Both Florida state's House and Senate voted to advance a bill that would allow teachers to carry guns in school. This comes about after the Valentine's Day shooting at a high school. The state has looked under the couch cushions and somehow scrounged up $67 million to pay for training teachers to be "marshals" who carry guns in the school. This is the same state who received an "F" in school funding by the Educational Law Center last year. This is the kind of hypocritical bureaucratic thing that happens all the time in education. If you were to ask a teacher how to solve an education/school problem the answer would be very different than those who actually hold the purse strings. If you were to ask a teacher how to solve the school shooting problem, they would probably ask for more funding, but not for freaking guns. We ask for more funding all the time. Yes, sometimes it's even for more pay. But most of the time the funding we ask for is to benefit our students, to reach more students, to help students in need. That funding is NEVER enough and is usually the first to cut. Interestingly enough, Florida state feels like they have a little extra money just sitting around. I bet the gun lobby is thrilled about that!
As a teacher, I didn't sign up to be armed in the classroom. And while this program Florida is proposing is based on teachers volunteering to have a weapon in the classroom, I don't even want to be in a school that has weapons in the classroom FOR SO MANY REASONS. Putting the onus on teachers, yet again, because "our" love of guns keeps us from dealing with our gun problem and our lack of funding keeps us from helping disturbed individuals isn't surprising, but it's appalling. My job is harder now than it was last year, 5 years ago, 10 years, even 19 years ago when I first started. And I continue to go in and do the VERY best I can, to the detriment of pretty much every thing else, every single day. If the burden of having guns in schools falls on my shoulders, I'm out. I won't do it anymore.
I stayed off because it seemed just so unfair to comment on what's going on.
ReplyDeleteSomething missing from this is that the teacher will be the first to die, seen by any future shooter as the greatest danger. In my opinion the teachers need to withdraw entirely. They have to form a block and demand the schools be a gun/weapons free environment.
We're in the middle of a weather Red warning for a blizzard. All non essentials are to stay at home.
I hesitate to weigh in because I know that probably what I say will be taken the wrong way. It's impossible to speak in generalities, but I'm going to make a couple of broad statements. And please don't hate me.
ReplyDeleteA "gun-free zone" is an open invitation to someone who wants to do harm. Call them ignorant red-necks, if you like... but there are some teachers in some places (and I know this as fact) that have CCLs and would be willing to carry at school. Mainstream media is biased and rarely shares instances in which an armed citizen saves lives. The FBI (among others) totally screwed up in FL and the tragedy possibly could have been prevented. There's certainly room for some changes in gun laws, but the existing laws need to be enforced as well (which I'm afraid they're often not).
It's a hot button topic and one I've learned can rarely be discussed civilly. People have strong opinions from which they're not willing to budge. It's why I hesitate to ever speak my mind. (and why I don't discuss many topics with my best friend of 50 years!)
Despite the fact I've not necessarily expressed my own personal opinion here, I still hesitate to click "publish" for fear what I've said will be taken the wrong way. It's another problem with social media - it''s much easier to discuss/debate in person rather than online. But.... I figured if I just ignored your post without saying anything, you'd come to worse conclusions about me.
Considering how much I hate conflict, It's amazing how often I'll play "devil's advocate". I'll shut up now while I'm hopefully still in good graces...
I agree with the gun possession amendment. If I lived in the US I'd probably have a few. However where I totally disagree is where gun possession is an answer to something else. Usually a failure to deploy social protections to those in need. In the we have guns because we fear being robbed.
DeleteBack 120 years ago all the cities and big towns in the mid west and west took it as a point of pride they had city ordinances that you couldn't carry inside the limits. I new feel rather than have teachers with guns and half trained officers inside the schools that the precincts of the school be a no gun area enforced by passing checkpoints like back in the day.
Law enforcement is not in total agreement about civilian gun ownership, but there are many departments which are honest about the fact they can't protect everyone all the time, and that their response time isn't always adequate.
DeleteMany school already have detectors and check-points, but nothing is fool-proof... not even the notion of banning guns entirely (which I'm not even going to attempt to debate).
I'm not saying I have all the answers and there are many factors to the debate not always considered by one side or the other. I will say this.... I've recently read two histories, both taking place in the first part of the 20th century, and there's no doubt in my mind that things are no worse today (in many respects) than they were in the past. Times have changed, but human depravity hasn't.
Some I agree some I don't. What's occurred over the last 40 years has opened the position from one of farms and hunters to everyone with a fear. Nor has it mattered all that much if the fear was based upon anything tangible. However the anti gun lobby has taken a stance almost designed to give strength to the NRA. So you have two side that won't give an inch.
