We Can Keep Children Safe In School There Are Solutions

Jump to Last Post 1-14 of 14 discussions (213 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image88
    Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16011836.png

    This one thing will fix it all !    Really, will new gun control really fix it all?  And when can we expect this fix? When hell freezes over?

    Do human beings all of a sudden pick up a gun and go shoot people?
    How does a person come to this point?  Do we need to fix people, not blame the gun?

    My point -- at best should we not be looking for alternatives to keeping children safe now?

    The sad part is that in the aftermath of mass shootings politicians pull out the fix-all solution. Which is to get guns out of the killer's hands, and change gun laws.  First, how many decades have we been debating new gun laws, and how many mass schools shooting have we had thus far?  Lots of shouting for a few days, and then back to the status quo. Until the next time. So, common sense dictates we need some solutions to keep our children safe in school.

    Can we really keep guns out of the hands of people that seek them?  I say, no we can't.  On the other hand couldn't we at least provide children a safe haven to get an education, and could we do it quickly to perhaps stop the next school shooter?

    We need solutions, not the same old political spin. Many private schools assure student safety with security guards, yes, armed, but in many cases, the weapon is out of sight. So, could this be an immediate answer for our public schools?  Don't all children deserve protection? We live in an angry society, with little help for persons that have a mental illness. So do we not need some very common-sense solutions now, to stop mass school shootings?

    Our tax dollars are spent on many less important issues, and projects. We certainly are a country that can afford to keep our children safe while in school.

    Is it not time to say to politicians we are done with hearing the same old words. We need a solution right now. Have we not witnessed this ongoing fight about gun laws enough to say, we need solutions now? Let them fight about gun laws another 50 years. I want a great big ass bandaid now.  We can't go on using our children as political clubs to beat the other political party over the head. Children need to be safe, that's the bottom line. They need to be safe now. Why do we the people put up with this kind of carnage? Some people don't we make sure our children are safe when they go to school. We are problem solvers. We know we can't depend on politicians. It takes community intervention, it takes concerned parents, and it takes citizens to demand solutions at local and state levels.

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Why do we the people put up with this kind of carnage?"

      Because the goal is not to keep children safe, but to keep guns out of the hands of the citizenry.

      You are absolutely correct that there are other solutions.  While nothing can ever be absolutely foolproof, they WILL produce a far lower body count than trying, again and for the umpteenth time, to disarm America.

      Armed teachers.  Building schools as fortresses.  Armed guards.  Metal detectors.  Complete lockdown systems (already show to be effective).  Better psych evaluations of students.  There are many possibilities...but we will waste our time trying to take on the gun rights advocates yet again.

    2. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Band-aid?? Never going to happen. Not even an antiseptic will help. It is simply a part of Modern American life. Why? Because . . . it just is!

      Anyone can read studies and articles until blue in the face and not arrive upon a solution while discovering if not known yet America has dismal numbers.. Arming teachers and armed guards will not stop someone who is suicidal hell bent on leaving a mark on the world from stopping his mission to succeed. After all we value success more than life itself these days don't we? Or, so it seems at times. It is win at all costs, survival of the fittest, and the fight/flight response. What the threat is is the question isn't it?

      Just a somewhat cynical perspective . . .

      1. Ken Burgess profile image75
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

        The only way you stop someone "who is suicidal hell bent on leaving a mark on the world" is to meet them with deadly force as quickly as possible.

        The only way to protect our children in schools is to have well trained, armed, professional, capable officers willing to meet out that force with extreme prejudice to protect those children.

        With a percentage of the school staff well trained and ready to handle such a situation being an additional asset and support.

        Every other solution is one presented in ignorance or deception of the truth.

        Once it gets to the point where an armed aggressor is on school property the reaction must be swift and immediate and without hesitation.  Better one mentally deranged individual be put out of their misery than many innocents losing their lives because of an unwillingness to accept reality.

        1. tsmog profile image84
          tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yet, Ken, it did not stop it. Yes, it may lessen deaths or prevent them all together, yet it did not stop it!!! Even with armed guards and teachers it will continue happening. Period!!! IMO and I am not saying it is gospel. Go figure!

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You are correct. By the time a shooter shows up to a school it's almost too late. Even when schools do have officers inside, they are at an extreme disadvantage because they are outgunned by better armed shooters.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image88
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think you are correct it will continue to happen until the root of the reasons it is happening are resolved. So, should we continue to do much of nothing?

            IMO, it shows a lack of common sense to do pretty much nothing but wring our hands. We had done that for many years have we not? 

            Would doing something be more intelligent than doing much of nothing?

            Do overkill our problems by taking years to consider what
            should be done to solve a problem?

            1. tsmog profile image84
              tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I don't understand your argument nor Ken's! I did not say do nothing. If I did please point it out to me! What I said is:

              "Arming teachers and armed guards will not stop someone who is suicidal hell bent on leaving a mark on the world from stopping his mission to succeed."

              1. Ken Burgess profile image75
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Actually isn't your quoted statement a misnomer of sorts then?
                How do you stop such a person if not with armed officers and staff?

                Note I said "officers" not guards.

                I expect the most professional, well trained, background vetted individuals available to protect our children, not a "security guard".

                1. tsmog profile image84
                  tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  If there is an action of someone stopping him, then he has succeeded at leaving his mark and is successful if he is killed or kills himself.

              2. Sharlee01 profile image88
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I was refering to our society as a whole. MY words were not meant to be directed at you.

                "I think you are correct it will continue to happen until the root of the reasons it is happening are resolved. So, should WE continue to do much of nothing?

                IMO, it shows a lack of common sense to do pretty much nothing but wring OUR  hands. WE have done that for many years have WE not? "

                I am sorry you took my comment personally.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I am going to go out on a limb here.  I know we are not supposed to post our own articles, but I'm willing to risk it.  I wrote this article in 2020 and I think everything that I said is still relevant and applies today about the 2nd  amendment and gun control.

                  Everyone is looking for one root cause and one solution.  The problem is there are many root causes where each one requires its own solution. It is a multi-faceted problem.

                  https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/The … s-Analysis

    3. Brenda Arledge profile image79
      Brenda Arledgeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Totally agree we need to keep our children safe.

  2. Ken Burgess profile image75
    Ken Burgessposted 2 years ago

    It's a tragedy that so many communities still believe the idea that by banning guns from their school, or county, or town, or state that they have protected themselves.

    All they have done is made themselves easy victims for the next mass murderer.

    The only way to protect yourself from such violence is to be capable of eliminating such a threat in quick and permanent fashion.

    In my county, each school has an armed officer on duty, at the school, and armed staff.

    We the people of this county voted on this measure, we the people of this county want such people shot dead with extreme prejudice before they have the chance to harm one child.

    I could not stomach, and would not abide, living in some sad and vulnerable "gun free zone" community.  It is almost always in such places where these tragedies take place.

    In this instance, this sick disgusting piece of filth walked the halls of that school for almost an hour before being confronted by anyone.

    An off-duty Customs and Border Protection agent from an elite tactical unit finally appeared on the scene to stop the teenager before he continued adding victims.

    The tragedy was that the parents and that community were willing to place their kids in school with no protection and no means of defense.

