<p>HIMom, I surely agree that the root problems need to be addressed. But those are complex and longer term solutions, and even then does not “cure” all problems. In the meantime, some preventive measures could be taken to make school environments safer, since there are always sick people who will cause harm to others and we can’t assure that there will not be.</p>
<p>It’s important to understand that if someone is willing to die to accomplish a task, then they must be actively stopped in the attempt. There will be no easy answers and the worst will occur from time to time. It’s not a perfect world. No sweeping solutions will be in the offing. </p>
<p>The sociological approach should be studied closely. What is different about today, which seems* to have more such events, than in the past? This should be examined for possible answers. By ‘seems’ I mean do we actually know such crimes are, in fact, rare? Does fast and broad news reporting increase the rate? Lots of places to look for answers.</p>
<p>Bottom line though, out of a country of some 300 million people, we are still remarkably well-ordered. The vast majority act, in the main, quite well with each other.</p>
<p>I must say, though, the ‘panic button’ solution is mostly cosmetic. An awful lot can happen in three minutes.</p>
<p>Metal detectors for schools don’t seem like part of the answer to me. Kids come to school with so much gear, including projects & metallic things & it would be such a huge bottleneck.</p>
<p>I agree that it’s tough to KNOW whether school violence (or even societal violence) is in fact escalating or whether it’s just that news of these events are just spread more quickly & more broadly & I haven’t seen any definitive info on the topic.</p>
<p>Why can’t school districts administer regular psychological tests on its students, just as they do academic tests? Such testing might serve to identify students at risk for everything from major depression and suicide, to psychosis, to sociopathic behavior. The results could give school districts an opportunity to intervene before tragedy strikes.</p>
<p>But even as I typed this, I knew such testing, even if it were to be seriously considered (which it wouldn’t be), would face insurmountable opposition. I suppose I’m just frustrated by the lack of real solutions to the growing problem of school violence. It seems that school districts really have little choice but to formulate plans that address the fallout from such incidents. But I don’t know how anyone can be happy with this strategy.</p>
<p>SoozieVt,</p>
<p>I like your panic button idea. Most courtrooms have a panic button available to the judge and his/her staff because events similar to this have been occurring in courthouses for several years. Of course, most courthouses have security in the building as well as metal detectors but I still think a panic button might shorten the police response time in a school setting.</p>
<p>In the past, the main threat in cases like these was that there would be a prolonged hostage standoff. In those situations, police response time was not of primary importance. In light of recent cases, where the perpetrator’s goal is to do immediate harm, time is of the essence and the police need to get to the scene as soon as possible. A panic button might shorten their response time. </p>
<p>In the long-term, schools might also consider installing closed-circuit TV systems or even simple listening devices like parents put in their baby’s room so they can hear them from another room.</p>
<p>Many judges are also armed. It’s not publicized, but it’s true.</p>
<p>I read that, as a result of the recent violence, there is an effort in Wisconsin to arm teachers.</p>
<p>This has got to be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.</p>
<p>Allmusic, as the mother, sister, sister-in-law, aunt, and cousin of teachers, I agree with you 100%. What a ridiculous thing to do. What’s next? Arming everyone? The country has gone mad if that’s what people are suggesting.</p>
<p>As a break from the debate…</p>
<p>Word is coming in from what happened in the schoolhouse during the seige. It appears the older girls were asking to be killed in an attempt to save their younger classmates. It amazes me the love and compassion that the Amish can give people! They (the Amish) have also set up a trust fund (college fund or something) for the kids of the shooter. I really think mainstream American culture can learn something about the Amish, forgive and don’t hold grudges. Don’t make the family suffer anymore than they have to and help each other get over the rough times. It is not our places to judge anyone, that’s God’s job.</p>
<p>They can obviously learn a little bit about mainstream American culture as well, such as incest = bad…</p>
<p>But anyway…here’s the articles…very insightful and touching!</p>
<p><a href=“http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/26503[/url]”>http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/26503</a></p>
<p>I am inspired by the courage and conviction demonstrated by the girls and their families in the face of so much tragedy and grief.</p>
<p>I read that an Amish man had gone to visit the parents of the shooter immediately after this happened, to reach out to comfort them, and others visited the wife of the shooter. They live their faith.</p>
<p>I have always thought, especially after Columbine and the Russian school terrorist tragedy, that are schools are far, far too vulnerable. My D worried about this also after Columbine, through all her high school years. There was no police or even security guard presence on her high school campus. Multiple doors and levels, woods nearby. I don’t know what the answer is, but people who are not part of the school community should not be able to just walk in, and that is the case in all the schools in my suburban district. Anyone could walk in and do anything.</p>
