Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut Elementary School

Ahhh, but you can and I was! The school I worked was K-5th grade. So yes I was there all day every day. I even went on field trips and when I wasn't in the school on any day, another officer on the force came in for the day so it was always covered. That's the way the program was designed to work. Not sure if it still is but when I was an SRO it was started as a Federal Grant program so any school could apply and get them and then after 3 or 4 years the local district would take over the program. So YES it can, has and is being done - even in a kindergarten!

I'll be darned, I guess i need to reconsider that aspect of it. I always thought SROs were mainly for junior high school and high school, where kids are starting to get into more trouble. I used to be a newspaper reporter and covered police and crime and had work relationships with numerous officers, including SROs, which were just in the upper grades at the time and the schools paid part of the officer's salary. I learn something new every day.

As long as there is an armed police officer, or a secured defensive firearm accessible to trained staff, then I think schools are much safer. If each school needs to have an officer assigned to it, and if the school districts and cities can budget for that, then so be it. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to assign an officer to every school.
 
Re: Shooting in Newtown, Conneticut Elementary School

There are many factors, not the least of which is lack of facilities for mentally ill and disturbed children. This was something I fought daily when I was a School Resource Officer. I saw children who were mentally disturbed and a danger to others, some of them as young as 7 years old, but when I would try to have them removed from the school or find them help, it was almost non-existent. Our society doesn't want to believe that young children can have criminal intent or be dangerous and so we bury our head in the sand until they are older and they refuse help or it's just too late and they turn our like the shooter here. Until we improve these types of services we are not going to move forward.

+100 to this.

I have been a school teacher for over twenty years, and I understand and agree entirely with what Mary is saying.

I remember in the early nineties we began to see these types of kids more and more. They are to a least a degree, products of their environments. Often they grow up in "homes" devoid of any kind of emotional, physical, or mental support. They are neglected and abused. Some are able to rise above this, but many don't. For those of us who grew up in relatively normal homes, we have no idea of the private hell their lives can become.

I don't know what else to say. I think the number of times that this has happened since columbine is a symptom of a society that needs to fix itself in so many ways. Its not just an American problem, a student was shot and killed at a school only 45 minutes from where I live and work.

I don't know about arming teachers. My God, how did we get here?
 
I'll be darned, I guess i need to reconsider that aspect of it. I always thought SROs were mainly for junior high school and high school, where kids are starting to get into more trouble. I used to be a newspaper reporter and covered police and crime and had work relationships with numerous officers, including SROs, which were just in the upper grades at the time and the schools paid part of the officer's salary. I learn something new every day.

As long as there is an armed police officer, or a secured defensive firearm accessible to trained staff, then I think schools are much safer. If each school needs to have an officer assigned to it, and if the school districts and cities can budget for that, then so be it. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to assign an officer to every school.

With the younger ages, we were there for problems but we were more proactive than that. I did anti drug classes, Internet safety classes and even taught a fingerprint lab for the 5th graders (loved that one!). We were in the classrooms, at ball games and really developing relationships with the kids. Then on top of that there was the safety as well. Thats why I'm such an advocate...it's a win-win situation :)
 
I'll be darned, I guess i need to reconsider that aspect of it. I always thought SROs were mainly for junior high school and high school, where kids are starting to get into more trouble. I used to be a newspaper reporter and covered police and crime and had work relationships with numerous officers, including SROs, which were just in the upper grades at the time and the schools paid part of the officer's salary. I learn something new every day.

As long as there is an armed police officer, or a secured defensive firearm accessible to trained staff, then I think schools are much safer. If each school needs to have an officer assigned to it, and if the school districts and cities can budget for that, then so be it. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to assign an officer to every school.

You are willing to pay DMC, but I think the reality of it is many are not. Most people are willing to spend more on their F*cking cars,( a stinking piece of metal) or that 3000 square foot house that they don't need with its goddamn granite countertops and stainless steel appliances, or a 90 inch flat screen tv etc etc than they would on the safety and welfare of children.
 
