CPAPtalk.com

VikingGnome wrote:Well it happened. An 8th grader stole a teacher's gun from his coat pocket and took it home. So much for letting teachers carry concealed weapons. The teacher did not have the weapon "secured".

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20 ... s-gun-home

And note. This school is an alternative school for troubled kids so something like that could be expected. Teacher was in violation of the law but current law says schools are gun-free zones. Cannot have a gun on school property.

VG, You just brought the news and did not offer an opinion. But it would seem you must have a strong opinion to post this article in a CPAP forum.

I will tell you my analysis of the story. "State law prohibits guns on school grounds. Teacher brings gun onto school grounds. State law prohibits theft. Student commits theft. Conclusion: State laws don't provide protection from those determined to commit crimes."

VG, Maybe you want to tell us your conclusion?

I think the mass shootings we have seen covered by mass media lately are due to mental health issues (prescription psychotropic drugs in particular)

I was driving very late at night (not good practice for sleep apneic) a few weeks ago and had AM radio on. There was a dude being interviewed who said there have been 62 mass shootings (assumed in U.S.). He claims 61 of them were males (I guess one was a female or transgender or bisex?).

Of the 61 males he claims

- all were from families without biological male parent present
- all had taken psychotropic drugs (Ritalin, SSRIs, etc.).

Is this true?

(I did not get to listen to the entire radio program because I got caught in two drive-by shootings and have to be a witness.)

I think we will have some data for empirical studies over the next few years ...

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a bill Friday allowing the state's school districts to arm teachers and other personnel with guns.

Supporters say the so-called sentinels could help prevent tragedies such as the Connecticut school shooting in December. The law will go into effect July 1.

Several representatives of school boards, school administrators and teachers opposed the bill during committee testimony last month. They said the measure could make schools more dangerous, lead to accidental shootings and put guns in the hands of people who are not adequately trained to shoot in emergency situations.

But main bill sponsor Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said earlier this week that he has received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it.

Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.

The measure does not force a district to arm its teachers and would not force teachers to carry a gun.

On Monday, the South Dakota House voted 40-19 to accept the Senate version of the bill, which added a requirement that a school district must decide in a public meeting whether to arm teachers and others. Another Senate amendment allowed school district residents to push a school board's decision to a public vote.

The experiment can go forward in South Dakota, which is now the first state to implement a "school sentinel" program. You can find the new bill in its entirety here. I looked in vain for any safety standards, a training program, or selection criteria for those allowed to carry. The law, quite deliberately, leaves everything to the discretion of the local school board. The armed sentinels don't have to be teachers. They may be volunteers, with nothing said about who is acceptable as a volunteer. The law speaks for itself, really, so I'll shut up about it except to say that it casts in doubt any assumptions people may make about whether those carrying arms in schools as this new fad catches on will always be carefully selected, trained, and regulated.

I was on a school board once. Actually, it was what we call in Chicago a local school council, sort of a sub-board serving a particular school with modest autonomy to do things like hire the principal. I think I won by about eight votes to six. School boards are almost volunteer positions many places, taken on as a matter of duty by those interested, not very much contested. I hope the boards being given all that discretion in SD are wise and prudent.

Update: Sorry Dreamstalker. I was typing away and didn't see you beat me to the punch.

Having legally carried a gun for years, the teacher/substitute should be judged by a jury of peers... Meaning those who carry a gun and do so safely.

My children were all brought up around guns. All shoot, including my daughters.

A concealed weapon belongs one place and one place only. On your person or otherwise directly under your control.

A coat pocket (of a coat you aren't wearing), a briefcase that isn't immediately at hand, or anything of the like is NOT appropriate.

In that environment, in the waistband, with a solid belt, and under a shirt or jacket, that's where that firearm should have been.

Just my .02

Obviously I do not have a problem with guns in a school environment. I do have a problem with irresponsibly kept guns, everywhere.

the teacher/substitute should be judged by a jury of peers... Meaning those who carry a gun and do so safely.

Wouldn't his peers be those who carry a gun unsafely?

But seriously, I see no reason to involve the courts. The principal should have the authority to fire him and file a report with the school system head who would ban him from teaching in the system for some years.

You are right, if you are going to carry a gun to school, it needs to be secured on your body at all times.

Space Oddity wrote: VG, You just brought the news and did not offer an opinion. But it would seem you must have a strong opinion to post this article in a CPAP forum.
I will tell you my analysis of the story. "State law prohibits guns on school grounds. Teacher brings gun onto school grounds. State law prohibits theft. Student commits theft. Conclusion: State laws don't provide protection from those determined to commit crimes."
VG, Maybe you want to tell us your conclusion?

