Jump to content

Guns in the Classroom


Daedalus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Never have figured out though, why someone would want to hurt others, if he wasn't planning on being around anyway, for any possible payoff. And even more ununderstandable is why someone would consider it a good plan, to spend their 15 minutes of fame, proving that they were a horrible, evil bastard. Just plain evil. I can really think of no other explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To your one, the answer would be shoot him in the head.... it looked like a rather confused scene, with people pointing at the gunman and being shot at because some responders thought the pointers might be pointing weapons. In the chaos of such situations, the good guys and bad guys are not dressed in the appropiate designated colors or uniforms as they might be in the movies or in war.

 

 

That's pretty much my point. To expect joe schmoe civilian/billy security guard to a) figure out that the homicidal maniac is wearing body armor so a center mass shot, like they will have been trained to take will be ineffective b) take a clean, effective head shot at a moving target and c) not hit any bystanders in a crowded, chaotic area all whilst being shot at with an assault rifle is extremely unrealistic - especially given the trained professionals have a tough time pulling it off with no body armor involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. There's a trend of these shooters wearing tactical body armor: Aurora, Newtown, Virginia Tech, etc. So what exactly would an armed guard/armed teacher do to stop them?

Yeah, and what if he comes in a tank?

Clearly this situation would be more likely to result in higher casualties. On the other hand it is no reason to give up. If a shooter comes into the building the outcomes range from a)He sees the armed teacher and takes off running, to b)The number of deaths is reduced, to c)Total destruction

 

I think though that taking some action is better than taking no action, and by taking action the average result is better.

2. When trained, armed police took down a would-be shooter outside the Empire State building, they were commended for "only" hitting nine bystanders http://news.yahoo.com/nypd-empire-st...180844387.html http://observer.com/2012/08/breaking...tate-building/ So what's the collateral damage from a teacher, or good Samaritan in a classroom/cinema going to be?

Probably the collateral damage will be higher than if the teacher charges the shooter with a hockey stick. On the other hand, if you can kill the attacker with a gun, the damage from him will be lower.

 

There will always be risks in self defense. What should be done though is to do the risk mitigation and reduce the likelihood of an attack, and reduce the impact if an attack does occur. IMO the mistake would be to do nothing for self defense because of the inherent risks.

 

 

 

That's pretty much my point. To expect joe schmoe civilian/billy security guard to a) figure out that the homicidal maniac is wearing body armor so a center mass shot, like they will have been trained to take will be ineffective b) take a clean, effective head shot at a moving target and c) not hit any bystanders in a crowded, chaotic area all whilst being shot at with an assault rifle is extremely unrealistic - especially given the trained professionals have a tough time pulling it off with no body armor involved.

Of course it will be difficult and there is a reasonable chance that fighting back will not help, and indeed cause some casualties on its own. On the other hand, what is the impact if you don't fight back and allow the attacker to keep on shooting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and what if he comes in a tank?

 

There is an existent trend of the type of criminal you are trying to stop being clad in body armor. It is not a ridiculous "what if" scenario, and making analogies to one isn't a logical extension.

 

I think though that taking some action is better than taking no action, and by taking action the average result is better.

 

I disagree on both points. It is not worth doing something ineffective and considerably more harmful than an unlikely event it attempts to mitigate.

 

Guns come with an elevated risk http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101532.htm and that the risk significantly correlates with the number of firearms per person. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html It is therefore likely that significantly increasing the number of guns in schools will increase the risk of gun deaths in schools.

 

If the likely increase in risk outweighs the likelihood of those guns stopping an attacker, it is worse than doing nothing. Just because it might make you feel safer, doesn't mean it actually makes you safer.

 

edit: can has no spull gud.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask, on TV body armor, while keeping a person from being killed, doesn't totally negate the effects of being shot. Does wearing body armor allow you to just shrug off a pistol round or is the effect like it is portrayed on TV where the person is knocked unconscious or at least incapacitated for a short while after being shot?



