NRA Press Conference: Guns in Schools

[Dacien]

Identifying people who shouldn't be given guns should be done, no? I don't see the problem with keeping track of people with severe mental disabilities.

I agree with what Laize said, you're basically putting a mark on them that says "Watch out for these people!" Additionally, the stigma of being watched because "You're mentally ill so we can't trust you", that's all bad. Criminally insane =/= mentally ill, and that's a distinction that could, nay, will get lost in the shuffle in a government watch list or whatever you want to call it.

Also, some things like Asperger's are classified as mental illnesses in some cases for medical purposes only (like insurance coverage), when they aren't "mental illnesses" at all, in the true meaning of mental illness.

[SirRobin]

Really? You're going to criticize people for "ignoring" the cops at Columbine and then totally ignore the fact that Columbine happened while the AWB was in force with weapons that were totally legal under it's provisions?

The amount of willful ignorance and doublethink around this topic is absolutely astounding.

Who said I'm ignoring the FAWB? I actually link to it after all. You'll notice the word "perhaps" in there if you look really closely. I do agree though that the amount of ignorance and arrogance surrounding the topic is pretty astounding.

Again, if the NRA wants armed guards in every school, though "good guys with guns" didn't do nearly enough "good" at Columbine. Then lets give it a chance and tax gun owners extra to pay the almost eight billion it could cost.

[Dacien]

The argument about protecting what is most valuable was obviously a strong one. Common sense dictates that you defend your children. They are using that basic function of parenting to justify their position. After all, what parent does not want their child safe? The difference is, a whole lot more people out there would risk their lives trying to steal valuable goods than arbitrarily murder children. There is a very good reason why robbery is much more prevalent than mass murder. No matter how awesome your kid is, they are not more valuable than gold or cash and therefore will never be as much of a target.

If we did not have anyone guarding our gold reserves that shit would get hit in a heartbeat. We do not have criminals out there that are not currently shooting up schools just because they are guarded, see Columbine.

You make a very fair and solid counterpoint.

[Beavis]

Who said I'm ignoring the FAWB? I actually link to it after all. You'll notice the word "perhaps" in there if you look really closely. I do agree though that the amount of ignorance and arrogance surrounding the topic is pretty astounding.

So you acknowledge that the AWB failed to prevent the Columbine massacre? Does that mean you're for the re-institution of a policy that you know to be ineffective?

[Deleted]

i got a 3 day ban for saying what i really think about guns in the US, so this time i will try & be a bit more diplomatic on the subject.
i did actually watch the NRA press conference live on BBC news & was listening to the chap in utter disbelief at what i was hearing. he was blaming everyone else for the atrocities you have had in america & totally washed his hands of any kind of responsibilty that his organisation obviously (to a non gun wielding individual) has. to say having armed guards at schools or even arming an individual teacher just seems utter madness & would only compel an already bad situation.

[SirRobin]

So you acknowledge that the AWB failed to prevent the Columbine massacre? Does that mean you're for the re-institution of a policy that you know to be ineffective?

Hehe... Or how about we go with... So this means you're against any attempt to prevent the repeat of such massacres? We could even try... So you acknowledge that placing armed guards in schools is ineffective?

Though we might actually want to try... Due to the lack of conclusive evidence for or against the effectiveness of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the use of assault rifles in recent mass shootings, we should revisit the subject and perhaps (tricky word that) not only renew the act but update it as well.

Better?

[Felya]

Armed guards is reactive, not preventative. This dude was suicidal, a cop would not hinder him, until he has made an advance against his target. Even NRA is saying it will lower the number of shot, not the shootings or anything that leads to them. It's a reaction by a sales man, that the solution to crimes using his product, is to simply buy more of his product.

[SirRobin]

i got a 3 day ban for saying what i really think about guns in the US, so this time i will try & be a bit more diplomatic on the subject.
i did actually watch the NRA press conference live on BBC news & was listening to the chap in utter disbelief at what i was hearing. he was blaming everyone else for the atrocities you have had in america & totally washed his hands of any kind of responsibilty that his organisation obviously (to a non gun wielding individual) has. to say having armed guards at schools or even arming an individual teacher just seems utter madness & would only compel an already bad situation.

When listening to the NRA it helps to keep in mind that it is an organization which represents not only the interests of gun owners, but the gun industry as well. An industry that, like the Republican party coincidentally enough, has some real "demographics" problems. So coming out and saying anything along the lines of, "let's get weapons people don't need off the streets, so we don't have to worry about wackos using them on our kids," would be financial suicide for them. Better yet, think of the NRA and gun industry of today like big tobacco a few decades ago. It helps explain their rants.

[Grizzly Willy]

I agree with what Laize said, you're basically putting a mark on them that says "Watch out for these people!" Additionally, the stigma of being watched because "You're mentally ill so we can't trust you", that's all bad. Criminally insane =/= mentally ill, and that's a distinction that could, nay, will get lost in the shuffle in a government watch list or whatever you want to call it.

Also, some things like Asperger's are classified as mental illnesses in some cases for medical purposes only (like insurance coverage), when they aren't "mental illnesses" at all, in the true meaning of mental illness.

I think I understand now. Though, I'm not clear by what you mean by "lost in the shuffle in a government watch list."

[Deleted]

A teacher in the USA, 2015 getting ready for work....