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "In my county, each school has an armed officer on duty, at the school, and armed staff."

      Is the officer armed with an AR-15?  If not,  what use will his small gun be? Are staff armed with military style weapons also? As a former educator I find the idea of arming teachers absolutely ridiculous and such a liability. Conservatives don't trust teachers to teach a history lesson but you want to strap a gun to their hip? And if I'm to have a gun in my classroom, then shouldn't it match the gun power coming in? Essentially all of the mass shootings were committed by a shooter with an assault rifle. And as far as this shooter being unconfronted for an hour, Didn't they have to get a tactical team together? 

      Why not try some preventive measures for once? It was interesting that Governor Abbott turned to mental health issues as the blame for the shooting yet he just cut his states budget for mental health.  What a hypocrite.

      Every other Western democracy has figured out this issue yet we can't?   

      Despite having 4 percent of the world's population, the U.S. made up 31 percent of all public mass shootings globally between 1966 and 2012, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama.

      What is our problem?

      1. Ken Burgess profile image75
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         

        Obviously such a question/statement is one made due to ignorance of weapons and close quarters combat (CQC).

        Depending on the officers training, the situation, and so many other factors, a typical 9MM pistol is more than sufficient to stop an armed aggressor within a confined/enclosed area.

        The true danger of an AR-15 or any other semi-automatic rifle is in the long range accuracy they have.  In the hands of a well trained rifleman a person with an AR-15 could continue to snipe (kill) from hundreds of feet away, leaving the scene before any response can zero in on his position.

        For within a school, any type of semi-automatic weapon is equally deadly and dangerous, whether it is a pistol or rifle.




        Again, an opinion formed in ignorance of weapons and the reality that the only way you can protect yourself from armed murderers in such a situation is with deadly force.

        The more people who are willing and capable of engaging such evil on the premises, the more likely the threat is eliminated before the number of innocent children murdered goes up.



        Well armed, well trained, officers and staff is the ONLY preventive measures that work.

        Any other answer is self-delusion or a lie.



        https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/worl … weden.html

        https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/uk/plymo … index.html

        https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/22/europe/a … index.html

        https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ge … index.html

        Every other Western Democracy has had similar tragedies in the not too distant past.  Despite much stricter gun control laws, despite not having the level of social disruption and discontent we have here (due largely to a stable populace and shared social/cultural background that is increasingly absent in America).

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Efforts to arm teachers have caused additional violence. After the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, the state passed a law allowing teachers to be armed in the classroom. Shortly afterward, there were several incidents including in California, Virginia, and Florida of armed teachers and school resource officers accidentally firing their weapons or injuring students.

          I also find it increasingly impossible to understand how one could believe that the solution to school shootings is arming teachers or having a security guard protecting every school. If a group of police officers couldn’t stop the  shooter in Texas , then why would we expect an individual teacher or security guard to do better?  The guard was killed in Buffalo and The security guard in Texas was ineffective.

          The real issue is that America’s shelves are stocked with a shockingly high number of guns that are designed to kill huge numbers of people with extreme efficiency. We have few safeguards for ensuring that these guns are not grabbed up or held by people inclined to use them for murder, and we have a political environment incapable of tackling the question of how to regulate civilian access to and possession of these weapons that were designed for military use.

          Additionally, there would be a lot of objections from teachers not wanting to have a gun strapped to them. What would you do in that case? Force them?

          1. Ken Burgess profile image75
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            This is a nonsensical, unsupported statement.

            Those situations sound as if we have security guards and even officers that are incompetent and incapable of handling any real situation of violence appropriately.

            I am not arguing to have people ignorant of how to use weapons or how to confront violent individuals be made to protect our children.

            I am saying you put professional, well trained police officers in schools.  And you train a certain, willing, capable, number of staff/teachers to handle such dire situations as well.

            Anything less just invites this situation to occur in your schools.

            We have well trained police officers in our schools, and trained school staff as well.  I wouldn't want it any other way, and thankfully neither does the majority of parents/voters in my county.   One of the few remaining sane ones left in America.

        2. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The important omission is how often these shooters are showing up in full body armor.  These security guards, as brave as they are, cannot stop them.  You even note that it took someone originally not on site to stop the shooter in Texas.  The security guard met him before entering the building and 19 people still died.  Faye's point is more than valid as the last two shootings (Buffalo and Texas) have seen armed security unable to prevent mass killings and more heavily armed, outside law enforcement needed to end the threat.

      2. Valeant profile image88
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Tops in Buffalo - armed former police officer.  Mowed down.
        Parkland - armed security.  Didn't help.
        Uvalde - security force.  Didn't help.

        'It is unclear if Uvalde CISD typically stations its police officers at the elementary school campus, but according to a briefing from Abbott Wednesday afternoon, one of the district’s officers approached the shooter as he was heading into the building Tuesday.'

        Security met him at the entrance and still 19 people died.

        This solution seems as effective as putting up fake cameras to thwart robberies.  All fluff, no substance.

      3. Brenda Arledge profile image79
        Brenda Arledgeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Our schools try to have a local law enforcement person at the school.

        We also have doors locked and no one can gain entry without appointment or getting approved to enter.

        Only certain people are listed to come to school to drop off things for children.

        You are right about the gun power.  We need to stop people from getting access to these types of guns.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          In my area I believe the high schools all have an armed SRO officer on site nearly 100% of the time.  But the rest of the schools - well, there is one officer for the dozen or so "alternative" schools (charter schools, a mix of corporate and state control) and I don't know if there is even that for elementary schools.

          I picked my grandson up just the other day (charter school) and simply walked through the double, airlock style, doors.  No visible security at all.

          No, she is not right about the gun power.  It doesn't take a bullet from an AR15 to stop a person using an AR15.  It can take a bat to the head or a fist to the mouth if it comes to that, but certainly a handgun bullet will do just fine.  In general, and in close quarters such as a classroom or hallway, a handgun is superior to a long gun.  It is just as accurate at those distances and can carry a lot more stopping power than an AR15 that shoots a 22 caliber slug.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            How is a teacher to stand a chance against someone firing a rifle with  high-velocity bullets at triple the speed of a handgun?  rapidly firing how many rounds before even needing to reload? That's having a lot of faith in a teacher's ability to accurately get off her one shot before she/he absolutely riddled with bullets.

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              By staying calm, using their training and killing the intruder.

              You obviously have little to no experience with either rifles or handguns, and a matching knowledge.  It takes a single bullet to put down a shooter, it is quicker and easier to use a handgun, and neither has any real advantage in accuracy at close quarters.  In addition, many (if not most) handguns fire a larger bullet than an AR15, if not as fast, and have an equal or greater stopping ability.  Most semi-automatic handguns will put out 10 or so rounds; if you haven't hit the target by then you aren't going to.  That awful "assault rifle" will fire no more quickly, is more difficult to aim, is heavier and more awkward - the advantage is all handgun at close quarters.

              1. Credence2 profile image76
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I am not an expert in firearm use, but what if the kid has body armor?

                I don't see how you can equate a single shot pistol with a weapon having a 100 round magazine? Unless she is Annie Oakley, or "Dirty Harry, James Bond, I can't see how she could possibly prevail.