Like ox1111, I grew up in a small town (coal mining) in WV. During the 17 plus years I lived there we had only one murder, (two ex GIs quarreling over a local squeeze), No suicides; but eight men died in mining accidents while one drunk suffocated, sleeping close to a gas heater in his own shower room. It may also sound strange, but in the 6th grade, three of my friends and I actually brought our shot guns to school so we could go hunting right after classes ended for the day. Even the principal thought it was a good idea since each of us lived a mile or better from the school and pot hunted to help supply Moms larder. Then there was Dukie, 9 or 10? He got killed while playing dodge 'em with a produce peddlers truck. The Shamblin boy, 11 or 12? He died of an infected appendix. And yes! We actually had people to die of natural causes. Other than turning a neighbors shit house over on Halloween, setting off a few sticks of dynamite in a tree to celebrate the New Year or 4th of July, we pretty much lived a tame and subtle life.

 

 

I remember carrying a gun to school to go hunting after school at a friends house... no one even noticed my shot gun on the school bus.... seems almost unthinkable now how common and accepted guns were then. Maybe in 50 years owning a gun will seem as unthinkable as taking a gun to school to go hunting does to us now...



Its seems that the NRA has lifted its standard post, mass killing silence. In their best sad voice, the NRA has suggested that we should follow the most immediate and easy to implement solution. Which is of course to make armed school guards manditory. They get to sell more guns that way. Bunch of thinkers in that group.

 

 

We've had armed school guards here for 40 years or so, race riots was the original inspiration for those guards...



 

Tar, this portion of your statement should give pause to anyone who thinks they are isolated from such an event. Bravado and B.S. are inherent to some degree in all of us. The courage and fortitude that female principal showed by rushing unarmed into harms way to protect those children, was bravery beyond my comprehension. Could I have done what she did? Only if I were armed, and even then; it would have been iffy.


Quote by Tar: I am pretty much a nonconfrontationalist. If there is a way to defuse a situation, or allow the situation to disperse, without causing harm or injury, I would prefer that course. Swallow my pride from time to time to accomplish this. I would probably shit in my pants if I had to fight. But if it was the only way out, or other people were relying on me to do it, I might just be able to pull that trigger. I think it very unfair of you to challenge people's manhood and intenstinal fortitude, without knowing the people that you are referring to.


 

 

I don't know if this will help Joatmon, but it's a try.

 

 

 

 

interesting rigney, the US is number 28 in gun homicides per 100,000 people, while the US is still high I am surprised so many other countries are higher...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is an existent trend of the type of criminal you are trying to stop being clad in body armor. It is not a ridiculous "what if" scenario, and making analogies to one isn't a logical extension.

I didn't say it was ridiculous. My point was that the person can arrive naked, clothed, in body armour, or even better protected. He can fire a long distance round, or set the school on fire, or blow it up. He can poison the food in the kitchen. My point was that just because some scenarios will make an armed guard less effective does not mean that you do not have an armed guard. We'd all look pretty stupid if we chose not to have an armed guard because the attacker might be wearing body armour, and then the attacker shows up in shorts with a machete.

I disagree on both points. It is not worth doing something ineffective and considerably more harmful than an unlikely event it attempts to mitigate.

Obviously. But why are you assuming the armed guard will be ineffective and considerably more harmful?

Guns come with an elevated risk http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101532.htm and that the risk significantly correlates with the number of firearms per person. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html It is therefore likely that significantly increasing the number of guns in schools will increase the risk of gun deaths in schools.

The articles you link to in no way supports your assertion that "It is therefore likely that significantly increasing the number of guns in schools will increase the risk of gun deaths in schools." Unless of course you are talking about arming the students.

 

If the likely increase in risk outweighs the likelihood of those guns stopping an attacker, it is worse than doing nothing.

Obviously. But why are you assuming the risk outweighs the likelihood of the armed guard stopping the attacker?

Just because it might make you feel safer, doesn't mean it actually makes you safer.

Just because it doesn't make you feel safer, doesn't mean you aren't actually safer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's pretty much my point. To expect joe schmoe civilian/billy security guard to a) figure out that the homicidal maniac is wearing body armor so a center mass shot, like they will have been trained to take will be ineffective b) take a clean, effective head shot at a moving target and c) not hit any bystanders in a crowded, chaotic area all whilst being shot at with an assault rifle is extremely unrealistic - especially given the trained professionals have a tough time pulling it off with no body armor involved.

Arete,

 

Well, point taken. Traditionally trained people would shoot at center of mass. But if you and I know that body armour is more prevelant than it used to be, would you not also suppose that the training will be likely to point out that fact to the trainees? And that more skill and practice at hitting a head sized moving target would be included in the training? And once that was accomplished the attackers would wear armoured helmets...and so on.

