All of the SRO officers that I know are employed by police departments here in Michigan as well.
Guns in public schools?
- Thread starter KenpoTex
- Start date
All of the SRO officers that I know are employed by police departments here in Michigan as well.
Based on some of the rent-a-cop companies that I've seen I wanna see a cop protecting my kids school...
'
It makes the most sense..If the sheet ever hits the fan backup and EMS services are just a radio call away...
Cruentus
Grandmaster
In Michigan, the usual protocal is to have a police laison officer assigned to a district, and security personel assigned to each school (mainly the high schools). The security personels aren't supposed to be armed, though, and the laison officer obviously is. However, I know of more then one situation where SRO in Detroit carry concealed anyway, even though the law does not permit it.
It is quite screwed up.
But like I said, I don't have any hard data to back it up, it was just my perception that most SRO's aren't LE certified. You guys are probably right, though, in that it is a certified officer who is armed (legally; excluding Detroit), and not the uncertified SRO's.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I do respect your point of view, and from your standpoint you are right in a lot of ways. The need doesn't often arise where one would need a firearm, particularly in the school. The teaching and social working profession has also grown very much over the years, and has been great in taking preventative measures that have been responsible for the recent decrease in school violence. Your profession needs to be credited for that. These preventative measures are much more important then toting around a firearm in every circumstance.
But, it is not about need or want, it is about rights. The fact that you, and others, would passionatily fight to take those away due to an illusionary perception is the part that in my view is pathological.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
The fact that their hasn't been an epidemic in Florida of erronious shootings points to the fact that skill level doesn't need to be State mandated. People simple need to be held responible for their actions. As in Law Enforcement circles, you will always have people who "shouldn't carry," people who are highly skilled, and people in between.
It's not about skill, it's about rights.
Yes, 100% correct..The public also needs to QUIT making excuses for those that break the law...
How true is that statement!
You have your opinion, and I have mine; however I would appreciate if you would stop using the word "pathological"; as a psychologist in training, I more commonly use it in a psychological sense, which implies illness. I do not think that our difference of opinion extends that far.
As has been discussed in many other threads, those who are law-abiding are often made to suffer because of laws passed with the intention to regulate criminals. This issue is another instance of the law-abiding having to pay for the behavior of criminals. This is, at its root, the reason for gun laws, and many other types of laws that restrict the rights of citizens - everything from drug/alcohol/tobacco laws to gun laws to driving laws to decency laws, and many more. This is, in my mind, a much bigger issue than the one being discussed.
In addition, I see other concerns for creating laws that allow concealed carry in schools. Who would they apply to? Teachers? Administrators? Visiting specialists? Clerical staff? Custodians? What about parents? Staff from other schools? What age limit (of the students, I mean) - should such laws be limited to schools with students over a certain age, both to limit the risk of accident if a younger child should find a gun, and because it's less likely a younger child will bring a gun to school to use (there are multiple instances of children finding a gun in the house and bringing it in for show and tell)? This issue is not nearly as simple as it may appear on the surface.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
First, I need to state here that I am not inferring that you or anyone who agrees with your opinion is psychologically ill, nor would I ever make a determination or inference like that on an internet forum. So, I apologize if that was what you deduced from my statements.
But the argument or viewpoint you propose is "pathological" in the sense that passionately wanting the same powerlessness that one has chosen to be enforced on others with delusional and illogical reasoning to support the desire is both maladaptive, extreme, and if implemented (as it is today) a marked deviation giving rise to social ills. A simple term for that would be "pathological". I can't think of a better term for the phenomenon, so I'll just try to use it sparingly and replace it when I can if it bothers you.