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
We cannot make this any better by passing more senseless laws or restrictions.These things happen and we keep on doing the same thing that does not work. Banning guns simply will not work or any anti gun laws would not have prevented this type of thing from happening. it never will. All over the world where guns are present or not when some psyco wants to kill a bunch of people what does he do? go to some unsecured place where people gather together for maximum body count. I seems to me the solution is simple, make places like that more secure. when was the last massacre at a courtroom? Never, they have armed guards and metal detectors and everyone that goes in is checked. Yes we have the technology, manpower and know how we can make public venues more safe and schools especially.
I got this quote from another forum but it is so true.
" Violence is a part of nature. No creature on this earth is exempt from it. Violence has shaped human society since the dawn of man and only people who have accepted this fact and prepared to meet evil with force have ever stopped it."
 
You are willing to pay DMC, but I think the reality of it is many are not. Most people are willing to spend more on their F*cking cars,( a stinking piece of metal) or that 3000 square foot house that they don't need with its goddamn granite countertops and stainless steel appliances, or a 90 inch flat screen tv etc etc than they would on the safety and welfare of children.

Consider the 3,000 square foot house pays more in property taxes, which are useful to fund services like police. Plus, I live in a 3,300 sf house (family of five). But I tend to agree with you and I haven't purchased a new car in 10 years.

Talk is cheap. Public services are not.
 
I seems to me the solution is simple, make places like that more secure. when was the last massacre at a courtroom? Never, they have armed guards and metal detectors and everyone that goes in is checked. Yes we have the technology, manpower and know how we can make public venues more safe and schools especially.
I don't need to see police-state checkpoints everywhere I go just so that I can feel slightly more secure that a rare thing might not happen to me if I give up just a bit more freedom. I don't need to be scattered with useless ionizing radiation or take off my shoes to get on a plane just because someone decided that they want to pretend I'm safer for it. I'm not. If someone wants to do something crazy like this, we aren't going to stop them by pretending we can secure every potential target or place people congregate.

If a private party wants security at their event, so be it. Let them pay for it. I do not need more in-effectual government stooges standing around scanning or searching everyone in public spaces. It wouldn't change anything. I/we certainly do not need to pay for it.
 
Consider the 3,000 square foot house pays more in property taxes, which are useful to fund services like police. Plus, I live in a 3,300 sf house (family of five). But I tend to agree with you and I haven't purchased a new car in 10 years.

Talk is cheap. Public services are not.

Bingo.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, it was a bit of a rant on my part. I guess I am angry because every time this happens its the same. I saw it happen with the shooting in my school district. Nothing really changed as a result of it. Nobody wants to admit the problems are real and they exist and they need to be dealt with. Why? Because it costs money to do it, and the politicians are more concerned with preserving their own cushy positions and expense accounts, rather than risk not getting reelected by making an unpopular decision that would benefit the greater good.
 
I don't need to see police-state checkpoints everywhere I go just so that I can feel slightly more secure that a rare thing might not happen to me if I give up just a bit more freedom. I don't need to be scattered with useless ionizing radiation or take off my shoes to get on a plane just because someone decided that they want to pretend I'm safer for it. I'm not. If someone wants to do something crazy like this, we aren't going to stop them by pretending we can secure every potential target or place people congregate.

If a private party wants security at their event, so be it. Let them pay for it. I do not need more in-effectual government stooges standing around scanning or searching everyone in public spaces. It wouldn't change anything. I/we certainly do not need to pay for

I am willing to take my chances and provide my own security, All I am trying to do is offer an alternative to passing more senseless laws or bans that do not do any good and violate my right and ability to defend myself.
 
We cannot make this any better by passing more senseless laws or restrictions.These things happen and we keep on doing the same thing that does not work. Banning guns simply will not work or any anti gun laws would not have prevented this type of thing from happening. it never will.

Worked in Oz, where firearm related deaths have almost halved since tough ownership restrictions were put in place following the Port Arthur massacre in '96.

