TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: See, I think that the "real changes" are cheap.

1. Federal Legislative - repeal the gun free zones
2. Federal Executive - enforce the Federal laws for those caught in crimes with guns. While the additional prosecution certainly has cost as does locking up those who are convicted, it would relieve some of the State burden on dealing with many of those same recidivist criminals. IMHO, the best way to separate the GG and BG with guns is to really deal with the latter in the punishment phase after a conviction.
3. State - draft and pass legislation that that would make it a penalty for a mental health professional to knowingly ignore information about someone under their care who is demonstrating behaviors that suggest they would harm others. You could call this one the "Lochner" law. There are already requirements that patients who talk about certain sex crimes must be reported so this is not new territory.
4. State - remove the barriers to schools and churches using volunteers for security. I'm a fan of the additional training needed in the school environment. Otherwise, the only ox that gets gored with this one is the security industry and their protectionist influence
5. Local - remove the prohibitions for teachers and others to have guns in their cars in school parking lots. In and of itself, this might not stop a school shooting but it does reenforce to would be school shooters that the school environment is not the "fish in a barrel" one that they might have envisioned. The State has granted an exemption to the Locals that they can use. There is no reason that the MUST use it. Coupled with the repeal of gun free zones, it certainly could have an impact and it would cost nothing - except maybe to fire up the "blood will run in the streets" crowd.

These would make the OP a moot situation. I'm betting that the resulting environment would be a lot safer for everyone, including the school kids.

Are you serious? First if you want to have a real discussion both parties need to stay generally on point. You jump on me for something I said, I respond, you then go off in another direction. Now I don't mind being challenged but to have a successful discussion we need to be talking about the same things. Second I have almost no issues with any of your statements except mental heath reporting, which I'll address later. That being said no of those things would of made nor will make squat for difference in the overall picture. You might have some schools or that protect themselves adequately but the idea that we are going to have shooting free schools because the feds let people carry guns near schools or because teachers have guns in cars is just absurd. Individual schools might benefit but overall there will not be a statistical difference. So great change or get rid of stupid, unnecessary laws but lets not pretend that it will have some amazing effect on public safety.

As to your new mental health initiative. Lets think careful before we jump because legislation like you are proposing could be one of the greatest risks to our civil liberties ever. How much does the govt get to know about your medical condition? You just wrote off every solder who comes home even a little depressed never mind real PTSD sufferers. Now you can't let any one even think you might have any issues or need even a little help because you civil rights would be removed. Or at least it could so easily go that route and you say "make it a law" like it is some simple thing. It isn't.

I am serious but I now sincerely regret responding. I won't make the mistake again.

I do believe that it is possible to have a mental health reporting requirement without compromising PTSD situations but I'm not going to hijack this thread to discuss it.

Back to the OP, the school district is prohibited from taking the action that it wants to protect its children because another part of the government has deemed it unwise. I believe in local school control. I want to barriers to local school control removed. It is clear to me that the "one size fits all" prohibitions regarding school shootings do not work and applaud Harold ISD and the other schools who have found ways around it. They shouldn't have to find circumventions. You are free to believe that removal of the restrictions would not make the schools safer.

I'm not interested in statistical differences. I want to be able to defend myself. I want my granddaughter's school to be able to defend itself. Nothing bad may ever happen at her school but I'm not willing to take that chance. I believe that our society is being engineered to develop amoral sociopaths and I believe that the problem with them will only get worse. I'm not willing to accept the random chance that one of society's engineered nightmares shows up in our area and takes their delusions out on our kids.

EEllis wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

DarbyGloss wrote:We've heard so many shooting incidents, especially in schools. Government should pay more attention to this and measures needed to be taken. Maybe install metal detectors at the entrance and have security guards.

"Government? " What Government? The feds the state, the local school board. Each is the "government" so who do you refer to? There have been measures taken, just walk into any school and compare it to 20 years ago, but how does anyone make that many targets safe all at the same time? Kids are still more likely to die in their cars then in a school shooting so lets not get to crazy.

I'm one who believes that the Federal government, by declaring schools gun free zones, is responsible for most if not all of the tragic school shooting situations that have occurred in the past 20 years. Others can deny the logic of why the Batman shooter passed up a number of closer theaters to attack one that denied patrons the right to protect themselves but I don't. I see absolutely no difference in the mindset of disarming the citizens of Chicago and the disarming of the schools.