 

As in game theory, one can count on your opponent to counter with his/her best move. To win, you have to give your opponent no move that you cannot successfully counter.

 

Since, in this particular game, we can count on an intelligent human to find a good way to hurt us, if hurting us, is his/her goal, the most successful strategy would probably be in looking for the ways to make him/her not have the goal of hurting us. Since we routinely seem to be able to piss off somebody or another for some reason or another a dual strategy is probably in order.

 

1. Make attempts to hurt us, mostly unsuccessful, so others will not be encouraged to try.

2. Try not to give anybody any reason to hurt us.

 

A "walk softly, and carry a big stick" approach.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

Somebody taking revenge on people blamed for causing gratuitous pain, treating one badly, etc, by destroying what they care about and killing the ones they love, is not beyond all comprehension surely?

 

We live in culture and country in which the mentally ill, the outsiders, and similar people, are often lonely and abused; and in which revenge, even self-destructive backlash, has a place and a role. We cannot change that by force. And we are an armed people, which we can only change by force at a very heavy cost. So this shit is going to happen, as it has in the past, as long as its motivational roots are fertilized.

 

There is no way to coercively control and block flipped out and self-anointed revengers from lashing back, violently, without seriously coercing and similarly abusing (say: disarming) the legitimately motivated in our culture. We have to live with this stuff, as long as it takes to change the actual culture - same as the Saudis have to live with the nastier side of their misogyny, same as India has to live with the personal reactions to its caste system, until the changes have grown into the society from the childhood up.

Overtone,

 

"Living with it" is something few of us can bear. We have to start trying to fix it now, as we always have. Reactionary at first, and then fix the unintended consequences next. As we have done in the past. I don't think generational changes happen with no cause, and no intent. And being that we abolished slavery many generations ago, and the stink has yet to leave our souls, I am not quite sure that one generation will accomplish any fix. Consider the backlash to affirmative action. Now policies that were intended to make us color blind are used specifically to promote a black person, over a more qualified white one. This makes us very aware of skin color, and defeats the original purpose of the legislation, and wrongly descriminates against a white person, who never owned a slave.

 

Although we will never "get there", its mandatory that we continue to walk. Philosophically I liken it to a human life. As individuals we will not see the final act, we will not even see the next act, but this act is not the only important one. We buy life insurance so we can play a role in the next. We conserve natural resources, so we can play a role in the next. We maintain what is good, and struggle against what is evil, so that we have played a role, in this act, and the next.

 

It is our responsibility to protect our children and teach them what is good and should be maintained, and what is evil and should be struggled against, so that they may survive us and carry on with a workable, constantly improving plan.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar, you made this comment in post # 76. Quote: Never did build it, but my dream room, as my kids were growing up, was a playroom with a cushioned floor and cushioned walls, and cushioned steps/bleachers, with hinged tops where you could store the toys and such. The girls would be able to jump around and fall and throw things about, and there would be no sharp edges or hard surfaces to hurt them.

 

Not to make light of the dream romper room you imagined for your kids and one that you likely could never afford, but isn't it rather strange that we provide these very same facilities at tremendous cost to the unbalanced folks in our mental institutions. Funny how life works, isn't it?

 

 

You can rent a similar facility for parties and street festivals. Here is some video that I shot of children enjoying themselves in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to start a new topic about guns, but this seems as good a place as any to keep on keeping on. Having gone over the gun posts several times, I find we all seem to bring many issues into the mix that doesn't quite fit. While the following may be out of context a bit in the discussion of guns alone, it's likely at the core of this huge problem. Written by English author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, under the pseudonym Lewis CarrollI in 1865, it's a marvel of openness, understanding and good reasoning why a psychopath could be out there in the first place, with remedies likely no worse than what we are using today? The beginning is especially interesting.

 

‘Who are you?’ said the caterpillar.

This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation.

Alice replied rather shyly, ‘I …I hardly know sir, just at present,

at least I know who I was when I got up this morning but I think

I must have changed several times since then.’

‘What do you mean by that?’ said the caterpillar sternly.

‘Explain yourself!’