I do not see stealing and bringing a loose gun in a motorcycle jacket to a school for kids that are troubled and cannot attend regular public school because of their behavior equivalent violations of the law. One is petty theft and the other is gross negligence.

I am a strong believer in an individual's right to be armed. If y'll think I'm a gun control liberal, you are wrong. However, there are certain places where a gun just makes things more dangerous when in the hands of untrained people. In my opinion, the following places should only allow armed trained security and law enforcement: schools, healthcare facilities, courts and because parental behavior (little league and soccer games).

Only law enforcement and military have been trained to multitask, being constantly alert and on watch for danger while diligently doing something else. Your average teacher is never going to reach any proficiency in carrying a weapon and being able to ascertain instantly to get it out and use it properly. Many teachers get overwhelmed at times and lash out at students. In the heat of the moment, will they be able to respond appropriately?

If a crazed dude goes blazing into a school, just shoot the teacher/adults first. It is much more likely something bad is going to happen because a gun is at school with an untrained and distracted teacher than a teacher ever needing to use their concealed weapon.

The number of school shootings in the US are rare. Check out this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ted_States Previous centuries most shootings are revenge or jilted lover. Teens shooting fellow students is recent phenomenon. A crazed idiot shooting total strangers even more rare. Does this rare and minimal risk outweigh the potential dangers with many guns at school in the hands of untrained teachers?

OhHelpMe wrote:

the teacher/substitute should be judged by a jury of peers... Meaning those who carry a gun and do so safely.

Wouldn't his peers be those who carry a gun unsafely?

But seriously, I see no reason to involve the courts. The principal should have the authority to fire him and file a report with the school system head who would ban him from teaching in the system for some years.

I didn't mention a court. I just said judged.

Yes, I'm mostly kidding.

VikingGnome wrote:

Space Oddity wrote: VG, You just brought the news and did not offer an opinion. But it would seem you must have a strong opinion to post this article in a CPAP forum.
I will tell you my analysis of the story. "State law prohibits guns on school grounds. Teacher brings gun onto school grounds. State law prohibits theft. Student commits theft. Conclusion: State laws don't provide protection from those determined to commit crimes."
VG, Maybe you want to tell us your conclusion?

I do not see stealing and bringing a loose gun in a motorcycle jacket to a school for kids that are troubled and cannot attend regular public school because of their behavior equivalent violations of the law. One is petty theft and the other is gross negligence.

I am a strong believer in an individual's right to be armed. If y'll think I'm a gun control liberal, you are wrong. However, there are certain places where a gun just makes things more dangerous when in the hands of untrained people. In my opinion, the following places should only allow armed trained security and law enforcement: schools, healthcare facilities, courts and because parental behavior (little league and soccer games).

Only law enforcement and military have been trained to multitask, being constantly alert and on watch for danger while diligently doing something else. Your average teacher is never going to reach any proficiency in carrying a weapon and being able to ascertain instantly to get it out and use it properly. Many teachers get overwhelmed at times and lash out at students. In the heat of the moment, will they be able to respond appropriately?

If a crazed dude goes blazing into a school, just shoot the teacher/adults first. It is much more likely something bad is going to happen because a gun is at school with an untrained and distracted teacher than a teacher ever needing to use their concealed weapon.

The number of school shootings in the US are rare. Check out this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ted_States Previous centuries most shootings are revenge or jilted lover. Teens shooting fellow students is recent phenomenon. A crazed idiot shooting total strangers even more rare. Does this rare and minimal risk outweigh the potential dangers with many guns at school in the hands of untrained teachers?

Personally, I would rather allow teachers to choose to conceal and carry provided they are certified with special training than to have armed guards on the school yard.

But in reality this whole argument is moot because our country is collapsing at an ever increasing rate. Our government officials no longer swear to uphold the US Bill of Rights ... very sad.

Oh, dear. This is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted.

Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of office—behind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America's top spy—the White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.

“There's one piece of this that I wanted to note for you,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at their daily briefing. “Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”

Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws.

"Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.

The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy's post has some strong language.)

That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.

How ... symbolic?
Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

People are all worried about gun control while their civil rights are stripped away and replaced with drone enforced dictatorship .... like something out of a sci-fi movie.

What a great country.

We cut money for reading teachers which is ironic since literacy has an effect on crime rates but the powers to be decide there is money to arm anyone in the school system with guns and provide all the necessary training.

A big fat sigh!