                It is unlikely that any "school teacher" is so extraordinary that she could put down an assailant armed to the teeth. She has to protect herself and the kids in the classroom, a major disadvantage right there.

                It is no wonder so many teachers intend to resist this additional duty as outside their job description, putting their lives at risk for a relative pittance. I wouldn't do it.

              2. peoplepower73 profile image88
                peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Wilderness:  You said the magic word "training." If you put yourself in the place of the teachers, how many do you think would want to get that training?  That is what we have law enforcement for. Mass shooters can be thought of as terrorists. That is why we have a 2nd amendment is to protect us from tyranny.  However, it is to be done with a well regulated civilian militia and that is where the 2nd amendment falls short, because it was for a different time, not today.

                None of this will get done, because it is all backed by big money politics and interest. It will eventually cool down...until the next mass shooting of children and then it will start all over again and nothing will get done again...our thoughts and prayers are with you and your families. That is the extent of it.

                We are the only developed country in the world that has a 2nd amendment that was intended for another time in our history and we are still trying to contrive it to fit modern times.

                When was the last time, in this country a well regulated civilian militia had to defend itself from foreign tyranny? When Obama was president gun sales went up like crazy, because the right wing nut cases were led to believe he was going to commit acts of tyranny and they had to protect themselves. The conservative psyche is all about  protecting  yourself first, no matter what the cost to others, including the children.

                1. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, of course training.  How many teachers?  Well, those I know are pretty concerned about their children.  They take extra time to call them, or their parents, on their personal time.  They bring food to them.  They bring school supplies to the kids.  They treat them as their own.

                  And at least some of those teachers would take the training (certainly some of them are already gun owners and some have been trained in safety and marksmanship).  It needn't be all of them; two or three in an elementary school (maybe 10 classrooms in my area) could make a truly major difference in an active shooter situation.  Or any other situation involving violence in "their" school.

                  We have a difference of opinion of why the amendment was put into place.  Yes, the tyranny of government was a part of it, but so was the other uses of guns.  It had not been that long since Indians were a problem, and still were just a little further west.  People still hunted for food, and they still protected themselves from "highwaymen" or other forms of violence.  The writers wanted to protect the people from tyranny...but they had to notice as well that guns were a useful tool.  Just as they noted that the first step in total control is disarmament.

                  You think that wanting a gun to protect yourself, either from government or other, means that your kids come first?  You may be right, but it does not mean they are insensitive to the problem of other children dying.  My son and I discussed it a couple of nights ago and he was frantic with the need to do something that might help keep his two still in school safe.

                  Have you thought about the actions of the liberals here?  For 20 years they have tried the same thing over and over and over (taking guns from the people)...and we all watched while the death toll climbed and climbed and climbed.  Now we see it again: Chuck Shumer flat refused to allow the Senate to even discuss any form of school security, telling them that they would instead try the same thing that has failed for 20 years or more.  The bill produced from years of work on school safety will NOT be discussed in the Senate, not until Shumer has spent a few months trying the same failed actions he has tried before.

                  Don't blame conservatives; blame the one track mind of liberals that refuse to consider anything that might help our kids except their pet peeve and the one that will get them the most votes.  We've watched this play out for decades now, just as you say.  There is a school massacre, Democrats wave their arms, shout their shouts, cry their tears...and nothing else happens.  This time will be no different, and more of our kids will die as a result of liberal refusal to do anything but what has failed us for decades.

                  1. Credence2 profile image76
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I have said the same thing about conservatives with their static view that guns and their availability to everybody and anyone without restriction is sacred.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image88
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I was prompted to start this thread yesterday an 18-year-old here in my very neck of the woods was arrested for making a threat on social media.

      SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. (FOX 2) - An 18-year-old Shelby Township man is in custody after authorities say he made a school shooting threat on social media.

      On Tuesday, Texas Rangers contacted the Shelby Township Police about a post threatening to shoot and kill students at an unspecified school. Investigators said they tracked the threats to a Michigan address.

      Related: 19 children, 2 children killed in Texas school shooting

      Detectives interviewed and arrested the suspect at his home. He is being held pending arraignment, and his identity has not been released.

      Weapons found at the residence were removed from the home for safekeeping, police said.

      The investigation is ongoing.

      This arrest comes a day after an 18-year-old gunman shot and killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

      IT is just a matter of time before this kind of mass shooting will happen again at a school.

      I agree that we need to do whatever we can to protect our children. Politicians use the gun issue as a club, and let's face it this club has been used for many years and will be used for many more years. We need solutions right now.

      I think armed security is the way to go for a quick solution. Yes, we need to have more, but we need to step up and do what we can now.

      Yes, I agree from this day on -- The tragedy will be that the parents and that community were willing to place their kids in school with no protection and no means of defense. It's up to communities, and parents to demand solutions at their local and state levels.

      1. Brenda Arledge profile image79
        Brenda Arledgeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I'm glad to know that this one was stopped.

        I do think there needs to be a way of alerting law enforcement & schools immediately whenever there is a threat posted on social media.
        This guy posted his events on social media before doing them.

    3. Miebakagh57 profile image68
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      If a teacher or guard had a gun, it would make sense to pump hot lead into the mentally deraged boy arm and disable, and arrest him.                                          Its also very baffling that no one opposite the school, or behind can come to the help these defenceless children.                                             My question is: Is the the shooter a student of the school or is a mere outsider?

  3. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    It's important for people to realize the percentage of guns obtained illegally is astounding.

    "But it is still fairly clear with a cursory glance of some statistics that illegal weapons have made their ways into the hands of plenty of criminals. 86% of juveniles in correctional facilities are reported to have owned a gun at some point, all of which would have been illegal weapons for the juveniles to own. 65% of juvenile offenders tend to own three or more illegal weapons and firearms."

    https://gun.laws.com/illegal-guns/illeg … statistics

  4. Credence2 profile image76
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    More of the standard rightwing whining and BS, I see.

    The idea of turning all schools and school grounds into armed camps with teachers strapped with pistols and armed guards with assualt weapons, as a typically conservative a solution, is quite inane. If we do it for the schools, we better do it for the post offices, libraries, churches, etc.

    Under such a scenario, there would probably be a greater aggregate of fatalities due to accidents, etc, then all the periodic massacre type assaults combined. The idea that these educators/school teachers will be gunslinging Wyatt Earp types who can prepare themselves instantly against an assailant who has the advantage of surprise and heavy weaponry is a fantasy. The "good gun, bad gun" analogy is just more BS to entertain the feeble minded.

    Then we have the cowards, Abbott and Cruz talking about God and prayers, instead of practical solutions.

    Conservatives in their nervous fears and insecurities feel that everyone want to take their precious guns. Well, it is just a fantasy, as there are more guns in America then people, so such a possibility is remote from any standpoint.

    They talk about containing the mentally ill. Well here is the other part of the fantasy, without background checks it is difficult to identify these people before they can buy a gun. A retrograde state like Texas that make it easier to buy a gun then to buy a chocolate malt, should recognize and comes to terms with this. Thank God, that I wisely decided not to settle there.