But it doesn't matter much anymore in that I really don't have much else to say. I have stated my viewpoint, and you or others can either agree or disagree. I don't have much else to add, unless something particular comes up or unless I am addressed directly.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Paul
Thank you. For your information and edification, here is the definition of "pathological" according to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: path·o·log·i·cal
Pronunciation: "pa-th&-'lä-ji-k&l
Variant(s): also path·o·log·ic
/-jik/Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to pathology
2 : altered or caused by disease; also : indicative of disease
3 : being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal <a pathological liar> <pathological fear>
- path·o·log·i·cal·ly
/-ji-k(&-)lE/ adverbI appreciate that you say that you are not using pathological in the sense given above; however, you then go on to give a definition remarkably like the one I objected to - that is, you are implying (and, to a certain extent, stating outright) that because I do not agree with you I am suffering from a psychological illness. Nor do I feel that my opinion - which you yourself stated is widely held - is "a marked deviation giving rise to social ills" - something I apply to people who commit sex crimes against children, not people who disagree about concealed carry laws and their application to schools. Rather, I find your statement that my opinion is of that nature offensive.
In addition, I do not particularly appreciate being called delusional because I disagree with something you passionately believe in. Nor do I find my opinion to be maladaptive; rather, I find the increase in the use of guns maladaptive for society as a whole. Rather than increase the availability of guns, and thus increase the risk they will be used (appropriately or otherwise) I would rather see the existing laws properly enforced - by law enforcement officers, rather than citizens who take the law into their own hands due to lack of enforcement. Perhaps then the entire issue will become moot.
OP
KenpoTex
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #73
Not to jump into the middle of a private "spat," but...
And, just out of curiosity, what is the problem with appropriate uses of firearms? To me, every time a firearm is used appropriately (in the context of a defensive situation), it means a serious crime was prevented.
Not really the topic under discussion but I wanted to point this out.
Um...why?
You do realize that there is no indication that an area with more guns or less-restrictive gun laws is more "at risk" for crimes. In fact the reverse is true. Areas with higher rates of legal gun ownership tend to have less crime than areas that are more restrictive.
And, just out of curiosity, what is the problem with appropriate uses of firearms? To me, every time a firearm is used appropriately (in the context of a defensive situation), it means a serious crime was prevented.
Not really the topic under discussion but I wanted to point this out.
What laws are you talking about? Civilians do not carry weapons to "enforce the law." They carry them to protect themselves and other innocents against those who would seek to harm them. As has been stated several times in this thread, by several people: The police cannot be everywhere at once. Furthermore, law-enforcement seldom manages to function as a proactive body (to prevent crime). In most cases, they're a reactive body. In other words, they don't usually show up 'till the smoke clears. Explain to me how "enforcing existing laws" is going to prevent the types of situations that CCW'ers prepare for by carrying a weapon.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Kacey,
Since you are a teacher, as you have told us all repeatedly, you would most likely know that words have various definitions. In psychology, "pathology" specifically refers to disease. "Pathological" doesn't have to refer to disease, however, in other contexts. That is not how I am using the term, as I have explicitly stated. Note, your online dictionary only reference "disease" in the #2 definition only out of 3 possibilities; and I am sure if you look up "pathology" you will find more variants not applying specifically to disease.
Since I have explicitly stated what I mean and that I am not inferring that you or anyone else here is psychologically diseased, you are at this point choosing to misinterpret what I am saying so that you can be offended by it. That, Kacey, is YOUR PROBLEM and not anyone else's, because that is what you have chosen to do.
As far as the viewpoint goes:
You are expressing a specific socio-cultural viewpoint that is in my view a maladaptive response based on illusions and emotions rather then objective data and logical reasoning; and therefore is delusional, among other things.
I am not calling you names because you don't agree with me; but again, if you choose to see it that way then that is YOUR PROBLEM and no one else's, because I am not calling you names or firing shots at you.
Furthermore, the implementation of the viewpoint is a "marked deviation giving rise to social ills." Not "deviant" in the sexually ill sense as you have once again CHOSEN TO INTERPRET the statement, but "deviation" as in "deviating" from a more beneficial ideology. And you can reread my statements in previous posts on this thread about personal responsibility if you want to better understand the social ills that such an ideology creates.
Listen, when I assess your argument, I am not personally attacking you. That fact that you have chosen to misinterpret what I have said so that you can act as though you have been attacked to justify your feelings of frustration and offense is inappropriate.
