In Utah on duty vs off duty have different rules in state law. If we’re on we can carry anywhere, save federal court, but that’s a whole different ball of wax
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Since I can't carry a weapon in church I carry a Book of Mormon over my heart. Not because I believe it would provide divine protection, or even that I want it to be close to my heart, but because were I to be shot there the bullet would undoubtedly be stopped. Nothing gets through 2 Nephi.
My general feeling about teachers and guns:
1. I have a hard time thinking of any teachers who would want to carry a gun in school. That's just not them. So even if you allow it, very few will do it.
2. Who is going to pay for all the training and guns? Teacher's can't even afford to have art supplies.
3. Along the same lines as #2, if you're going to add security, who is going to pay the salary for the added security?
In Utah most high schools have an officer assigned to them already. Granite district has its own police force as well.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s much that can change on the response and deterrent end. Unfortunately those looking at this with the “guns deter people” think that way because the average person doesn’t want to get shot. Someone going in to shoot in a school is long past the point where they care what happens to them. Most are already planning to die in the process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[QUOTE=U-Ute;110424]My general feeling about teachers and guns:
1. I have a hard time thinking of any teachers who would want to carry a gun in school. That's just not them. So even if you allow it, very few will do it........./QUOTE]
I'm not an NRA member. I don't own a gun. Never have.
Perhaps it isn't a good idea, but, I wonder if the idea isn't worth exploring further before dismissing out of hand. We've been in an active war of some kind for the past 16 years. That's a shatload of veterans that have gone through basic training, received extensive firearm training, are of sound mind, and work in school systems around the country. I have to wonder if many of them might voluntarily bring their training up to date and be willing to carry a firearm in a lockbox in their classroom.
Still, the question remains, once on the scene, how will uniformed police identify the teachers from the murderers.
Depends on the department.
With us it’s an application, we have some squared away guys in some schools.
The schedule is one cops like. Weekends off, flexible hours....but that’s just us. Who knows how other departments work it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Arming teachers will lead to hundreds of stories, "A teacher shot a student today because (fill in the blank)". What does that look like from a liability standpoint? Arming teachers is one of the stupidest ideas floating around. People have been watching too many movies.
It's an idea that some schools might want to try. I agree it would take a big investment and isn't perfect. But it might be part of the solution in some places (and already is, I hear). if your solution is, simply take away the guns, I don't think that is realistic.
Well, now, here’s an alternative point of view:
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.293a57517dbd
Very interesting and thoughtful, and empirically based, but I’m still thinking more needs to be done. I think we need to come out the problem from every direction possible.
Completely misses the point as only a statistician can. Suicides, gang-related murder, and domestic violence are all tragic, and they are all not what this conversation is about. Did she do any statistical analysis related to mass shootings? Maybe, but she doesn't discuss it here.
So, if not gun control, what? She has nothing to offer here, unless you count the same vague "gotta help people with mental illness somehow" plan.
Forget numbers for a moment. There is strength is symbols. A strong, immediate response to a mass shooting sends a message that we care and that we are interested in solutions. Instead, we talk about what will and won't work for week and move on without doing a thing. We have nothing to lose with tighter restrictions - it's all upside.
The poor guy ought to be on suicide watch.
Armed police are guarding the home of the deputy who resigned over his lack of action in the Parkland school shooting
http://businessinsider.com/parkland-...m_term=desktop
Taking away guns is a solution that approaches maybe 5% of ever getting passed, and full compliance would never, ever be a reality. Very few serious people are even discussing grabbing a guns.
Off the top of my head I can think of the following changes that would have substantial impact and would be acceptable to a majority of gun owners, most of whom are very responsible with their firearms:
Set up a Nationwide database that includes state and local records plus mental health cues (similar to Interpol). Use this database for ALL gun purchases (including at gun shows/private sales) and for large ammo purchases (say over 100 rounds). We already have coalitions of states who share a database like that. This really should be at a national level.
License gun owners, just like getting a driver license. States can decide what criteria to use.
Register all guns. Feed the data into the Nationwide database, but actually hire excellent IT people and hack-proof the database. (FOUO/PII info, with severe penalties for disclosure). Require the background check and licensing processes to be complete prior to allowing the purchaser to take possession.
Carry liability insurance for guns. Let the private insurance industry figure out risk and rates. Include 'failure to secure weapon in a safe' into the liability calculation.
Beef up federal gun trafficking laws. The laws in this area are nearly non-existent.
All gun transfers must be handled through a bonded dealer, and full background check completed before the transfer.
I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas. But we need to have a serious conversation without distraction from manufacturers' lobbyists.
Also, if teachers are carrying guns then perhaps the mass shooter will just wear body armor. It is cheap and readily available.
Wow. I wonder how the local flock will react to this statement. Especially the last line.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow. Big Russ bringing the heat!
GBH said pretty much the same thing in 1999 and we didn't see much impact.
LDS leader says limit gun access
Arms, mental illness don't mix, he says
Might be different this time. Our favorite Utah legislator is on the case!
House Speaker Hughes: Utah lawmakers plan to hit accelerator on bills to prevent school shootings
Apologies if this has been posted before on this thread:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisla.../#4709695c1fadQuote:
We are not the only wealthy, stable country with broad gun ownership, though it’s a small club. Switzerland provides a useful comparison, since it is the only place that comes close to our levels of gun ownership, with about half of our per capita firearm ownership. Their experience demonstrates the obvious realities.
Though gun ownership among the Swiss is relatively common, regulations are tight by American standards. All guns are tracked. Many of the guns in private hands are issued by the government. Sale and possession of ammunition is tightly controlled. With a few exceptions for less-lethal weapons, every private gun sale is recorded.
Thanks to careful regulation and lower rates of gun ownership, the Swiss suffer lower rates of gun related deaths and injuries than the US. Despite these constraints, Switzerland experiences much higher rates of gun death than their less-armed neighbors. In other words, regulation can help, but the connection between gun ownership and gun deaths is unavoidably linear.
The church is also very liberal and common sense on immigration, particularly DACA and family migration. Hopefully this will also lead to positive changes.