    I should include a short waiting period between period between sale and receipt of the weapon.

    I say, in keeping with the 2nd Amendment, you all can have your guns. But, in compromise with the Left, which will be necessary as we will be harboring a grudge with the Right over this and other issues this fall, background checks and waiting periods should be required. How do you determine a person who wants a weapon to be mentally Sound without one? If you are serious about addressing mental illness as being the solution and you want to go beyond mere mumbo-jumbo, a tangible remedy must be employed.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image75
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Spoken like someone with an axe to grind and a bias, while not considering the facts at all.

      Children cannot protect themselves from the growing number of psychotic mentally unstable threats our society is producing.

      Grown adults can, whether they are in a library, church, or anywhere else, carrying a concealed weapon and training oneself on how to use it is the right of most non-felon Americans.

      If you want to protect yourself from those who want to take your life, I suggest you arm yourself, and train yourself.

      Schools on the other hand, should be well guarded and when someone approaches them armed with assault rifles and body armor they should be terminated without hesitation.

      By professionals in their prime and trained to act, not a unarmed security officer, not an over the hill retired policeman.

      And certainly not by being ignorant enough to think that by making carrying or owning a gun illegal in your community it is going to protect you any.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image88
        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Well said, Ken. Some play the bitter blame game while having no real solutions to share, that could truely make a difference.

      2. Valeant profile image88
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Not sure how many people I hear trying to make 'owning a gun illegal in their communities.'  Restricting access to certain kinds of guns until certain ages, perhaps.

        And if the solution is to put the 28-year old female teacher up against the 18-year old wearing body armor and carrying a long gun with the modified high capacity cartridge, that sounds like the same eventuality.

        Finding a way back to where we do not need to turn our schools into militarized zones sounds more appealing.

        1. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          So you don't think we should turn our schools into militarized zones? Neither do I. I don't have a suggestion either but I am giving some thought to the age restriction idea.

          GA

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Another idea I saw, which I need to do more research about, is someone claimed that 60% of the mass shooters have had a domestic violence conviction previously.  I want to look more into that, but if that's the case, I would be fine making some restrictions based on that common link.

            This guy talks like a redneck, so it must be true:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5g7OE3REME

            1. GA Anderson profile image89
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              This guy talks like a redneck? That was humor, right?

              GA

              1. Valeant profile image88
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Indeed.  I started on a farm, so I have some redneck humor in me even though I became an educated, liberal later in life.  Snowmobiles and guns to wine and golf.

                1. GA Anderson profile image89
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Hold on now, rednecks golf too, they just don't go the wine route, (wine's a woman's drink). That's where you went wrong, you traded your balls for grapes. ;-)


                  https://hubstatic.com/16014401.jpg

                  GA

                  1. Valeant profile image88
                    Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I blame the Finger Lakes, too many wineries around here.

      3. Credence2 profile image76
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        So a society armed like old West Dodge City appeals to you?

        If everybody is obligated to be armed there are going to be many more fatalities, if just by accident. Public and private schools where teachers are armed to the teeth, not very appealing to educators. The schools become akin to prisons based on an infinitesimal risk, education is out of necessity put on the back burner. How many "professionals are available to cover all high risk areas, schools in particular?

        I say that the problem needs to nipped at the source. Background checks, waiting periods and reports to authorities when anyone buys body armor. Connect the dots properly and you begin to identify a profile and, consequently, a identifiable risk prior to his attack.

        That does not take anyone's guns or their rights away, but better than to think that a school marm is going to stop a well armed determined killer with the advantage of surprise. Yours is a needle in a haystack approach, while I want much more comprehensive remedies.

        Even though much of this may not be palatable for the gun nuts, it is a solution and approach that is more viable than turning schools into prisons.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image75
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          These are such absurd responses.

          I articulated that well trained officers should be at every school.

          I see it at work every day in my county, what I see being replied in turn is nonsense, people here are talking in ignorance.

          Ignorance about weapons, ignorance about the need to protect our children from the growing threats of mentally deranged individuals in our populace.

          This thread reminds me of a humorous video I saw not too long ago:
          https://youtu.be/OP1vosHA1jE

          1. Valeant profile image88
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Sorry Ken, you articulated more than just well trained officers at every school.

            'Grown adults can, whether they are in a library, church, or anywhere else, carrying a concealed weapon and training oneself on how to use it is the right of most non-felon Americans.'

            And to think that everyone else's suggestions are nonsense and ignorance when they have the data to show how these things work in other countries is pretty rich.  All those other countries have mentally deranged individuals, yet they do not see this level of gun violence.  So they have solutions that work to this problem.  Your denial of that is the, what did you say, 'ignorance and nonsense.'

          2. Sharlee01 profile image88
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Ken, I agree with having security guards in the schools. It is clear these types of shootings have been ongoing for many years now, with no real solutions. The politicians are not solving the problem, and it is evident that they won't. Do we go on using children as political tools?

            We need solutions now, or we will be talking about this in the future, as we do every time a mass shooting incident happens. Our children need protection now. And it will...  And all the big brains will pull out the same crap to discuss, while more children are buried. Yes, we need some better solutions, but while we work on such changes, we need to protect children.

            y grandson is in a private school, they have a double door lock system, cameras, and an armed guard, with his weapon not visible to the children.
            It is comforting to know these precautions are in place. Yes, I  am sure nothing is foolproof.  But, something is better than nothing.

            It's only a matter of time before this kind of carnage will happen again.

            "SHELBY TOWNSHIP, Mich. (FOX 2) - An 18-year-old Shelby Township man is accused of making threats against a Texas school the same day a gunman opened fired in an Uvalde elementary, killing 19 students and two teachers.

            More: 19 children, 2 children killed in Texas school shooting

            Joseph Vojnoski is charged with making a terrorist threat or false report of terrorism and using a computer to commit a crime.

            Texas Rangers reached out to Shelby Township police about the threats to shoot and killed students at an unspecified school after they traced them to Vojnoski's home Wednesday. He was arrested and appeared in court Thursday."  https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/18-yea … cial-media

            Something is so much better than nothing...  Just common sense.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image75
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes.

              You have to train to deal with such a situation.

              You have to have on school premises the ability to eliminate such a threat.

              In other words you have to accept reality for what it is, accept the world for what it is, so that you can protect the children.

              It is people's ignorance and political ideologies that get in the way of schools being protected.

              In our school system, each school has a sheriff's office, within the school, each school has one officer on duty at all times. And during high traffic times there is also a police car with an officer on duty as well.  Making for two officers at the minimum.

              They are trained to deal with active shooters first and foremost.  They are there to identify threats and eliminate them.

              In addition training is mandatory for all school staff, some get far more into the depths of how to react and what to do.  Like a reactionary force, they have specific duties to perform as soon as any lockdown protocols are initiated.

              Response time for additional police support is under three minutes.  We have one of the best sheriff departments in the nation and the people in our community support them and expect them to provide protection of our schools as one of their primary duties.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image88
                Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "In other words you have to accept reality for what it is, accept the world for what it is, so that you can protect the children.

                It is people's ignorance and political ideologies that get in the way of schools being protected"

                I totally agree.  It's more than time to admit what kind of society we are dealing with.  And deal with the fact we will have these shootings, and gun reform unfortunately would do little to stop someone from getting a gun.