Has it stopped it altogether? No, as you've noted there'll always be lunatics on a mission. But the figures don't lie. Isn't it at least discussion worthy as a nation? Isn't it at least worth considering we may have seen a very different outcome if the recent shooter didn't have such easy access to a ready made arsenal in his mothers cupboard? 26 people also had a right to defend themselves too.....but that argument didn't really work out too well for them, did it?. As it stands that Einstein quote is speaking volumes. Especially given no one even wants to have the conversation to begin with.

I'd never be so bold as to try and dictate to American opinion from an armchair in Melbourne, Australia. But the head in the sand approach just seems too silly to not pass comment on too. Ultimately, whether you "should" or "shouldn't" is an issue for the American people. But blind Freddie could tell you that you should at least be willing to have the discussion and lay all the cards on the table.
 
I agree with sitting down and talking. I agree with tightening rules. The only problem is the lawless don't care about laws. People still speed. Kids still make fake ID's. People still rob banks. All against the law and yet still happen every day. then we have the nut bag in Norway a few years ago who just went on the spree of a life time in a country with little or no homicide killing 72 people.
 
It seems like the more violent the media, the more violent the society. Kids see people shooting people numerous times each day if they watch TV. I know this has to have a major affect on things. I mean even if you cleaned up the airwaves, there's still the internet which is still like the wild west in a lot of ways.
 
If life was only as black and white as statistical data the world would be a much better place.
 
Worked in Oz, where firearm related deaths have almost halved since tough ownership restrictions were put in place following the Port Arthur massacre in '96.

Has it stopped it altogether? No, as you've noted there'll always be lunatics on a mission. But the figures don't lie. Isn't it at least discussion worthy as a nation? Isn't it at least worth considering we may have seen a very different outcome if the recent shooter didn't have such easy access to a ready made arsenal in his mothers cupboard? 26 people also had a right to defend themselves too.....but that argument didn't really work out too well for them, did it?. As it stands that Einstein quote is speaking volumes. Especially given no one even wants to have the conversation to begin with.

I'd never be so bold as to try and dictate to American opinion from an armchair in Melbourne, Australia. But the head in the sand approach just seems too silly to not pass comment on too. Ultimately, whether you "should" or "shouldn't" is an issue for the American people. But blind Freddie could tell you that you should at least be willing to have the discussion and lay all the cards on the table.

What worked for Australia and the rest of the world simply will not work here, We already have states separating from the union at the mere thought of banning guns and they are tired of the federal government getting too big and controlling. I simply do not want to live in a country where you do not have the ability to defend yourself. May be time to move back to Texas or Oklahoma where they will never ban guns.
What do previous gun owners think about the bans in your country? Don't they feel naked? I am sure all the criminals turned in they're guns as well. What about rape? I hear that went way up.
 
In the UK, we have a routinely unarmed Police force. Gun crime is also fortunately only a very niche issue and we have specialist units that deal with armed offences. The justification is below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

I've always been of the view that one gun in a potentially violent situation leads to a lower potential for being shot. Both sides having guns merely raises the stakes and in hazardous situations, simply increases the chance of being shot from panicking the criminal. This notion of 'defending oneself' is exactly the reason why knife crime in South London has become a problem. One teenager carries a knife, the others start carrying to 'defend' and then all of a sudden you have a spate of stabbings. The same is true of guns.
 
As this thread has now morphed to consideration of contributing factors, & the inevitable search for answers, perhaps as somewhat of an outsider to this debate, I can chime in with a few thoughts.

In a country where a very rich & influential lobby opposes mandatory safety catches on guns as being "unconstitutional", yet has a firearms related child homicide rate (by percentage of population) greater than the rest of the top 25 industrialized nations combined, you know any attempt to afford change is nigh impossible. The priorities are just too skewed to make headway.