<p>You can lock every school door, put in metal detectors, frisk every visitor, check bags and backpacks, and kids will still be a bit vulnerable, as long as we have no gun control in this country, which allows every whackjob with a vendetta access to a murderous weapon.</p>
<p>That’s silly, Allmusic. That position is not supported politically and a number of scientific works question it as well.</p>
<p>If someone’s going to commit murder, they’ll use whatever is available. Even if you forcibly confiscated every one of the 60+ million firearms in the US, there still would be people murdered.</p>
<p>Ban cars, you’d save more lives.</p>
<p>I don’t think what Allmusic said was silly at all. Taking away guns may not keep people intent on murder from murdering, that’s true. However, if someone in the situation such as the one in Lancaster, entered the school and was unable to have a gun or knife, he’d have had a harder time murdering ten girls in that short of a time as the police arrived. Guns make it easier to kill many people in a very quick instant. Even if someone has a knife and enters a group of people, it is easier to run away compared to someone with a gun. Even in the recent shooting in Colorado, when the police closed in, the perpertrator shot a girl as she ran out and that would be harder to accomplish without a gun. Without the threat of a gun, it would be easier to escape, as well. Sure, there are bombs, arson, strangulation and other ways to murder and so taking guns doesn’t stop murder but it lessens the chances in quick instances. Guns in the wrong hands are a deadly combination. </p>
<p>The analogy to cars doesn’t seem the same to me. Cars are needed for transportation. Guns are not needed but to kill or harm. Cars kill when there is an accident, not on purpose. Guns can kill by accident but usually they kill on purpose.</p>
<p>I agree with much of what you’ve said, soozievt. It is true that firearms are dangerous and in this case facilitated a horrible crime. The distinction I’ve tried to point out, repeatedly, is that Americans has a right to own and use firearms. While Americans have rights to private property, like cars, for example they do not have a right to use them on public roads - that is a privilege, allocated by the government as it will.</p>
<p>What I am pointing out is that human life does not seem to be the issue here as very few people, out of some 300 million in the US are killed by guns. Huge numbers, by comparison, are killed every year by automobile crashes. So this particular sensational crime has some folks writing in support of curtailing a fundamental, articulated right. I think this is foolish, because they obviously don’t understand the nature of the right, it’s purpose, and origin. I would offer that most folks on this board know, personally, someone hurt seriously or killed in a car crash. Virtually no one knows someone personally hurt or killed by a firearm. Yet, they’d seriously restrict a basic American personal freedom right because they read about a shocking crime. Human nature, I know. </p>
<p>In America, there is a balance struck between the harm of personal rights being realized and those very rights being enjoyed. I am a long-time law enforcement officer (26 years) and I personally face, and have repeatedly faced, the potential of a fire fight every day in order to have these rights. In no way would I ever give any one of those rights up - even at the very real prospect of personal harm. Also, even though I work for the government, never should only the police and army have guns. The people always trump the government - it is literally the slave of the people. Never the other way around. That has been tried and the results are more terrible than the hideous crime at hand. </p>
<p>It is never unreasonable to liken the acts of the Nazis or Communists with the potential of unrestrained government. The government is made up of people, and power corrupts people. Checks and balances are essential to freedom - even by the people on government itself, which is what the Second Amendment is all about. This is why it rates #2, second only to free speech and so forth. Never give up fundamental rights - they are all paid for with blood, that of tyrants, patriots and horribly so, innocent victims.</p>
<p>
Susan~</p>
<p>While I understand your reasoning, I cannot agree with it. Prohibition of things in the past (alcohol, drugs, etc.) only served to create a black market with its concomitant ills (organized crime, etc.). What makes you think that this situation would be any different with the banning of firearms? The result would be that people could still GET them, but those firearms would be even less monitored (registered) than they are NOW. And there would be MORE crime associated with the buying/selling/stealing of these illegal items. It is pretty common knowledge that withholding something only creates more of a market for that thing. I certainly do not pretend to have the anwer to this vexing problem, but I don’t feel that stricter gun legislation would solve it.</p>
<p>p2n~</p>
<p>Excellent post.</p>
<p>~berurah</p>
<p>Parent2Noles,</p>
<p>Here, Here, and thank you for your service.</p>
<p>While I am anti-gun–never had one, never will and will never allow one in my home; I cannot support gun control in this nation. I fear all that gun control would do is prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns—the people who do not care about laws would still be able to obtain firearms.</p>