                It is disturbing that we have many that won't come to the reality we need solutions now. And the politicians are not going to solve the problem of school shootings. Private schools as a rule have good security. It's unfortunate our public schools can have the protection that private schools offer.  The difference between private and public schools, more parents get involved, and they are listened to. For example, many children missed a handful of days during COVID. Parents have more of an input in private schools. 

                I would be so scared if my little grandson did not have armed security in his school.

                1. Credence2 profile image76
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  "And deal with the fact we will have these shootings, and gun reform unfortunately would do little to stop someone from getting a gun."

                  Does that mean that it would not have any effect, are we just to dismiss the concept totally because it may not be a ideal solution? Every possible remedy must and should be on the table if we serious about solutions and not just focused on protecting gun access and their owners.....

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image88
                    Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    It could have some effect, but can we depend on what little it might offer?

                    My entire thoughts are consumed with the now...  Have we not been going in a circle for years, and it would appear many don't see we have had any success whatsoever to date. It's all and well to continue to look for solutions. But I am not willing to join that with others to watch these shootings time after time, and then hear all the same words.

                    We owe it to our children to protect them not with words, but in any way we can.  To be truthful it discouraging to eleven read some of these posts.

                    I have heard this crap over and over.  Yes, it would be wonderful to change some gun laws and get military-like weapons off the market. This is not going to happen, is it?   Time to be realistic, armed guards in schools, and a double door system will help keep our children, no not 100% safe, but safer while we continue to go around and around in the same circle.

                    So, no we need not dismiss your concepts, the concepts we have been talking about for decades now. But we need to as I said, get some bandaids in place. We owe it to all school children.

              2. Credence2 profile image76
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                As flinty as Republicans generally are, do you think that they would be willing to give more than just lip service to such a proposal?

          3. Credence2 profile image76
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Ken, just linking something that you might consider

            https://news.yahoo.com/too-many-doors-l … 56293.html

            1. wilderness profile image93
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Stripped of the ridiculous verbiage, doors are a problem.  Perhaps not insoluble, though - can hallways be made virtually fireproof, as well as sprinkled anyway? 

              Some of the many schools I helped build had an outside door in every classroom, not only for ease of access to the outdoors but as a fire safety.  That can no longer happen, not in our violent society, but is there no other way to protect occupants from a fire?  I think not.

              A bigger problem, seems to me, is the proliferation of buildings at schools.  Where I am nearly every school we built had at least one trailer - a mobile home converted to a classroom - added within a year or two.  Sometimes before the school even opened.  Such poor planning simply destroys any attempt at security.

              1. Credence2 profile image76
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                You know, I have to consider your point. I can see where there is room for improved building security without having to arm school personnel.

                All doors except one would allow for regular access to the building. That door could have a security person there. Other doors can be activated opened or closed by remote control by school officials in case of fire or other reasons where students need to exit quickly. You can also have key card access for other school employees to access from other doors.

                It can certainly can be considered as such key card access was introduced by my federal employer after the OKC bombing.

                It is an improvement that merits attention.

                1. Valeant profile image88
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I hope you're also removing all the windows from ground floor classrooms.  I hear bullets fly through glass fairly easily.

                  GOP schools in the near future...a happy and positive learning environment.

                  https://hubstatic.com/16014585_f1024.jpg

                  1. Credence2 profile image76
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I overlooked that problem. I stand for all the precautions I spoke of previously, tightening up on the ease at which these weapons may be acquired. At least the building structure suggestion could assist in controlling access to the building by unauthorized personnel, as too many of these shooters actually got inside.

                    Yeah, the image says it all, I am willing to look at any practical solution, even it comes from Republicans, to help us not find ourselves there.

                  2. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Would you prefer that or one covered in blood?  Apparently the liberals prefer the latter, for they will accept nothing but the same efforts they have done for a decade...while watching the body count grow.

                2. wilderness profile image93
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Also have to consider a shooter that sits outside a fire escape and then sets off the fire alarm.  But such things can be handled with proper consideration.  Lots of things to consider, and I'm certainly not the expert to do it, but none are insoluble.

                  For the life of me, though, I cannot understand the reluctance to protect our children with an armed guard.  We do it on the streets, we do it at music festivals and other big gatherings - why not the schools?

                  1. Credence2 profile image76
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I have heard of such armed guards in many schools in dangerous neighborhoods and at markets and such. The problem is that many GOP are talking about arming teachers in their classrooms and that goes a bit too far...

      4. Brenda Arledge profile image79
        Brenda Arledgeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Absolutely.  We must guard our schools.

  5. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    I'd like to see every school building staffed with counselors/social workers to aid in identifying issues in children that could potentially lead to later violence (How many times do we need to be told about the effects of bullying)  and connect those families with resources.  In my experience, elementary buildings generally have none., Middle schools share a few of these professionals who rotate buildings. It isn't until a high school where a full staff is employed but even then not enough to cover the building population.

  6. Kenna McHugh profile image92
    Kenna McHughposted 2 years ago

    Could SSRI Antidepressants Be One of the Causes Behind These Mass Shootings?

    By Bob Hoge | May 26, 2022 7:30 AM ET

    Mass shootings in the United States have increased dramatically over the last few decades. Those trying to explain the phenomenon have blamed gun laws, social media, white nationalism, extremist politics, pandemic policies—the list goes on. But what if there’s another factor at work here?

    Guess what else has soared in the last few decades? The use of anti-depression medication, especially SSRIs. It was in 1987 that the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, commonly known as an SSRI, was developed and it quickly became the standard. You’ve probably heard its name–Prozac. Other SSRIs were soon produced, and SSRIs are now the most prescribed antidepressant in the US.

    The drugs are fairly effective—depending on who you ask—at treating depression, and many users report remarkable improvements in their mental health. I know quite a few people who take them and they describe the lifting of the dark cloud of depression and despair that had been dominating their lives.

    But there’s another side to these drugs, one that must be taken into account. Read the potential side effects that the FDA requires to be printed on the label of every antidepressant:

    Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.

    We all know that every FDA warning label will scare the pants off if you read it closely, but this one seems especially concerning. The National Institutes of Health way back in 2006 studied the SSRI-violence link in judicial outcomes, and came to this conclusion:

    Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.

    A more recent Swedish report from 2020 made a similar conclusion:

    This work shows that SSRI treatment appears to be associated with an increased risk for violent criminality in adults as well as adolescents, though the risk appears restricted to a small group of individuals… Previous work has found an association between SSRI use and violence in young individuals, but not in adults. Ours is a much bigger study which allows us to confirm that there is an association in adults as well.

    Perhaps the most serious effect could be the “emotional blunting” (or detachment) that has been linked to SSRI use. Some people who have taken the drugs report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything. Not feeling and not caring could explain how these mass shooters have the capacity to engage in horrific, evil conduct that most of us can’t even fathom.

    Terrorists for instance are known to use drugs as “chemical courage” so they don’t feel pain, they don’t feel tired, and they don’t feel empathy. From The Sun:

    Suicide bombers, like  Manchester terrorist Salman Abedi, are said to be pumped full of drugs before they are sent on a mission, giving them red eyes and a distinctive look of confusion. The drug turns the terrorists into “unforgiving killing machines.”