Mandatory safety catch on a cigarette lighter = no problem.
Mandatory safety catch on a lethal device that would go some considerable way to preventing the 5 or so daily firearms related child deaths & injuries in the US = big problem. Go figure--

Clearly, any degree of gun control will never prevent a determined & resourced deranged individual from carrying out their intended crime. Same applies to terrorism. Ring fencing soft targets won't work either. Take all statistics in context & with a pinch of salt, but when the numbers stack up to be so hugely disparate, to deny that firearms proliferation isn't at least a very significant factor, is to ignore the overwhelmingly obvious. Saving lives of those outside of these dreadful high profile events must be the aim of all right thinking Americans. Preventing the multiple horrific, the exceptional, is a difficult one to win, but the daily slaughter that passes underneath the press radar can surely be reduced by a change of emphasis. Society is increasingly obsessed with protecting the rights of the individual. That's fine, but when upholding those individual rights is to the detriment of the greater society, one has to question personal motivation.

Adjusted for population size, & excluding suicide, the firearms related death rate in the US is 92 times greater than the UK. The UK is no model place, I can assure you, but in global terms, it's society demographic is surprisingly similar to that of the US, the only significant difference being it's gun laws. A multiplication of 92 times the death rate guys, that's no statistical "blip".
 
Just catching up on this thread after a couple of days. Interesting comments.

It's all about money though, who's gonna pay? The middle class, who else? .. .. It would be nice if the guys like Zucherberg and Gates and Turner would and the other top 1%-ers would be required by law to donate a billion a year to combat this. It's the least they could do to give back from the land they profited so immensely from.

They need to free up the money they spend on the war on cannabis and use it on a war against mass killers instead.

Larry, I'm surprised at this comment. I don't think it would be "nice" to use the police powers of the state to force wealthy people to surrender money to the federal government to use on this sort of public safety. Gates probably donates willingly more than a billion a year through his foundation to global and domestic causes. Not sure about Z or Turner. Most extremely wealthy people already give to charity much more than the average person realizes.

Besides, I look at school safety and security issues as a local and state concern. The taxes received by counties and states can be used much more efficiently and productively when it doesn't get filtered down by corruption and waste to the local schools that need it.

Where do you draw the line on mental stability? For example, should someone diagnosed with clinical depression have their guns taken away - even if they have never committed any crime? I would tend to say yes, at least for their own safety, and even if they're being medicated for it. Gun ownership is a tremendous responsiblity and you really need to have each and every one of your marbles.

If we're going to look at issues of mental instability, then we need to be prepared to make some very hard choices about who may and may not own firearms.

It's a slippery slope to say the least. It is immensely difficult to deal with all of these issues on a individual case by case basis. Regulating and legislating according to groups inevitably leads to the unfair loss of rights to some that might unfairly be put into one group or another. A related example would be my 80 year old mother. I would agree that taking the privilege to drive on public roads away from elderly people at a certain age would reduce the accidents and deaths in Florida by a huge percentage. My mother, however, is sharp as a tack and would throw a fit and probably drive anyway if you tried to take her drivers license away.

I'll be darned, I guess i need to reconsider that aspect of it. I always thought SROs were mainly for junior high school and high school, where kids are starting to get into more trouble. I used to be a newspaper reporter and covered police and crime and had work relationships with numerous officers, including SROs, which were just in the upper grades at the time and the schools paid part of the officer's salary. I learn something new every day.

As long as there is an armed police officer, or a secured defensive firearm accessible to trained staff, then I think schools are much safer. If each school needs to have an officer assigned to it, and if the school districts and cities can budget for that, then so be it. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes to assign an officer to every school.

I would too. I'd pay extra on an airline ticket for a uniformed sky marshall. By referendum, I would allocate some of the property tax money I pay for school security.

You are willing to pay DMC, but I think the reality of it is many are not. Most people are willing to spend more on their F*cking cars,( a stinking piece of metal) or that 3000 square foot house that they don't need with its goddamn granite countertops and stainless steel appliances, or a 90 inch flat screen tv etc etc than they would on the safety and welfare of children.

