School employee accidentally shoots student

Post Reply New Topic

Back on topic:

It does seem a bit lacking to supply tools for the job but not the training to go with it.

He may have had training and maybe even good training but that's no guarantee he won't get careless, anyway.

Training provided to a school security guard is more often going to be minimal than optimal because of the cost of training. Also, a better trained guard will require more pay for their advanced skill-set.
There are no quick and easy solutions there are only better and worse solutions and I've already given mine

In the same way that there is no longer RTA, road traffic accidents, only RTC or road traffic crashes.

Sorry but I don't see that you have offered any solutions at all.

I thought I'd given mine in this thread but I guess not. I've given it in other threads on this topic.

I would allow school employees who currently have a carry permit tovoluntarily carry a concealed handgun on campus.
Security guards in the long run probably wouldn't be much better because I doubt the school board would be willing or able to pay for them in the long run.
If there were no incidents for them to intervene in for a long time and money got tight that whole program would likely get cut. That's how budgeting tends to work.
Same for city or sheriff's office cops on campus; if things are quiet on campus for too long the agency that provided the them will want them back to put back on the street. Seen it before.
A few armed school employees are going to be there anyway with security as a secondary task and will be no additional cost.
We can go through all of the "what if's" but after all is said and done I believe this, if any measure, is the most practical in the long run.
I can assure you that "practical" will be on the minds of those having to budget the money or personnel.
That's my solution.

Maybe we should focus on researching how many people were saved because someone had a legal gun, was trained to use it properly, and stopped a dangerous person from hurting others?

A more important question....why is a student in a school employee's car in the first place...?

The report said they knew each other and the security guard was giving the kid a ride home.

Too busy to check right now, but didn't Australia implement some serious gun control a little while back? How has that worked out for them? Any noticeable changes/statistics?

Personally, I don't think we should outlaw guns, but at the same time I have difficulty understanding why the average person should be able to buy a semi-automatic assault rifle at a gun show with no required background check.

I also feel that there SHOULD be a national gun registry. If you personally bought the weapon, maybe you should be personally responsible for what happens to it.

And as for arming teachers:
The police shoot many many people every year, often unintentionally. If the police have so many accidental shootings even with significant training (an assumtion on the training part), what will happen when teachers/school security guards (who likely have little or no training) all start carrying guns?

I just don't think that the answer to an increase in violent shootings is to put more guns into more people's hands.

The passage of gun laws is in no way a barrier to gun related crime. Just look at Chicago and NYC and that becomes obvious.


Of all the “assault rifles” sold, especially in the past three years, with so few incidents what’s your justification for wanting their sale to be any more controlled?
And when your control measures fail to produce a result then what, extra controls on scoped hunting rifles since they could be labeled "sniper rifles"?


Registration facilitates confiscation.
That, and if someone breaks into my house or vehicle and steals my AR-15 he is the one that has committed the crime, not me.


The number injuries from accidental discharge by licensed handgun carriers is quite low. Last time I checked the police had more incidents.
Basic police firearms training isn't as comprehensive as you seem to believe.


It takes a gunman to stop a gunman, not invasive laws that won’t be followed by the would-be school shooter.

In Australia: Before gun restrictions, there were 13 gun massacres in 18 years. In one of them, Port Arthur, Tasmania, 1996, 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. Since the resulting laws (15 years ago), there have been none.



An article in TIME magazine on the NRA proposal to arm teachers has comments by an ex-police officer "I have heard arguments that an armed teacher could and would respond to an active shooter in the same way that a cop would. That they would hear gunshots,run toward the sound and then engage the shooter. I think this is very unrealistic"
In the case of trained police officers in the NYPD,officers engaged in gunfights hit their targets 18% of the time. When they fired at an armed man outside the Empire State Building last year, they hit nine bystanders.

NYPD has one the worst trained police force in the nation they are there to write citations for oversize sodas and spitting on the side walk police forces all over the nation should not be aloud to carry guns without extensive training that they will never get. If not teachers and police who will protect us from people trying to kill people in places that disarm law abiding citizens.Laws made to disarm people every where iam sure that will be the golden ticket that will stop crazy people who do nothing but obsess about the best way to kill as many people as possible.

You know, since all the pro-gun people here are comparing guns to automobiles, how about we have training periods before people are allowed to own guns? After all, you're not allowed to just hop into a car. You get your eyes checked, you're told to get glasses if you need them, and you're required to drive with someone who has a license for however long, and then you have to pass both a written test and a physical driving test.

As for the whole possession of a deadly weapon, at a certain level (I'll use Taekwondo since I have experience with it) you're considered a weapon yourself. This means if you commit a crime, such as assault, you can actually be tried with aggravated assault/battery. It takes at a minimum two years to reach this level, but more likely three. Ideally by this time, the martial artist has developed enough discipline to never use their training unless in an appropriate setting (either out of self-defense or in the studio).

I think people should be required to pass a proficiency test as well as background check. Everyone has to pass a proficiency test before they're legally allowed to drive a car, so why not before they're allowed to take the gun home?



To the person who said Chicago is a bad example, I can tell you where people get their guns. Indiana and Milwaukee. There are some gun dealers in both areas who have admitted to selling to Chicagoans. It is a bad example, because there's an easy way to get out of Chicago and go somewhere where they do sell guns.

This is not a viable argument for why guns should be banned. posting signs that say "this is gun gun free zone" never have and never will protect anyone. This is a case of some idiot not handling their weapon properly and not storing his gun with the safety on.

Firearms should not be stored loaded, especially if there are children in the house. Any safety lever can be jiggered.

ruveyn

That doesn't seem terribly unreasonable, but I'm guessing the pro-gun position would be against it, out of concern for a possible slippery slope. After all, there isn't an anti-car lobby trying to get rid of all cars, so there might be a slippery slope here that wouldn't exist with cars.

This slippery slope stuff is nonsense. The USA is a society so saturated in firearms that its ludicrous to imagine that any possible government would have the ability, never mind the desire,to confiscate all firearms. But the NRA depends on the thin-end-of-the-wedge" notion to scare people,conjuring up this fantasy of Obama and the UN coming in black helicopters to grab all the guns, it-in their mind-justifies their "not an inch",not one concession, stance. People who refuse all compromise usually lose in the end,no matter how long it takes.