    While the drugs these terrorists use are not SSRIs, as far as I know, they still show what chemicals can do to the brain.

    Substack author Alex Berenson argues for another cause: cannabis. He notes how the Uvalde shooter was a known toker, as was the Parkland shooter, the Texas church killer, and the Waukesha Christmas Parade murderer. I would further argue it is likely that some — if not all — of these killers were also on other medications too, including SSRIs, and that the ensuing toxic cocktail contributed to their psychosis. Remember, virtually all recent mass casualty killers had shown signs of problems, had spent time in the mental health system, and had most likely been prescribed anti-depressants or antipsychotic drugs, which are often used in combination with SSRIs.

    An article from Thought Catalog claims that 37 notorious recent mass killers were either on medication at the time of their crimes or had recently gone off their meds. The list includes the Batman movie killer, one of the Columbine shooters, the Virginia Tech gunman, and Charleston church murderer Dylan Roof, among others. I have no way to know if this is accurate, because the author does not indicate his sourcing, but I also have no reason to believe it’s not true. If it is—why isn’t this a bigger story?! Why aren’t the media giants reporting it?

    (Note: After writing this story, I saw that Tucker Carlson did, in fact, bring up the subject on his Wednesday show.)

    In conclusion, I’m not arguing that SSRI medication should be pulled from the market, or that anti-depressants are somehow inherently evil. Simply put, I’m not an “anti-medication advocate.” Depression is a serious problem, and medication has done a lot of good for a lot of people, most of whom don’t go out and mow down innocents. Rather, I just wish that instead of the political screeching and inflammatory statements that inevitably come after one of these tragic events, a comprehensive study of this phenomenon would take place.

    Psychreg writer Caleb Owens puts it best:

    When it comes to mass shootings, there’s no easy solution. Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. While it may be impossible to fully stop mass murders, ignoring the fact that certain medications, including SSRIs, play a role in a high percentage of these violent acts, no justice is being served.

    Amen, brother.

  7. Valeant profile image88
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    Some here love their opinion polls, so here we go:

    A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support” for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.

    Preventing gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9% oppose it, a net approval of +75.

    Seventy-seven percent of voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit, while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.

    A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.

    Banning assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.

    And fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.

    Yet one party will seemingly only entertain the last, and least popular, option currently on the table.  That often seems to be their stance, to go against what the majority of America wants.   Bold strategy, Cotton.  Let's see how it plays out.

  8. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    Could we benefit from implementing a system similar to what they have in Israel?

    I would have no problem with gun owners being required to take a course to own a gun.

    "How schools in Israel keep students safe and prevent mass shootings"

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-school … shootings/

    1. Brenda Arledge profile image79
      Brenda Arledgeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In my county we have a lical law enforcement agent at the school.
      We also have the entry way blocked so no one can just walk inside.
      Metal detectors.   

      It's a slippery slope & sad that children cannot enjoy school like we all did back in the day, but life changed too.
      Iur children can no longer play outside by themselves.

  9. tsmog profile image84
    tsmogposted 2 years ago

    Why are we going after assault weapons when hand guns are the most used for mass shootings?

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 … ypes-used/

    Edit: A very comprehensive article based on statistics by Everytown Research and Policy. Adding it because it states only 16% of mass shootings involved an assault rifle, yet 55% were with high capacity magazines.

    https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass … n-america/

    Is it because recently it has been shown to be the weapon of choice for the mass shootings that have received Broad media attention spawned by the body count?

    And, why are we thinking the cause is mental illness? Professional's researching that disagree.

    "Conclusion
    The central consequence of the continuum described here is that-based on the best available evidence-most mass shooters would not fall into the range of frank mental illness or disorder.2,3 This has critical implications not only for our everyday understanding of mass shooters, but also for forensic and legal determinations; for example, regarding use of the so-called “insanity defense” in cases involving mass shooters. This is not to say that serious mental illness, including psychotic conditions, plays no role in mass shootings. It’s likely that a small percentage of mass shooters do have bona fide mental disorders of psychotic proportions. But most-like our composite character, Tyler-are profoundly unhappy people whose worldview is shaped by “the 3 Rs”: rage, resentment, and revenge.

    Accordingly, when we psychiatrists are asked by the media, “How can someone who randomly shoots ten or twenty people not be mentally ill?”, we can reply by pointing out two things: first, that there is a distinction, however nuanced, between PED (Persistent Emotional Disturbance) and mental illness; and second, that horrific violence on a mass scale is well within the range of socially deviant but psychiatrically “non-disordered” human behavior. Tragically, human history tells us that this has always been so.16

    https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/m … y-spectrum

    Like I said in another post one can research to their heart's content seeking solutions to this American phenomena and not come upon a resolute answer. It is confounding. All one has to do is type "Is mental illness the cause of mass shootings" in a search bar and article after article will say maybe sometimes, but overall No. And, searching weapon of choice articles and statistics will show it is a hand gun.

    Yes, I, too think there are band-aids for preventative precautions, yet as I shared elsewhere it won't stop it. IMO it is a social problem pure and simple while unfortunately is an American Phenomena. We own it!!

    1. wilderness profile image93
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The difference seems to be the definition used by professional psychiatrists and the definition used by the public.  Personally, for me, anyone looking to murder a room full of children is mentally ill.  I cannot define the specific illness and I have no idea what the symptoms are (outside of a desire to kill) but it is far enough outside the normal mental functioning that I will call it an illness.  Whatever the professionals term it.

      1. tsmog profile image84
        tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Most people think that way. But, as technical as it gets in these forums I think it is important to know there is a difference. If one only reads the article one may discover there is much more to it than using a blanket for mental illness as the cause.

        For instance what about socialization within American society as a cause. One of the big factors of socialization is entertainment; TV, Movies, Video Games, etc. I don't know about elsewhere, but here where I live every news hour has violence in it and seems to be at least 2 or more times a week it is due to gun violence of some type. Is that common elsewhere I have no idea.

        Anyway, regard socialization three articles I read are below.

        Violence in the Media and Entertainment (Position Paper) from The American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation
        https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all … nment.html

        Violence in the Media: What Effects on Behavior? (2012 so one can extrapolate to today) from Psychiatric Times
        https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/v … s-behavior

        The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and Research from National Library of Science
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704015/

        My thinking for now is it is a socialization problem. Yes, mental illness may play a small role, yet some think anyone who loses their temper is mentally ill. Homicide, suicide, and shooting the Bad Guy is socialized as a problem resolution. And, the Bad Guy is subjective to the individual and the circumstances. In other words the cop can be a Bad Guy in one's mind. Taking from the previous article are those three R's - Rage, Resentment, and Revenge followed by an action using a familiar problem resolution.

        1. wilderness profile image93
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I tend to agree it is a social problem, that our culture emphasizes and promotes violence far too much.

          Nevertheless, that very large majority of people are able to cope with this, while those few that can't go on a shooting rampage.  Something inside them makes it impossible to behave "normally", then.  And that, in my world, becomes an illness - there is something different inside those people, something different enough to apply the term "illness", just as we would for a failing heart, an inability to move a limb or other physical problem.