‘I can’t explain myself, I am afraid, sir,’ said Alice, ‘because I’m not myself, you see.’

 

http://www.cdhb.govt...ra/whatispy.htm

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is probably related to some type of mutually assured destruction, where large numbers of guns available lead to more incidences, in turn prompting more re-armament. Behind all this is the arms industry which profits from lack of gun control coupled with deregulation of arms exports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is probably related to some type of mutually assured destruction, where large numbers of guns available lead to more incidences, in turn prompting more re-armament. Behind all this is the arms industry which profits from lack of gun control coupled with deregulation of arms exports.

What makes even the inclination of that "assured destruction" statement sound strange to me is: I've owned one or more hand guns or rifles my entire life and never once felt the necessity to use one of them on a person and pray the situation never arises that I do. Even after 12 years of becoming somewhat proficient in martial arts, I don't lurk in dark alleys hoping to try it out. And guns, they will be sold so long as there is a call, not necessarily a need for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to ask, on TV body armor, while keeping a person from being killed, doesn't totally negate the effects of being shot. Does wearing body armor allow you to just shrug off a pistol round or is the effect like it is portrayed on TV where the person is knocked unconscious or at least incapacitated for a short while after being shot?

 

 

From the looks of this video, you are not going to shrug it off. Imagine several rounds being plugged into this guy, wearing this vest. He will be on the ground, crying for his mother, if he can get a breath, that is...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoUerMRuG90&feature=youtube_gdata

Edited by ParanoiA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes even the inclination of that "assured destruction" statement sound strange to me is: I've owned one or more hand guns or rifles my entire life and never once felt the necessity to use one of them on a person and pray the situation never arises that I do. Even after 12 years of becoming somewhat proficient in martial arts, I don't lurk in dark alleys hoping to try it out. And guns, they will be sold so long as there is a call, not necessarily a need for them.

 

The arms industry that lobbies to avoid gun control (and thus allow for more sales to citizens) also sells to government (which strengthens police and military forces as well as contributes to more formidable surveillance and prison systems) and lobbies to deregulate arms exports (which government uses as part of military aid to other countries, part of arms sales to all sorts of groups engaged in control of citizens, destabilization of "undesirable" governments, and other schemes to keep the petro-dollar propped up). I believe that the FAS has studied the matter in light of global arms sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, and he'll need to get that plate wrapped around his entire body - not just a fraction of the torso. I'd like to see that vest protect against bullets coming from the side, or the back, legs, groin, and etc..he's only protecting about 10% of his surface area.

 

These are not force fields, they are protective gear that is cumbersome, and many cases heavy, and mostly limited to save someone from dying - not to shrug off bullets like superman. Armed resistance can take them down, whether they subsequently die or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is probably related to some type of mutually assured destruction, where large numbers of guns available lead to more incidences, in turn prompting more re-armament.
We don't see that pattern except in gang violence and "wars" (apt metaphorical term) - which are at root products of prohibition X profit, almost universally, and probably would more easily be addressed at root than by multifaceted and complicated attempts at regulating the details of particular weaponry.

 

The inner city neighborhoods currently suffering under waves of gun violence have generally lower, not higher, prevalences of gun ownership, for example. My childhood region - a community of family farms and small "towns" (intersections with a bar and a feed mill and some kind of mechanical shop) - had almost universal gun ownership: literally almost everybody, almost every single house and most of the male residents individually, possessed a firearm of some kind. Usually a couple of them. This was a far higher rate of gun access and possession than we see now in even the worst of the inner city slums plagued by shootings. Murder by gun was rare (and characteristically committed by strangers passing through the area), driveby shootings (of people, not road signs) unknown, even accidents and suicides less common than in these slums.

 

And guns, they will be sold so long as there is a call, not necessarily a need for them.
So ends the digression into whether guns are a net benefit in "self defense" etc. It doesn't matter. A large fraction of Americans want to own and at desire use a firearm, for reasons they themselves consider sound and sufficient, and they are guaranteed that possession and bearing as a Constitutional right.