DeleteBut this is different. The only other place in the world that cannot protect its kids in school is Afghanistan.
And on a side note.... I ran across this article the other day and found it to be quite interesting.
ReplyDeletehttp://time.com/4492872/kehoe-attack-history/
Although I consider myself an Independent with conservative leanings and do own firearms, I don't understand why we at least can't:
ReplyDelete1. Pass a universal background check required to purchase any firearm anywhere at anytime.
2. Raise age limits to purchase guns to 21, just like we do with alcohol.
3. Put restrictions on who can purchase firearms like those with certain mental illness, convicted of felonies, etc.
4. Focus more on why parents are letting their children buy multiple firearms, put racist stickers on their backpack and partake in multiple sessions of self-mutilation (as in the recent incident) than whether or not some feature makes a gun an "assault" weapon or whether we should ban them.
As an engineer, I always focus on the "low hanging fruit" first and this issue always causes society to focus on the entire tree as a whole and nothing ever gets done.
I agree with much of what you've said, Ed... but some of it goes back to my original statement that there are already laws on the books for a couple of your points that fail to get enforced. I don't know about every state, but I do know AR and LA both have laws regarding the possession of firearms by convicted felons that last throughout their parole, and often for a set number of years beyond. As for mental health... look at this website that my daughter sent me:
Deletehttp://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
She works in a DA's office and, as she told me, mental health statuses are under-reported and it's tough for many agencies to keep track of them. Therefore, a failure in the system. She also told me there are some misdemeanors (such as domestic abuse battery) that have restrictions, as well as felonies.
I can also understand the age restriction, but my SIL (who was a cop at one time) noted that if a cadet completed training at age 19 (totally feasible where he trained), they wouldn't legally be able to buy their own service revolver. And while not exactly on topic, my husband (a Vietnam vet) has always said it's interesting that someone is old enough to die for their country at 18, but not old enough to go in a bar and order a drink before deploying.
Sorry for hijacking your comments, Kimberly. I'll back off now.
The problem with the Mental Illness bit is that it will be uses as purity vetting.
DeleteAnd Ed's method would be used in a similar way. Remember many many people would very much like to restrict access to arms to themselves and fellow traveller's only. Starting with the poor, the black and then to whomever that feel is agin em.
So the issue is can they be blocked. And I think they can. But only a blanket ban.
I think one of the problems with mental health issues is that at least in my state, there is no obligation or method for a mental health professional to add someone to a list stating that they shouldn't be able to purchase a gun. I think this is where a standard national registry would play an important part. I would also allow police to add a name in any situation that merited it like spousal abuse, theft, robbery, etc.
DeleteAs for the police cadet or soldier situation, I envision a graduated permit much like we have for our drivers license. Those say 12 (arbitrary number here) and older would be allowed to use firearms in company of an adult. Those 18 and older would be able to purchase certain firearms with parental consent and those 21 and older would be able to purchase any legal firearm without parental consent.
And slightly off topic, I do think 18 years old is too young to ask someone to go fight and possibly die for our country.
In a country that cannot form a Poll so people can vote without abusing it to their own gain. This is certainly in the SCOTUS Minds when deciding upon one of the clearest of the Amendments.
DeleteI will not teach at a school with armed teachers.
ReplyDeleteWow, wow, wow, such a hot-button and emotional topic. I get that you don't want to be armed at school. But I also believe armed teachers might level the playing field a bit. I also believe bad people are going to do bad things no matter what. And I do NOT understand why ANY civilian needs to own an assault weapon.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason one can not fathom why an assault weapon is necessary is because our country lives in a relatively stable period of peace. Perhaps citizens of Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain could also imagine a similar period in their country's history. I'm guessing based upon more recent events they are happy with what assault weapons they have and wish they had more. There may come a day when we decide our government doesn't represent us anymore and it is time to overthrow it. If that day ever comes, assault weapons will do little if anything compared to the terrible weapons are government possess but they might be the difference between kneeling and freedom for a time.
DeleteAt the end of the day, I think our lack of imagination for the need of such weapons is because of the privilege we have been born into compared to other countries. We've been blessed and I hope it continues long after I am just dust.
How do you define an "assault weapon"?
ReplyDeleteWe are all just as outranged and disgusted.. I have great respect to these young students who are standing up and speaking out.. more power to them and shame on all the gun loving nuts out there placing more value on a weapon than a life.
ReplyDelete