          1. GA Anderson profile image89
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I would call it weakness instead of illness. I can follow tsmog's "socialization"  thought. In agreement with your thought about the condition of anyone that would do such a thing, I too would call them nuts, but my nuts just means they are a deviant, not necessarily clinically mentally ill.

            GA

            1. Ken Burgess profile image75
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, and these issues often reside in teenagers, so while not fitting the "mentally ill" medical definition, one could say the teenager had issues, psychotic ones at that.

              Another problem I have with this is that the MSM news and our President has put forth a false narrative as to what happened.

              The police never confronted him prior to his going in the school.

              There was no Security Guard that confronted him at the school.

              “He walked in unobstructed initially,” Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Regional Director Victor Escalon said. “So from the grandmother’s house, to the (ditch), to the school, into the school, he was not confronted by anybody.”

              Escalon said that the suspect, Salvador Ramos, shot his grandmother and then wrecked his truck in a ditch outside the school at 11:28 a.m. He exited the truck with a rifle and shot at two people across the street, Escalon said. He then approached the school and shot at the building multiple times and walked in through an apparently unlocked door at 11:40 a.m., according to Escalon.

              There was no school resource officer on site or available at the time, he said. Inside, the suspect walked into a classroom and fired more than 25 times, Escalon said. The majority of the gunfire was in the beginning of the attack, he said.

              Officers arrived at the school at 11:44 a.m., but when they went to confront the gunman, they received fire and took cover, Escalon said.

              Officers called for more resources and personnel, evacuated students and teachers in other parts of the school, and at some point entered “negotiations” with the suspect, Escalon said. After about an hour, a US Border Patrol tactical team came to the classroom, forced entry and fatally shot the suspect, he said.

              Olivarez said officers saved lives despite waiting before physically confronting the suspect.

              “At that point, they had the suspect contained inside the classroom,” he told CNN. “If those officers weren’t there, if they did not maintain their presence, there is a good chance that gunman could have made it to other classrooms and commit more killings.”


              Based on the footage I saw, I tend to disagree that the officers did enough, I still lean towards cowardly and incompetent, but it often takes a person of strong leadership skill to take control and do the right thing in such a situation... and from experience I can tell you most, be they military, police, or security don't possess the "right stuff" for such situations.

              1. Credence2 profile image76
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "but it often takes a person of strong leadership skill to take control and do the right thing in such a situation... and from experience I can tell you most, be they military, police, or security don't possess the "right stuff" for such situations".

                How many people such as these are available to go around based on your solution of education fortresses?

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  This is why the parents of Sandy Hook were awarded 73 million from Remington Firearms for their marketing of the AR-15 style weapon.  Also please pay attention to PLCAA at the end of the video.

                  https://youtu.be/ZJwf7oBVHKE

                  1. Credence2 profile image76
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Thanks for the link, i saw it all. It appears that neither Remington nor any of the other major firearm manufacturers are close to being repentant. That six times lethality as compared with a handgun was certainly an eye opener.

                    In spite of their cover, this PLCAA, one manufacturer paid the piper and other more may as well.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image75
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  There are plenty, if you select for that, train them for it, and enforce it.

                  There are always people willing to step up, just as there are always people wanting to be SEALs and Rangers in the military.

                  You set the expectations, enforce the standard, provide the training and support.

                  It's easy if you have a community that embraces their sheriff/police force and incorporates them into the community.

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                    peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Ken:  Please view this.

                    https://youtu.be/ZJwf7oBVHKE

                  2. Credence2 profile image76
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    How many slots are available to fill for Army Rangers or Navy Seals? Many more people than available slots, I would think?

                    There are many educators who has expressed resistance to having to be armed while doing their jobs.

                    We all like police and law enforcement, but will only go so far in doing their jobs for them.

                    I still believe that it will be a miracle to find the Enough of the GI-Joe types to fill the countless positions within public and private schools let alone every other place where people are to gather?

                    You see so much on military terms when this is a civilian based society.

                    Sorry, It appears that we disagree again..

          2. tsmog profile image84
            tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            How one decides for self what is mental illness will always be subjective. For instance what about the kid that shoves another? Is he/her mentally ill? Or, exhibiting signs of it? To me it is the same problem resolution at the core of it. Violence is violence. And, it is being used as a problem resolution unfortunately to the extent that someone decides a gun will be a good tool to use to act on Rage, Resentment, and Revenge.

  10. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    No one has mentioned the role of gender  in mass shootings.
    The Sandy Hook families  just won a massive settlement against the gun manufacturer Remington. The case sets a remarkable precedent for gun manufacturers to be held liable for expressly preying on men’s specific vulnerabilities. Lawyers representing the families argued that the company “tapped into anxieties of masculinity” to sell men military-grade rifles.

    The Remington settlement marks the first time a gunmaker has been held accountable for its product’s role in a mass murder in the U.S.

    But why are nearly all mass shooters men? Should this be addressed? 
    Is toxic masculinity in the American culture  at the root of mass shootings?

    1. peoplepower73 profile image88
      peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        If Remington was responsible for selling men "military-grade rifles" there is a massive problem in that courtroom, for they are not doing that.  As pointed out earlier, military grade rifles (automatic weapons) are NOT freely available to the public, there are only a relative few in the hands of the public, and they are very difficult to obtain.

        In an earlier post you explained that the AR15 was used in Vietnam, and it was.  It just was not the same AR15 that is being sold over the counter - it was an automatic rifle instead of the semi-automatic that can be purchased in gun stores.  A massive difference between the two.

        1. tsmog profile image84
          tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          An article countering your position the AR-15 was an automatic weapon. This article states it was a semi-automatic.

          "The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation. It is manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials."

          From VietNamWar.fandom
          https://vietnamwar.fandom.com/wiki/AR-15

          Edit: The articles gives the complete history of the AR-15

        2. peoplepower73 profile image88
          peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          An AR-15 is fun to have for target practice, but as a high velocity weapon of choice for those who use it to do harm to others, it is devastating war machine designed to do as much damage as possible to the victim.

          For the doctors, first responders, and families it is the devastating effects of being shot by an AR-15.  They don't care about the scientific mental state of the shooter, they have to deal with what is left of the victim and their families.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … ns/553937/

          1. peoplepower73 profile image88
            peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Here is the real reason nothing has been done or ever will be done in congress about mass shootings.

            The Real Reason America Doesn’t Have Gun Control

            The basic rules of American democracy provide a veto over national policy to a minority of the states.

            https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … on/638425/

            1. Ken Burgess profile image75
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yay, the Republic is working like it is supposed to, and protects against mob rule and over-reaction.

              Of course, a considerable amount of that article is biased, but I agree, it is those racist white states causing all the problems.

              I think the best way of fixing that is to just force those states to secede from the Union, especially Florida, let them run their States the way they want to without DC support/control... that will teach them.

    2. profile image73
      KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

      Unless things have change in the last 5 or 10 years even police Officers are not allowed to use hollow poin rounds in their duty firearms.