 

If it isn't immediately clear and overwhelmingly evident one way or the other, for all reasonable futures and realistic situations, the kinds of impositions we can safely allow a government in pursuing the banishment of firearms from our lives (or the imposition of firearms upon our lives, although that problem is not immediate) are strictly limited - infringing on a Constitutional right is very dubious behavior, by presumption. It has to be clearly and overwhlemingly justified, generally agreed by essentially all disinterested parties, etc.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't see that pattern except in gang violence and "wars" (apt metaphorical term) - which are at root products of prohibition X profit, almost universally, and probably would more easily be addressed at root than by multifaceted and complicated attempts at regulating the details of particular weaponry.

 

The inner city neighborhoods currently suffering under waves of gun violence have generally lower, not higher, prevalences of gun ownership, for example. My childhood region - a community of family farms and small "towns" (intersections with a bar and a feed mill and some kind of mechanical shop) - had almost universal gun ownership: literally almost everybody, almost every single house and most of the male residents individually, possessed a firearm of some kind. Usually a couple of them. This was a far higher rate of gun access and possession than we see now in even the worst of the inner city slums plagued by shootings. Murder by gun was rare (and characteristically committed by strangers passing through the area), driveby shootings (of people, not road signs) unknown, even accidents and suicides less common than in these slums.

 

So ends the digression into whether guns are a net benefit in "self defense" etc. It doesn't matter. A large fraction of Americans want to own and at desire use a firearm, for reasons they themselves consider sound and sufficient, and they are guaranteed that possession and bearing as a Constitutional right.

 

If it isn't immediately clear and overwhelmingly evident one way or the other, for all reasonable futures and realistic situations, the kinds of impositions we can safely allow a government in pursuing the banishment of firearms from our lives (or the imposition of firearms upon our lives, although that problem is not immediate) are strictly limited - infringing on a Constitutional right is very dubious behavior, by presumption. It has to be clearly and overwhlemingly justified, generally agreed by essentially all disinterested parties, etc.

 

Well, "except" is my point, esp. war.

 

Also, as I pointed out, besides claims that bearing arms is a Constitutional right (actually, it's part of the right to self-defense) is the unsaid point that lack of gun control is made possible thanks to lobbying from the arms industry, with financiers providing easy credit to citizens to buy, among other things, arms. Meanwhile, the same arms industry supplies better weapons to the government to equip military and police forces, which also sets up formidable surveillance and prison systems, with costs passed on to the unwitting citizen. The same arms industry also lobbies for deregulation of arms exports so that profits can be made from sales to other countries. The government uses that as part of military aid used to prop up various governments or supply groups to destabilize them, all needed to keep the petro-dollar afloat, and in turn, an economy heavily dependent on borrowing and spending.

 

So much for "disinterested" parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also' date=' as I pointed out, besides claims that bearing arms is a Constitutional right (actually, it's part of the right to self-defense) is the unsaid point that lack of gun control is made possible thanks to lobbying from the arms industry,

- -

So much for "disinterested" parties. [/quote'] "Lack of gun control is made possible"? Does not compute - What are you trying to say?

 

The role of the arms indsutry in all this is part of that millitary industrial complex Eisenhower fingered. That does not exhaust our search area for "disinterested parties". And creating a situation in which only lobbying by the arms industry stands between a disingeneously authoritarian government and the Constitution X citizenry it intends to disarm, is a really bad strategy. You don't want to do that.

Edited by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Money plus tyrannical power and guns are a very dangerous and volatile mix. And a person like the one mentioned in this issue seems to be wanting such a disaster to happen. But I would bet anything her dumb ass is well protected at all times, while those she has put the finger on are simple, law abiding and honest citizens. going about their daily lives just hoping the worst doesn't happen to them. When this trustworthy portion of society is the only well armed people to deal with, then an all out gun ban might be possible.






This bitch would probably turn her own mother in for vagrancy.



propagandists-at-the-journal-news-gracia-c-martore-pres-ceo-of-gannett-co/





Any man who believes he can best be served by letting the Government take

care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian!


Political Correctness is the doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority,

and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth

the proposition that it is possible to pick up a turd by its clean end.


Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Always Vigilant, Brave, Prepared and Faithful


Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Political Correctness is the doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority,

and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media

Yep. Especially since the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, the Limbaughs and Gregories and Becks and Brooks and Humes and Kourics and on and on have been taking over the media and promoting themselves - you can't even call a fascist a fascist any more, on TV, let alone deal with deluisional, illogical, rabidly vociferous and terminally lunatic minorities like the "Tea Party" and "conservative" and "family values" and "prolife" and so forth (why does the mainstream media confine itself to that kind of PC crap vocabulary?) folks in plain language.

