 months ago

    Yes, I agree gun scanner would make a big difference.  Also, two, not multiple exits with an armed guard at each exit. And teachers that are trained gun owners should be allowed to carry.

    1. Leland Johnson profile image90
      Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      2besure- you said it perfectly.  Nothing to add.  Thank you for contributing.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 7 months agoin reply to this

      Once worked building a school where every classroom had an exterior exit.  If kept locked, it would give each classroom a way out if a shooter was in the hallway...

      1. Leland Johnson profile image90
        Leland Johnsonposted 7 months agoin reply to this

        unless multiple shooters had the outside exits covered making it a deadly trap... N. Cruz pulled the fire alarm to get kids going into his line of fire.  He also shot and killed 2 unarmed security guards.  Without a gun a security guard might end up being another target.

  8. Leland Johnson profile image90
    Leland Johnsonposted 7 months ago

    Tony- loved your comments.  Thank you for contributing.  We never know the tragedy that "didn't" happen, know what I mean?  We never know the robbery, mugging, or rape that "didn't" happen because criminals never tell us what actually deters them, but we know.  We know that like an animal, the criminal preys upon the weak.  We can do a hypothetical on this:  Pretend you're the criminal casing a neighborhood, looking for a house to rob.  You have narrowed it down to 2 houses.  The first house has motion detector lights, a sign in the yard that says "beware of pitbul," and a car with a bumper sticker that reads "NRA member."  As you watch the second house you see the owner come back after being gone for several hours.  You note that he just walks in the door- he leaves it unlocked.  There are no signs of a dog on his property and he has a sign in his yard that says, "Re-write the second amendment: Ban ALL firearms!"  Who are you going to rob?  The answer is obvious, but those are things criminals take into consideration.  I was an assistant instructor for a Krav Maga class for 18 months and one of the things we teach is 360 degree awareness.  This just means that when you walk out of a building you're not looking down at your phone, you make eye contact with shady looking characters to let them know you've seen them.  Criminals are looking for the unsuspecting, the unaware, not paying attention.  When it comes right down to it all a gunman would have to do is shoot through class windows then scamper through.  Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  The answer really isn't more gun laws, it's letting people protect themselves, protecting our kids in school.  This is the world we live in now.  Israel got it right. For 49 years they've been posting 1 armed guard per 100 students and with very few exceptions they have solved the problem.  What are we waiting for?  More shootings?  Then what, more questions and hand wringing?  "What made the shooter do it?  How can we understand what makes them do it?"  You know, it's been 20 years since Columbine and we haven't figured it out yet- will it take another 20 years of killing before we do something?  The Israeli's have it right- we don't need to get inside the mind of a gunman, we just need to stop him.  Asking the same question again and again regarding what "makes them do it" is wasting precious time.  imagine your house burning down and the fire department arrives.  Instead of putting out the fire the firemen stand around in a prayer vigil asking one another why the fire started.  Who cares!!! Just put out the fire!! We can figure out all the why's later.  For us the fire is school shootings and we need to put an end to them.  That means we need to get tough, get hard on the shooter.  Our children are too important and they live in fear of a coward busting into their school and killing them.  Aren't the criminals supposed to be the ones who are afraid?  Hey buddy thanks again for keeping the respect and participating.  I know i said a lot and it wasn't all directed at your comments, just expressing more ideas and thoughts.  God bless.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)