[Grizzly Willy]

A teacher in the USA, 2015 getting ready for work....
<snip>

I'll admit, I'm starting to agree that armed guards patrolling schools as a "solution" is a rather poor one.

[Dacien]

I think I understand now. Though, I'm not clear by what you mean by "lost in the shuffle in a government watch list."

Well I just mean if we have a "mentally ill" watch list so that we can monitor possible school shooters (a horrendous and horrendously flawed proposition), suddenly every single person on that list is suspect. Suspect as a possible violent criminal, I mean.

[Grizzly Willy]

Well I just mean if we have a "mentally ill" watch list so that we can monitor possible school shooters (a horrendous and horrendously flawed proposition), suddenly every single person on that list is suspect. Suspect as a possible violent criminal, I mean.

Would it be a criminal watch list, though? All it would do is deny those unfit for gun ownership the ability to own a gun.

[Deleted]

Well I just mean if we have a "mentally ill" watch list so that we can monitor possible school shooters (a horrendous and horrendously flawed proposition), suddenly every single person on that list is suspect. Suspect as a possible violent criminal, I mean.

A sad thing ineed, myself and half my regiment would be on that list, despite feeling fine now. Bad medical records haunt you for the rest of your life.

[Rommon64]

Well I just mean if we have a "mentally ill" watch list so that we can monitor possible school shooters (a horrendous and horrendously flawed proposition), suddenly every single person on that list is suspect. Suspect as a possible violent criminal, I mean.

I'll agree with you that if that's it's sole use, then it's a bit iffy, but what if it was more of a mental health support network? Hell, they can even say they won't give out info unless subpoenaed, like I believe they do with telephone companies and the like.

The fact of the matter is, people are falling through the cracks, as it were, and 'we' (technically I'm not a part of that, as a Canadian) need to find ways of both catching people before they do AND closing the cracks as best as possible, for everyone's safety. Now, doing this with out taking away liberties, intentionally or otherwise, is the hard part. And saying 'lol, nope, liberties!' is just swiping the issue under the rug, in my opinion.

[Dacien]

Would it be a criminal watch list, though? All it would do is deny those unfit for gun ownership the ability to own a gun.

I guess... but I mean, I'd trust an upstanding and righteous dude with autism over a "mentally sound" but morally reprehensible individual. Mental wellness is not necessarily an indicator of criminality or propensity for criminality.

Furthermore, however, this is akin to taking away rights from somebody for the color of their skin. That is, something they have no control over. "You have Asperger's Syndrome? You've lost a couple rights then, bucko." That's not what we want, is it?

[Grizzly Willy]

I'll agree with you that if that's it's sole use, then it's a bit iffy, but what if it was more of a mental health support network? Hell, they can even say they won't give out info unless subpoenaed, like I believe they do with telephone companies and the like.

The fact of the matter is, people are falling through the cracks, as it were, and 'we' (technically I'm not a part of that, as a Canadian) need to find ways of both catching people before they do AND closing the cracks as best as possible, for everyone's safety. Now, doing this with out taking away liberties, intentionally or otherwise, is the hard part. And saying 'lol, nope, liberties!' is just swiping the issue under the rug, in my opinion.

Hadn't thought of it like that, but this would be a good use of the system as well.

I don't even think it would have to a set barrier. If you can prove that your disability is not an issue you should be fine.

I guess... but I mean, I'd trust an upstanding and righteous dude with autism over a "mentally sound" but morally reprehensible individual. Mental wellness is not necessarily an indicator of criminality or propensity for criminality.

Furthermore, however, this is akin to taking away rights from somebody for the color of their skin. That is, something they have no control over. "You have Asperger's Syndrome? You've lost a couple rights then, bucko." That's not what we want, is it?

The difference being that the color of one's skin does not impact their mental state. And, like I said, I do think there should be ways for one to prove that they are fit to own a weapon.

[SirRobin]

I'll admit, I'm starting to agree that armed guards patrolling schools as a "solution" is a rather poor one.

Another way to look at it is:

1. Means - The ability to commit the crime.
2. Motive - The reason to commit the crime.
3. Opportunity - The chance to commit the crime.

Since predicting, reliably, who will kill and who won't is still the realm of science fiction like "Minority Report." Same with where and when they will strike. It makes stopping mass shootings very difficult. However, we can restrict their "means." Again, we'll never stop every wacko. However, making it harder for them to kill so many so quickly is well within our means. The best way of doing that would be to take the NRA's ignorant ranting to its natural conclusion. Have the NRA volunteer firearms, as in unpaid for, for the guards and tax gun owners extra to cover the almost eight billion, annually of course, that these guards could cost. Once their own wallets are involved, I think we'll be pleasantly surprised over how quickly their "tune" will change.

[Dacien]

The difference being that the color of one's skin does not impact their mental state. And, like I said, I do think there should be ways for one to prove that they are fit to own a weapon.

And I get that, obviously, I'm just thinking of the big picture. The idea of a mental health watch list sits ill with me fundamentally, no pun intended.

[Grizzly Willy]

And I get that, obviously, I'm just thinking of the big picture. The idea of a mental health watch list sits ill with me fundamentally, no pun intended.

Please don't assume so little of my perception of the issue. I would wager that I would be on this "watch list" as well, assuming that ADD and clinical depression count as mental disabilities.

What would you propose as an alternative? I can think of one idea, but people already seem to be against medical history background checks.