 

But back to the guns in classrooms general area of interest: the point was what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lack of gun control is made possible"? Does not compute - What are you trying to say?

 

The role of the arms indsutry in all this is part of that millitary industrial complex Eisenhower fingered. That does not exhaust our search area for "disinterested parties". And creating a situation in which only lobbying by the arms industry stands between a disingeneously authoritarian government and the Constitution X citizenry it intends to disarm, is a really bad strategy. You don't want to do that.

 

The arms industry lobbies government to avoid gun control, as that leads to more sales. The rest of my argument is given in my post and very much describes the military-industrial complex. If any, that complex also explains why there are no "disinterested parties," only government working for Big Business, again explained in my message.

 

The rest of your message doesn't make sense. Lobbying by the arms industry doesn't "stand between" an "authoritarian government" and the citizenry because the same "authoritarian government" is also supplied with better armaments by the same arms industry (with costs passed on to citizens), and gets to use arms exports as part of military aid.

 

And the point that it's a "bad strategy" is absurd because it implies that the arms industry is lobbying against gun control for the sake of citizens. What is likely is that it does so simply for profits. The government works with the arms industry in exchange for better armaments (again, with costs passed on to citizens).

 

Meanwhile, citizens believe that their firearms will protect them against an "authoritarian government" with better armaments, including armored vehicles, ground-attack fighters, bombs, and artillery, not to mention formidable surveillance and prison systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Meanwhile, citizens believe that their firearms will protect them against an "authoritarian government" with better armaments, including armored vehicles, ground-attack fighters, bombs, and artillery, not to mention formidable surveillance and prison systems.

 

Right because that's why we are so effective in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our high tech military tore through them since they only had small arms and improvised weapons. Oh wait... we didn't.

 

High tech weapons don't offer any guarantees in unconventional warfare. I'm not sure why you list prison system as an advantage. I'ts actually a disadvantage It raises moral for the insurgents and lowers moral for the Military. Insurgents know that if they're captured they go to prison. Soldiers know that if their captured they're tortured and executed. Formidable surveillance is useless when the insurgents look like the rest of the population.

 

Also watch what happens to military support when the American government tries bombing American Citizens. You just lost the war. Warfare isn't as black and white as you see it.

Edited by Lance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I'm a little late in posting this, but the bill allowing teachers to carry firearms onto school property in Oklahoma "was approved by a 12-0 vote in the House Public Safety Committee and passed the House 87-4" (KOCO.com).

House Bill 1622, by state Rep. Sally Kern, was approved by a 12-0 vote in the House Public Safety Committee and passed the House 87-4. Districts would be given the option to pay for specialized training for teachers. After the training, teachers could carry a firearm into school.


Private schools would be exempt because "private schools are private entities and the state has no business
telling them who can and cannot carry a firearm on their property" (KOCO.com).

The bill would allow private schools to set a policy for an armed guard in order to protect students and themselves if an active shooter were to come on campus,” said Kern. “Or they could allow teachers to carry a firearm. The point, though, is that it would be up to them. Private schools are private entities and the state has no business telling them who can and cannot carry a firearm on their property.

The bill now goes to the Senate.


However, the Oklahoma Council of the Blind states that the bill will reduce penalties for carrying a gun onto school property.
.

Student safety; firearms

HB-1622

Kern; Treat


Allows for lawful carry of firearms in private schools and onto private school property or in any school bus or vehicle used by a private school if the school adopts a policy to authorize it. The bill makes private schools immune from any liability for any harm resulting from adoption of a policy allowing firearms at school and on the school bus. The bill also reduces the penalties for violating the law regulating the carrying of firearms on school property. The penalty for violation would be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, with monetary and jail time also reduced. The bill passed the House 87-4 and has passed the Senate Education Committee. It now goes for a full Senate vote. A substitute bill to be offered on the Senate floor defines “private school” as any school not operated by government. This version also deletes the reduction in penalties for taking firearms onto public school property.

 

Do you think that the penalties for carrying a gun onto school property should be reduced? I don't think that is a good idea. If you have a gun on school property, then you better have the proper paperwork that allows you to carry one.

Edited by Daedalus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.