Since you are a teacher, as you have told us all repeatedly, you would most likely know that words have various definitions. In psychology, "pathology" specifically refers to disease. "Pathological" doesn't have to refer to disease, however, in other contexts. That is not how I am using the term, as I have explicitly stated. Note, your online dictionary only reference "disease" in the #2 definition only out of 3 possibilities; and I am sure if you look up "pathology" you will find more variants not applying specifically to disease.
Since I have explicitly stated what I mean and that I am not inferring that you or anyone else here is psychologically diseased, you are at this point choosing to misinterpret what I am saying so that you can be offended by it. That, Kacey, is YOUR PROBLEM and not anyone else's, because that is what you have chosen to do.
As far as the viewpoint goes:
You are expressing a specific socio-cultural viewpoint that is in my view a maladaptive response based on illusions and emotions rather then objective data and logical reasoning; and therefore is delusional, among other things.
I am not calling you names because you don't agree with me; but again, if you choose to see it that way then that is YOUR PROBLEM and no one else's, because I am not calling you names or firing shots at you.
Furthermore, the implementation of the viewpoint is a "marked deviation giving rise to social ills." Not "deviant" in the sexually ill sense as you have once again CHOSEN TO INTERPRET the statement, but "deviation" as in "deviating" from a more beneficial ideology. And you can reread my statements in previous posts on this thread about personal responsibility if you want to better understand the social ills that such an ideology creates.
Listen, when I assess your argument, I am not personally attacking you. That fact that you have chosen to misinterpret what I have said so that you can act as though you have been attacked to justify your feelings of frustration and offense is inappropriate.
But don't you think that your chosen term of the word "pathological" in this case when it's not exactly necessary could be construed as insulting, demeaning and manipulative of the conversation to artificially strengthen your argument?
That said, and given that I like my gun rights just as much as the next mook, how much of the "necessity for self-protection" in the venue of public schools do you think is hype (you know, the current massive American Fear Campaign) and how much do you REALLY think we need this kind of protection?
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 10,826
- Reaction score
- 617
The availablilty of lawfully owned firearms has nothing to do with crime rates. One could look at two particular cases, where the countries of Japan and Jamaica forbid lawful ownership of firearms, and yet, one country has very little firearms crime, and the other one has one of the world's highest violent crime rate.
The forbiddance of firearms has done absolutely nothing to stop criminals in Jamaica from having quite an arsenal, nor has it stopped the Chicago area gangbangers from being armed, etc.
The bottom line is: it's not a firearms ownership issue. It's a cultural one.
Once again, though, many people tend to overlook the fact that those who lawfully own firearms are not going to be the types to misuse them. To try to stop the availability of guns would be the same as trying to stop the availability of lawfully prescribed pain killers, just because a bunch of heroin junkies (who obtained their illegal drugs illegally) present a problem.
It never will be a moot issue. The courts of the land have already repeatedly stated, that the police are not obliged ot protect any particular individual.
One need only look at the case of Warren v D.C. to see that there are going to be times where the police cannot protect you, and that they are not responsible to do so.
Even when they do come, it takes at least several minutes to get to the site, and during that time, an assailant can do quite a bit of damage. One need only look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics -- 1990 (1991):257, to see a rather chilling statistic, that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.
In those cases, what's the alternative? I'd much rather have the ability to stop a menace the likes of Eric Klebold and Dylan Harris, or a Charles Whitman, than to be stuck up a certain stinking creek without a paddle. Whether or not I have a firearm at my access has not changed who I am, nor does the firearm have any sort of sentience.
When Utah passed the law that allowed those with CCW permits to carry onto public school properties, there had been dire predictions that this would cause problems. Thus far, no problems have happened as a result of passing the law.
The school administrators still resist this though. The number of teachers who do carry remain unknown. However, some teachers who are discovered to have guns with them for whatever reason, have eventually had to stop teaching. I am guessing that even with the law in place, the number of teachers carrying is very low.
There are more parents, however, who do carry them when they come to drop off or pick up their children or come in for school activities. They, too, carry their weapons concealed as is required by their carry permits.
I know of them because they are also within my circle of friends and others are seen at shooting ranges for practice. If done properly, people who don't know this cannot tell who is carrying and who isn't.