Following your logic, I shouldn't carry a gun either. I, too, am much more likely to die in a car accident than to killed by a BG.

I fully appreciate, from a risk analysis stand point, that we don't want to go overboard but lets look at this situation from a slightly different angle. Almost all businesses follow current legal verdicts. If a business gets sued and looses, other businesses or their insurance companies implement rules to prevent a similar verdict from being rendered against them. One could easily follow the logic that a similar lawsuit is unlikely but everyone is afraid of the copycats who also saw the verdict and work to create a similar situation where they can profit. For me, if threat avoidance logic is good enough to protect businesses, it is good enough to protect our kids. It won't matter to me if a school shooting at our granddaughter's school was statistically relevant or not.

That isn't my logic. Sure you're more likely to die in an accident but so what? I never said don't carry. When saying that the Government" needs to do something I would just point out from a point of lives lost there are many other things that have a much higher death toll. From a business standpoint you would hire a few unarmed guards and do basically nothing because the cost of making real changes just isn't warranted with the low number of victims.

See, I think that the "real changes" are cheap.

1. Federal Legislative - repeal the gun free zones
2. Federal Executive - enforce the Federal laws for those caught in crimes with guns. While the additional prosecution certainly has cost as does locking up those who are convicted, it would relieve some of the State burden on dealing with many of those same recidivist criminals. IMHO, the best way to separate the GG and BG with guns is to really deal with the latter in the punishment phase after a conviction.
3. State - draft and pass legislation that that would make it a penalty for a mental health professional to knowingly ignore information about someone under their care who is demonstrating behaviors that suggest they would harm others. You could call this one the "Lochner" law. There are already requirements that patients who talk about certain sex crimes must be reported so this is not new territory.
4. State - remove the barriers to schools and churches using volunteers for security. I'm a fan of the additional training needed in the school environment. Otherwise, the only ox that gets gored with this one is the security industry and their protectionist influence
5. Local - remove the prohibitions for teachers and others to have guns in their cars in school parking lots. In and of itself, this might not stop a school shooting but it does reenforce to would be school shooters that the school environment is not the "fish in a barrel" one that they might have envisioned. The State has granted an exemption to the Locals that they can use. There is no reason that the MUST use it. Coupled with the repeal of gun free zones, it certainly could have an impact and it would cost nothing - except maybe to fire up the "blood will run in the streets" crowd.

These would make the OP a moot situation. I'm betting that the resulting environment would be a lot safer for everyone, including the school kids.

EEllis wrote:

DarbyGloss wrote:We've heard so many shooting incidents, especially in schools. Government should pay more attention to this and measures needed to be taken. Maybe install metal detectors at the entrance and have security guards.

"Government? " What Government? The feds the state, the local school board. Each is the "government" so who do you refer to? There have been measures taken, just walk into any school and compare it to 20 years ago, but how does anyone make that many targets safe all at the same time? Kids are still more likely to die in their cars then in a school shooting so lets not get to crazy.

I'm one who believes that the Federal government, by declaring schools gun free zones, is responsible for most if not all of the tragic school shooting situations that have occurred in the past 20 years. Others can deny the logic of why the Batman shooter passed up a number of closer theaters to attack one that denied patrons the right to protect themselves but I don't. I see absolutely no difference in the mindset of disarming the citizens of Chicago and the disarming of the schools.

Following your logic, I shouldn't carry a gun either. I, too, am much more likely to die in a car accident than to killed by a BG.

I fully appreciate, from a risk analysis stand point, that we don't want to go overboard but lets look at this situation from a slightly different angle. Almost all businesses follow current legal verdicts. If a business gets sued and looses, other businesses or their insurance companies implement rules to prevent a similar verdict from being rendered against them. One could easily follow the logic that a similar lawsuit is unlikely but everyone is afraid of the copycats who also saw the verdict and work to create a similar situation where they can profit. For me, if threat avoidance logic is good enough to protect businesses, it is good enough to protect our kids. It won't matter to me if a school shooting at our granddaughter's school was statistically relevant or not.