    3. Miebakagh57 profile image68
      Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

      The police would have had use descretion to handle the situation to arrest the 18 years old gun man, or to shoot him dead.                                  Nevertheless, they inactivity, they docile, nature, they ineptness still stand as a symbol of foolishness.                                    All said, these police men or officers should take to the honourable way out, resignation.

    4. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

      Other countries have figured this problem out. We just don't want to. My right to my gun supercedes your child's right to life. (Aren't these same folks the Right to Lifers?)

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Have they?  Really figured it out?

        Then why do we see the UK with far fewer guns than other countries but double, triple or more homicide rates?  How does that work if they have figured it out?

      2. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        If gun laws were the answer why are there so many gun deaths weakly in Chicago? It's the same in New York.  Why don't gun laws work?

        1. Valeant profile image88
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Because 60% of the gun crimes are committed with guns from neighboring states with lax gun laws in reference to Chicago.

          As for New York, prove that claim.  I think it's a lie.

          1. wilderness profile image93
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Sure they are.  And when it doesn't work, entice the neighboring states to also grab the guns.  And when every state has done so and it still doesn't work, get Mexico to do the same, along with Canada, Cuba and any other country that has a seagoing port or an airport.

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              An educated person would have done the research to know that statistic.

              Ah yes, lax gun laws must equal grab the guns.  The old Wilderness modification of words to mean something different.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                What else do you think gun restrictions are for if not to restrict ownership?  Including taking those already in the possession of American citizens?

                1. Valeant profile image88
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I always need to ask this...do you believe all Americans should be able to possess guns?

                  Restrictions are being added to try and keep them out of the hands of those who pose a danger to others.  Your general arguments always seem to want every adult in the country to be able to possess guns.  That's not really a smart policy argument if you ask me.

                2. Credence2 profile image76
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  No, it involves responsible ownership, not confiscation. I don the see how that would be a negative for anyone.

          2. Readmikenow profile image95
            Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "Because 60% of the gun crimes are committed with guns from neighboring states with lax gun laws in reference to Chicago."

            You've been taking Lightfoot at her word...shouldn't do that.  Isn't it interesting that ONLY Chicago, with all their gun laws, claims this?  It is further evidence gun laws don't stop gun crime.


            "New York has tough gun laws, but that didn't prevent Buffalo's mass shooting"

            https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/10996806 … s-shooting

            1. Valeant profile image88
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Actually, I take the Chicago Police Department at their word.  Again, way to bring a black woman into the argument to unfairly disparage her without cause.  Seems to be a common theme with you today.

              And New York just closed some of the Red Flag loopholes that allowed the Buffalo shooter to evade being flagged.  The law is still fairly new, it will need tweaking to perfect.  But they have nabbed a few other incidents in the state.

              https://news.yahoo.com/students-arreste … 14527.html

            2. peoplepower73 profile image88
              peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Wilderness, RMN and others:  Relax nobody is coming for your guns because nothing is going to be done.  The gun industry, the NRA, and the GOP congress have already got this all wrapped up.

              The older than 21 proposal won't be passed, McConnell already said it violates the 2nd amendment rights of those under 21. AR-15 Style weapons will not be banned, because the gun industry has made it impossible to define what it is.

              They have sold so many variations of the weapon and provided so many "cosmetic" add-ons, it can't even be defined.  Therefore no laws can be passed if it can't  be defined.  Then there are kits, where you can mix and match your orders to customize the gun to your liking; ghost guns; 3D printed, and don't forget buying them online or in the parking lots at gun shows

              You guys are safe, just follow the money.  They are not going to jeopardize that cash cow, just because hundreds of school children have been massacred by high velocity weapons that send shock waves through their flesh so the only way they can identify them is by their shoes.  You can continue to enjoy your recreational gun hobby as mental ill people take those same guns and massacre others..

              And also nothing will be done with the mentally ill because we don't know when they are going to commit their heinous crimes and there is no funding to detect who these people are. Reagan took care of that when he shutdown the institutions and put those people on the streets, under the guise of stopping big government spending. You can also point out there are more people killed by other means and also in inner cities.

              So you have it made, it will be business as usual and I do mean big business. Don't forget our thoughts and prayers are always with you and your families.

              1. wilderness profile image93
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "Therefore no laws can be passed if it can't  be defined."

                If that is true, does it mean that there will be no more efforts to ban "assault weapons" or "military style" ones?  Some are ongoing now - will they be abandoned, forever?

                I think not.  And not because, unlike the mental illness problem where we actually cannot identify those that will kill in the future, those definitions have already been made.  You remember - anything with a folding stock or barrel shroud is 10X as deadly and must be banned?  Where a pistol grip turns an ordinary rifle into a killing machine, hardly needing a human hand to pull the trigger?  A trigger that operates in the "military style", shooting an unending stream of bullets?

                The point is that these lies, and others, are now written into law as well as being spread throughout the nation.  And nothing at all will stop the fear mongers from demanding they be removed.  Followed by anything else they can somehow classify as a "gun".

                1. peoplepower73 profile image88
                  peoplepower73posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness:  I believe nothing will be done as far as gun control goes. The GOP congress has too much to lose from their constituents, The NRA, and the gun lobbyist.

                  The gun industry has too much to lose from selling ammo and accessories to those who already have guns and too much to lose in profits from new sales.

                  Your guns will never be taken away from you because they are already grandfathered in from the 1994 act.  Again, it's all about the money and the oligarchs who benefit from it. It is capitalism at its finest at the expense of those who die from the effects of their greed.

                  1. wilderness profile image93
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    And you may be right.  Or you may be wrong; strong politicians all over the country are listening to the cries of millions and millions of people that they have trained to believe the lies the politicians promote.

                    Personally, I think America will be effectively disarmed in the next 50 years.  They won't get mine because I don't have one, but neither will anyone else (behaving in a legal manner) in the not so distant future.  Of course, at my age 50 years is not so distant - considerably less than my lifetime.

                    1. Ken Burgess profile image75
                      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                      If we do not have a social or economic collapse that changes this country drastically before then.

                      If we get 50 years down the road without having WWIII or a Civil War.

                      Then it is likely that 50+ years from now they can disarm America.

                      The majority of young men no longer are exposed to weapons like my generation and earlier were. 

                      The vast majority of young men no longer learn to hunt, no longer learn to shoot in school or camp or the boyscouts, and they no longer are drafted into the service and learn marksmanship even if they are not working in combat related occupations.

                      So, I could definitely see it occurring after my generation and all those that came before me have passed away.

    5. Valeant profile image88
      Valeantposted 2 years ago

      One for the good guys with a gun crew:

      https://policetribune.com/breaking-alab … ry-school/

      But interesting how the narrative is a bot different among different media:

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/us/alaba … index.html

      https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles … ama-school

      1. Ken Burgess profile image75
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        From what limited info was given... it sounds textbook.

        Call for back-up, report position, engage and eliminate the threat.

        Every school should have a trained and competent SRO available.

        Every school should have its staff trained on what to do, who to call, etc.

        And this story should get far more coverage than it will, if stories like this are on national MSM it might help deter people from thinking Schools are an easy undefended target.

     
    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://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    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)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)