A perception of safety? I don't know. What is known, however, is if something bad does go down, there will probably be someone somewhere who does have a CCW permit, at least here in Utah. According to probability, they (the CCW holders) are more likely to be on the scene already than an officer who has to be called during/after the fact.
- Ceicei
The school administrators still resist this though. The number of teachers who do carry remain unknown. However, some teachers who are discovered to have guns with them for whatever reason, have eventually had to stop teaching. I am guessing that even with the law in place, the number of teachers carrying is very low.
There are more parents, however, who do carry them when they come to drop off or pick up their children or come in for school activities. They, too, carry their weapons concealed as is required by their carry permits.
I know of them because they are also within my circle of friends and others are seen at shooting ranges for practice. If done properly, people who don't know this cannot tell who is carrying and who isn't.
A perception of safety? I don't know. What is known, however, is if something bad does go down, there will probably be someone somewhere who does have a CCW permit, at least here in Utah. According to probability, they (the CCW holders) are more likely to be on the scene already than an officer who has to be called during/after the fact.
- Ceicei
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Yes, it could be seen that way. But I explained that I am not using the term to imply that people with Kacey's view are psychologically ill. I explained that I am assessing the point of view, not the person. If she doesn't accept my explaination and still chooses to be offended, then at that point it isn't my responibility to try to change that.
Also, keep in mind that we are talking about a socio-cultural viewpoint. There is a very large segment of theoretical psychology that attends to societal viewpoints and "ills." Many personalities have dedicated substancial portions of their study too societal assessments. You can start with Jung and his work on the collective conscious, and you can look at people like Szasz, Fromm, Erickson, May, and so on for different perspectives of "societal perspectives and pathologies."
My point is that when the majority of a society or collective consiousness
takes on a particular thought, belief, or behavior pattern that leads to social ills, and that is maladaptive, extreme, and/or deviating from a more beneficial option, then the correct term for that is "pathology." It is really the most appropriate term to use.
And, too avoid the use of the appropriate term, I believe that the viewpoint that Kacey proposess is and leads too societal problems for the reasons that I explained in previous posts on this thread. I can rexplain what I mean if anyone would like me too.
I basically covered this, so I'll just quote myself...
I do respect your point of view, and from your standpoint you are right in a lot of ways. The need doesn't often arise where one would need a firearm, particularly in the school. The teaching and social working profession has also grown very much over the years, and has been great in taking preventative measures that have been responsible for the recent decrease in school violence. Your profession needs to be credited for that. These preventative measures are much more important then toting around a firearm in every circumstance.
But, it is not about need or want, it is about rights.
So, yea, I agree with you and others, and even agree that there are a lot more important things the schools are doing to prevent violence that have nothing to do with the gun issue.
But once again, it is about rights, not about need or wants.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
And at the end of the day, that is what it'll amount too. I hope in the future people will be able to look at Utah as an example, and the collective view on this issue will change.
Nice post.
Again, I will say from my 13 years of experience as a teacher, I see no purpose in allowing guns in schools. I ask you to consider the following statistics:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/25/school.violence.statistics/index.htmlRatio of reported crimes per 100,000 public school students, by type of crime and instructional level (1996-1997) Type of CrimeAll schoolsElementary SchoolMiddle SchoolHigh School Murder *-------- Suicide * -------- Rape/sexual battery 1031718 Attack/fight with a weapon2674946 Robbery1722838 Attack/fight with no weapon44496872808 Theft/Larceny 27487374562 Vandalism234157283347 * In the sample of 1,234 public schools, no incidents of murder were reported. Four schools reported that a suicide had occurred. The sample size was not adequate for reliable estimates for murder or suicide which are believed to have a very low incidence.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, "Principal./ School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence," 1997.
I simply feel that there are too many other issues that are much more important than this one. I do realize that, by posting on this issue, in this forum, I am decidedly in the minority - but that does not mean than my opinion is invalid, as has been implied by several posters, just that I see no purpose in changing this particular set of laws. I truly don't think that the potential benefits outweigh the potential consequences.
Similar threads
