0
0
0
http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/bill-introduced-repeal-gun-free-school-zones-act-because-deadly-mass-shootings
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/09/u-s-representative-massie-proposes-repeal-of-federal-gun-free-school-zones-act/
I read a statistic that there were only 2 school shootings resulting in mass casualties in the 22 years prior to the 1990 GFSZA. There were 10 in the 22 years following its passage.
Texas has enhanced penalties for committing a crime within 300 Feet of a school zone.
The new law that is being considered would make it so that legally carrying gun owners would need to change their daily routine to avoid being within a school zone lest they be violating federal law.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/09/u-s-representative-massie-proposes-repeal-of-federal-gun-free-school-zones-act/
I read a statistic that there were only 2 school shootings resulting in mass casualties in the 22 years prior to the 1990 GFSZA. There were 10 in the 22 years following its passage.
Texas has enhanced penalties for committing a crime within 300 Feet of a school zone.
The new law that is being considered would make it so that legally carrying gun owners would need to change their daily routine to avoid being within a school zone lest they be violating federal law.
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Firearms and Guns
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
I have no problem with Gun Free Zones, but if a place is going to declare it then they have the duty to protect those in that zone. They must hire armed and trained personnel to protect those that are unable to protect themselves.
(5)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
what if budget issue? You can change a "Gun Free Zone" just because the school can't hire a security, right? :)
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
PO3 (Join to see) They want to make things "safer" by not allowing people the right to protect themselves, then they need to hire protection for those they are making safer. If their view is guns are evil then as administrators they have a duty to act by providing an alternative to "fish in a barrel." It has already been proven that Gun Free Zone is ineffective is curtailing mass shootings and makes no one safer, so if they are going to stick to what don't work it is going to cost them.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SGT William Howell - What can one do if the school "insist" on not improving the security due to whatever reason they are facing. That was my "question" is about.
Same with private properties owner. Should they be liable for a mass shooting if the owner not providing security or possible protective measurement?
You know that is a good question to ask on RP.
Same with private properties owner. Should they be liable for a mass shooting if the owner not providing security or possible protective measurement?
You know that is a good question to ask on RP.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Yes and yes. It has been identified as a possible risk with large consequences if left unprotected.
Many people don't realize this. Police departments lose more lawsuits each year not from over reacting (as the media would have you believe), but from failure to act. As in not responding fast enough, not arresting someone that should have been arrested and they goes on to commit a larger crime, failure to investigate thoroughly. They have a duty and it is accepted that they must accordingly to a standard the public expects.
Schools have a duty and it is accepted that they will provide for the security of the students while on their property. If a school had knowledge that one of their buildings was built substandard and they did nothing about it and that same building collapses killing 30 people, are they labile? You bet they are. The same applies for security.
As far as private property, a home is a no, but a soccer stadium is a yes and there is plenty of case law to back it up.
One of the factors is the cost vs. the risk as to how much security must be provided. The school would be out no money what so ever allowing students to carry, yet because of their views (with no real scientific data what so ever to back their decision) have decided that they will do nothing, causing substantial risk to their students. Because of this option the school should hire security and the cost would be of no relevance, because they had a no cost option they declined to use.
Many people don't realize this. Police departments lose more lawsuits each year not from over reacting (as the media would have you believe), but from failure to act. As in not responding fast enough, not arresting someone that should have been arrested and they goes on to commit a larger crime, failure to investigate thoroughly. They have a duty and it is accepted that they must accordingly to a standard the public expects.
Schools have a duty and it is accepted that they will provide for the security of the students while on their property. If a school had knowledge that one of their buildings was built substandard and they did nothing about it and that same building collapses killing 30 people, are they labile? You bet they are. The same applies for security.
As far as private property, a home is a no, but a soccer stadium is a yes and there is plenty of case law to back it up.