49er

DreamStalker wrote:
But in reality this whole argument is moot because our country is collapsing at an ever increasing rate. Our government officials no longer swear to uphold the US Bill of Rights ... very sad.

Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

People are all worried about gun control while their civil rights are stripped away and replaced with drone enforced dictatorship .... like something out of a sci-fi movie.

+1

But in reality this whole argument is moot because our country is collapsing at an ever increasing rate. Our government officials no longer swear to uphold the US Bill of Rights ... very sad.

Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

People are all worried about gun control while their civil rights are stripped away and replaced with drone enforced dictatorship .... like something out of a sci-fi movie.[/quo

Dreamstalker,

I find your post ironic because in this discussion of gun control, one group of people have been stigmatized big time and no one seems to give a damm and think this is totally acceptable. It is the folks with an "MI" label who are paying a price big time when most statistics show that in reality, they are the victims of crime vs. causing it. In my opinion, the way they are being treated is the way Muslims were treated after 9-11 in that they were considered to be guilty until proven innocent.

As a result, laws are being passed that in the end will discourage people from getting treatment vs. going for it. Do you really think folks will share their deep darkest secrets if they fear being reported by their therapists and having any guns they own being taken away? Not a chance.

And for those you who still disagree with me, after my state passed stricter mental health commitment laws due a sensational crime, I encountered this one person who said that h-ll would freeze over because she went to a therapist even though she had suicidal thoughts every day as she feared being committed.

49er

49er wrote:
We cut money for reading teachers which is ironic since literacy has an effect on crime rates but the powers to be decide there is money to arm anyone in the school system with guns and provide all the necessary training.

A big fat sigh!

49er

IMO, you have the cause and effect confused.

I see it every day and my conclusion is that crime has a negative effect on literacy. Poor literacy is not causing crime. Instead, crime is causing poor literacy.

Children who live in families and neighborhoods where crime is prevalent, do not develop good literacy skills. Family members and neighbors are focused on crime and take no interest in literacy.

ChicagoGranny wrote:

49er wrote:
We cut money for reading teachers which is ironic since literacy has an effect on crime rates but the powers to be decide there is money to arm anyone in the school system with guns and provide all the necessary training.

A big fat sigh!

49er

IMO, you have the cause and effect confused.

I see it every day and my conclusion is that crime has a negative effect on literacy. Poor literacy is not causing crime. Instead, crime is causing poor literacy.

Children who live in families and neighborhoods where crime is prevalent, do not develop good literacy skills. Family members and neighbors are focused on crime and take no interest in literacy.

I totally disagree CG. There was a study and unfortunately, I can't find the link that said that future prisons are built on the 4th grade literacy rate.

Additionally, I worked as a volunteer during a summer reading program in which kids came from bad backgrounds. It was amazing with good reading instruction how much improvement the kids made.

Your argument is totally off base in my opinion and comes across as "blaming the victim". It is also stereotyping people from bad backgrounds.

49er

49er wrote:

But in reality this whole argument is moot because our country is collapsing at an ever increasing rate. Our government officials no longer swear to uphold the US Bill of Rights ... very sad.

Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

People are all worried about gun control while their civil rights are stripped away and replaced with drone enforced dictatorship .... like something out of a sci-fi movie.[/quo

Dreamstalker,

I find your post ironic because in this discussion of gun control, one group of people have been stigmatized big time and no one seems to give a damm and think this is totally acceptable. It is the folks with an "MI" label who are paying a price big time when most statistics show that in reality, they are the victims of crime vs. causing it. In my opinion, the way they are being treated is the way Muslims were treated after 9-11 in that they were considered to be guilty until proven innocent.

As a result, laws are being passed that in the end will discourage people from getting treatment vs. going for it. Do you really think folks will share their deep darkest secrets if they fear being reported by their therapists and having any guns they own being taken away? Not a chance.

And for those you who still disagree with me, after my state passed stricter mental health commitment laws due a sensational crime, I encountered this one person who said that h-ll would freeze over because she went to a therapist even though she had suicidal thoughts every day as she feared being committed.

49er

I agree with you that the knee jerk (as someone else put it) gun control response does have consequences beyond the gun violence issue.

However, my post is much worse than ironic. It is fact. One only needs to think back 20 or 30 years ago to compare with what is happening today to realize we are deep into a transition to a police state. The president claims he has authority to use drone technology to kill American citizens on American soil without due process and yet so few remember the old phrase that you noted "innocent until proven guilty". Then we begin to have his cabinet members sworn in with a constitution that lacks the Bill of Rights. No irony there .... just plain in your face we're done, stick a fork in it.