I totally understand where your disgust and frustration come from. Many people are selfish but it does make me worry if 150 people who feel like you do got together in a legislative capacity, how quickly would you be trying to mandate what people spend their personal money on?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
We cannot make this any better by passing more senseless laws or restrictions.These things happen and we keep on doing the same thing that does not work. Banning guns simply will not work or any anti gun laws would not have prevented this type of thing from happening. it never will. All over the world where guns are present or not when some psyco wants to kill a bunch of people what does he do? go to some unsecured place where people gather together for maximum body count. I seems to me the solution is simple, make places like that more secure. when was the last massacre at a courtroom? Never, they have armed guards and metal detectors and everyone that goes in is checked. Yes we have the technology, manpower and know how we can make public venues more safe and schools especially.
I got this quote from another forum but it is so true.
" Violence is a part of nature. No creature on this earth is exempt from it. Violence has shaped human society since the dawn of man and only people who have accepted this fact and prepared to meet evil with force have ever stopped it."

Amen, brother. This issue is about violence and public safety. I have not gone anywhere in the last 15 years unarmed. I do it legally, discreetly, responsibly and vigilantly.

I only wish that I or someone like me could have been there so at the first murderous act, one of us could have shot Lanza dead right on the spot.

I don't need to see police-state checkpoints everywhere I go just so that I can feel slightly more secure that a rare thing might not happen to me if I give up just a bit more freedom. I don't need to be scattered with useless ionizing radiation or take off my shoes to get on a plane just because someone decided that they want to pretend I'm safer for it. I'm not. If someone wants to do something crazy like this, we aren't going to stop them by pretending we can secure every potential target or place people congregate.

If a private party wants security at their event, so be it. Let them pay for it. I do not need more in-effectual government stooges standing around scanning or searching everyone in public spaces. It wouldn't change anything. I/we certainly do not need to pay for it.

Yes and no. I don't like the "in-effectual government stooges" either. Maybe Mary O has an idea of who provides security in government schools. Is it private contractors, government agencies or both.

I agree with sitting down and talking. I agree with tightening rules. The only problem is the lawless don't care about laws. People still speed. Kids still make fake ID's. People still rob banks. All against the law and yet still happen every day. then we have the nut bag in Norway a few years ago who just went on the spree of a life time in a country with little or no homicide killing 72 people.

I prefer to live under the rule of law. It makes it harder on the individual but that's not a bad thing.

What worked for Australia and the rest of the world simply will not work here, We already have states separating from the union at the mere thought of banning guns and they are tired of the federal government getting too big and controlling. I simply do not want to live in a country where you do not have the ability to defend yourself. May be time to move back to Texas or Oklahoma where they will never ban guns.
What do previous gun owners think about the bans in your country? Don't they feel naked? I am sure all the criminals turned in they're guns as well. What about rape? I hear that went way up.

When I travel to states that do not have reciprocity for my Georgia State issued concealed carry permit, I do feel vulnerable to the most extreme and rare of circumstances that I might not be able to save my own life. I just accept it. I guess if I started to travel to these places and feel more concerned more frequently, I would go about getting a non-resident carry permit.

As a community we have to try harder to protect our most vulnerable public places. It is nigh impossible to prevent every act of insanity that results in tragedies like Newtown.

I hope this doesn't sound too cavalier, but I agree with Otto. I have had a good life. I would have traded my life to save any of them that day.
 
A few more intersting facts.


How does the number of murders committed with firearms compare to the number of suicides committed with firearms?
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2011 there were 19,766 suicides committed with firearms and 11,101 homicides committed with firearms.
What percentage of murders are committed by people using guns?
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, in 2011 firearms were used in 68 percent of the nation’s murders, 41 percent of robberies, and 21 percent of aggravated assaults.

32% of the nations murders, and 59% of the nations robberies were conducted without firearms. There are many ways to kill and guns are only one.

This is from an MSNBC article from this morning.
 
This thread is starting to become less about the sad, tragic loss of life and a stupid, and I MEAN STUPID, gun control debate. Not the thread for this everyone, please close this thread mods.
 
This thread is starting to become less about the sad, tragic loss of life and a stupid, and I MEAN STUPID, gun control debate. Not the thread for this everyone, please close this thread mods.

If it gets closed, that's fine. Part of dealing with sadness and tragedy can be talking about what you would do about it in the future. It helps people cope.

I think everyone has been doing a very good job of being compassionate and not over politicizing this issue.

My apologies if this thread was intended as a "only share your grief and compassion" thread.
 
Back
Top