One of the factors is the cost vs. the risk as to how much security must be provided. The school would be out no money what so ever allowing students to carry, yet because of their views (with no real scientific data what so ever to back their decision) have decided that they will do nothing, causing substantial risk to their students. Because of this option the school should hire security and the cost would be of no relevance, because they had a no cost option they declined to use.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
There is no "singular" solution. Anyone who claims there is hasn't done research.
That said, there are places where it is not safe to have firearms. Remember a firearms is a machine, and with all machines there is a risk. A risk that is mitigated by education, training, and situational awareness, but a risk nonetheless. The environment can increase risk factors to the point of safety concerns/issues/problems. I'm not saying they should be restricted by the government, but I am saying that it isn't safe to have them. The problem however is that if they are restricted, the organization or person restricting their possession takes on an OBLIGATION for the safety of those they have disarmed. When you disarm people, you don't make them safer. It's counter intuitive.
I don't want to use this analogy, but I think it is the most apt. Sheep, Sheepdogs, Shepherds, and Wolves. These are our Citizens, our Good-guys, our Cops, and our Bad-Guys (et al) respectively. It doesn't take a whole lot of wolves to prey on the sheep. They can tear apart the herd quickly. One a day, and the herd will be gone in a year. America is safe though. We really don't have a whole lot of bad guys. But the ones we do have the potential to cause a lot of damage, and we only have so many shepherds (cops). They can't do it alone. So they have sheepdogs. That's your CHP/CCW folks with their head on a swivel who are just watching things. Lots of former & current military. Lots of regular Americans. Lots of guys like SSgt Stone who just happened to be in the right place at the right time in France.
The problem with a completely unarmed society is that everyone becomes sheep. We all become prey. And sheep are easily taken by wolves. Gun free zones make everyone sheep. Or they turn normally law abiding citizens who refuse to be sheep into sheepdogs in wolf-skins.
But I've gotten a little off track.
We can approach this issue from a couple of ways. We can approach it from a Violence standpoint, or we can approach it from a Rights standpoint.
Let's talk about Violence first. Violence (et al) has been on the decline for 30+ years. "Gun" Violence included. Statistically, we are VERY safe. America is VERY safe. There is a "perception" that it is unsafe. This is generally compounded by reporting of high population density areas (5k/sqmile +) areas, which is primarily a socio-economic phenomenon. As education gets better, violence goes down. As I said, violence has been dropping steadily for 30+ years.
Now, "rampage" or what is more commonly reported as Mass Shootings is a Mental Health issue. These can be lumped in with other Mental Health issues, and Mental Health related deaths like Suicide, which actually account for the VAST majority of firearm related deaths (over half). If we want firearm deaths to go down, we focus on Mental Health. That's a Rights based discussion though.
Now Rights are tricky. Because Rights are quite honestly a Black & White discussion point. There's not a whole lot of middle ground for most folks. I'd like to step away from the 2a for a second though, and focus on the 1a, specifically Freedom of the Press.
Now, we enjoy absolute Freedom of the Press in the USA. It's one of the beauties of this Nation. However, let us not forget that they are a profit generating organization, and WE are the product that is sold to their advertisers. Crime stories are about 9~% of news stories (#3 after traffic and weather, which make up about 1/3 to 1/4 each).
"Perhaps" they are glorifying Crime (et al), including Violent Crime, and "Gun Violence" to sell "product" (us). This is one of the few single voter issues that remain, and it causes enough ire that it makes many people follow it through whatever media is available. We read both sides, just to follow the "competition" which doubles their sales.
"Perhaps" if the Press (Media) took an non-glorification stance (voluntarily) we could reduce the perception of this issue, and reduce some of the "rampage" (Mental Health Related) shootings.
Just my overly verbose thoughts.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
That said, there are places where it is not safe to have firearms. Remember a firearms is a machine, and with all machines there is a risk. A risk that is mitigated by education, training, and situational awareness, but a risk nonetheless. The environment can increase risk factors to the point of safety concerns/issues/problems. I'm not saying they should be restricted by the government, but I am saying that it isn't safe to have them. The problem however is that if they are restricted, the organization or person restricting their possession takes on an OBLIGATION for the safety of those they have disarmed. When you disarm people, you don't make them safer. It's counter intuitive.
I don't want to use this analogy, but I think it is the most apt. Sheep, Sheepdogs, Shepherds, and Wolves. These are our Citizens, our Good-guys, our Cops, and our Bad-Guys (et al) respectively. It doesn't take a whole lot of wolves to prey on the sheep. They can tear apart the herd quickly. One a day, and the herd will be gone in a year. America is safe though. We really don't have a whole lot of bad guys. But the ones we do have the potential to cause a lot of damage, and we only have so many shepherds (cops). They can't do it alone. So they have sheepdogs. That's your CHP/CCW folks with their head on a swivel who are just watching things. Lots of former & current military. Lots of regular Americans. Lots of guys like SSgt Stone who just happened to be in the right place at the right time in France.
The problem with a completely unarmed society is that everyone becomes sheep. We all become prey. And sheep are easily taken by wolves. Gun free zones make everyone sheep. Or they turn normally law abiding citizens who refuse to be sheep into sheepdogs in wolf-skins.
But I've gotten a little off track.
We can approach this issue from a couple of ways. We can approach it from a Violence standpoint, or we can approach it from a Rights standpoint.
Let's talk about Violence first. Violence (et al) has been on the decline for 30+ years. "Gun" Violence included. Statistically, we are VERY safe. America is VERY safe. There is a "perception" that it is unsafe. This is generally compounded by reporting of high population density areas (5k/sqmile +) areas, which is primarily a socio-economic phenomenon. As education gets better, violence goes down. As I said, violence has been dropping steadily for 30+ years.
Now, "rampage" or what is more commonly reported as Mass Shootings is a Mental Health issue. These can be lumped in with other Mental Health issues, and Mental Health related deaths like Suicide, which actually account for the VAST majority of firearm related deaths (over half). If we want firearm deaths to go down, we focus on Mental Health. That's a Rights based discussion though.
Now Rights are tricky. Because Rights are quite honestly a Black & White discussion point. There's not a whole lot of middle ground for most folks. I'd like to step away from the 2a for a second though, and focus on the 1a, specifically Freedom of the Press.
Now, we enjoy absolute Freedom of the Press in the USA. It's one of the beauties of this Nation. However, let us not forget that they are a profit generating organization, and WE are the product that is sold to their advertisers. Crime stories are about 9~% of news stories (#3 after traffic and weather, which make up about 1/3 to 1/4 each).
"Perhaps" they are glorifying Crime (et al), including Violent Crime, and "Gun Violence" to sell "product" (us). This is one of the few single voter issues that remain, and it causes enough ire that it makes many people follow it through whatever media is available. We read both sides, just to follow the "competition" which doubles their sales.
"Perhaps" if the Press (Media) took an non-glorification stance (voluntarily) we could reduce the perception of this issue, and reduce some of the "rampage" (Mental Health Related) shootings.
Just my overly verbose thoughts.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
PO3 Steven Sherrill
Employ private armed security. Yes it will raise taxes so that the schools can afford to pay these armed guards but that is a tax increase I would be for.
BUT, these armed guards MUST be heavily trained. NRA offers some very good tactical weapons courses, as do some colleges even. I may take it a step further and say that these guards should be NRA and/or POST certified, and preferably have some type of military or civilian law enforcement or infantry background, so that they have some type of real world experience and not just training.
Employ private armed security. Yes it will raise taxes so that the schools can afford to pay these armed guards but that is a tax increase I would be for.
BUT, these armed guards MUST be heavily trained. NRA offers some very good tactical weapons courses, as do some colleges even. I may take it a step further and say that these guards should be NRA and/or POST certified, and preferably have some type of military or civilian law enforcement or infantry background, so that they have some type of real world experience and not just training.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google