Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An Ohio School District Is Arming Its School Custodians With Handguns [View all]Recursion
(56,582 posts)31. I keep banging my head into this wall, but...
Were all of those due to assault rifles and hi-cap magazines?
I'd be willing to bet none of them were; these high-profile mass shootings are pretty much the only time semi-automatic rifles get used in crimes.
Now, just bear with me. I know people are sick of hearing this, but it's directly to your point:
Lanza used neither an assault weapon nor a high-capacity magazine (I catch all kinds of hell for "being technical" about this but since you're explicitly claiming the law would have helped, I think it's very important to point out that his weapon was legal under the '94 ban and under the stronger CT state ban).
Holmes had a high capacity drum, which jammed almost immediately, so he used a shotgun and handguns for almost all of the murders. The drum was in a rifle that, like Lanza's, you might assume fell under the AWB but probably didn't (unless it had a bayonet lug).
Loughner had a high-capacity magazine, which jammed after firing as many rounds as a normal magazine holds (jamming is a common problem with large magazines, which is why most people don't use them, which is also why it probably wouldn't be a huge political fight to ban them).
Cho had completely normal magazines in completely normal pistols.
Before the complaints come in: I'm not posting gun porn; I'm not claiming that if you don't know all these things about firearms X, Y, and Z you shouldn't have an opinion. What you're asking for isn't unconstitutional and doesn't (IMO) infringe on anybody's "rights", but it also doesn't do what you think it does and I think that's very important to keep in mind.
Feature based bans like AWBs are not unconstitutional or tyrannical or anything, they're just based on a fundamental misconception that how a gun looks has any bearing on how effective it is at killing people. The only thing that addresses that is a capabilities-based ban like the 1934 NFA (the one that makes actual literal military assault rifles illegal). But another AWB isn't, in my armchair political analyst's opinion, a "step towards that" as a lot of people on this board think, but a complete forestallment of that because after a very painful political struggle to pass it, politicians will roll their sleeves back down and say "there, that's done!" and not touch it for another two decades. Meanwhile, gunmakers will (once again) design guns that look different enough to stay legal while still maintaining the same firing capabilities as the old ones, just like happened in 1994 (Feinstein's current feature list is more restrictive and gives the ATF more latitude, yes, but if the problem is the availability of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines* it does nothing at all to address that).
Now, like has been said on this thread, school is statistically the safest place for a child to be (and the most dangerous place is in the car on the way to or from school). I don't think armed guards will improve that safety, either, so in that we're in agreement.
* Some DUers I really respect say I'm off the mark here, and that the appearance really is a problem because it plays up soldier fantasies among crazies like the people I listed above; I'm not convinced of that but I acknowledge it's possible, and I want to think about that some more.
I'd be willing to bet none of them were; these high-profile mass shootings are pretty much the only time semi-automatic rifles get used in crimes.
Now, just bear with me. I know people are sick of hearing this, but it's directly to your point:
Lanza used neither an assault weapon nor a high-capacity magazine (I catch all kinds of hell for "being technical" about this but since you're explicitly claiming the law would have helped, I think it's very important to point out that his weapon was legal under the '94 ban and under the stronger CT state ban).
Holmes had a high capacity drum, which jammed almost immediately, so he used a shotgun and handguns for almost all of the murders. The drum was in a rifle that, like Lanza's, you might assume fell under the AWB but probably didn't (unless it had a bayonet lug).
Loughner had a high-capacity magazine, which jammed after firing as many rounds as a normal magazine holds (jamming is a common problem with large magazines, which is why most people don't use them, which is also why it probably wouldn't be a huge political fight to ban them).
Cho had completely normal magazines in completely normal pistols.
Before the complaints come in: I'm not posting gun porn; I'm not claiming that if you don't know all these things about firearms X, Y, and Z you shouldn't have an opinion. What you're asking for isn't unconstitutional and doesn't (IMO) infringe on anybody's "rights", but it also doesn't do what you think it does and I think that's very important to keep in mind.
Feature based bans like AWBs are not unconstitutional or tyrannical or anything, they're just based on a fundamental misconception that how a gun looks has any bearing on how effective it is at killing people. The only thing that addresses that is a capabilities-based ban like the 1934 NFA (the one that makes actual literal military assault rifles illegal). But another AWB isn't, in my armchair political analyst's opinion, a "step towards that" as a lot of people on this board think, but a complete forestallment of that because after a very painful political struggle to pass it, politicians will roll their sleeves back down and say "there, that's done!" and not touch it for another two decades. Meanwhile, gunmakers will (once again) design guns that look different enough to stay legal while still maintaining the same firing capabilities as the old ones, just like happened in 1994 (Feinstein's current feature list is more restrictive and gives the ATF more latitude, yes, but if the problem is the availability of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines* it does nothing at all to address that).
Now, like has been said on this thread, school is statistically the safest place for a child to be (and the most dangerous place is in the car on the way to or from school). I don't think armed guards will improve that safety, either, so in that we're in agreement.
* Some DUers I really respect say I'm off the mark here, and that the appearance really is a problem because it plays up soldier fantasies among crazies like the people I listed above; I'm not convinced of that but I acknowledge it's possible, and I want to think about that some more.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
An Ohio School District Is Arming Its School Custodians With Handguns [View all]
FarCenter
Jan 2013
OP
yup, i guess the figure the custodian is a single most expendable employee at a school.
unblock
Jan 2013
#3
Bad management practice. Stupid politics. Principals in all states are THE primary point person for
ancianita
Jan 2013
#7
Hard to say about qualifications? Some custodians may be veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.
FarCenter
Jan 2013
#9
That's too random and undependable as a practice in securing schools. Having "some" isn't a
ancianita
Jan 2013
#10
A posted, uniformed, armed guard can be useful, but only if you're out of the mass shooting mindset
Recursion
Jan 2013
#11
I don't know who decided this, but 4 fatalities in one incident is the "official" definition
Recursion
Jan 2013
#21
NOT true. Every security person knows that entry points are exactly the control points for school
ancianita
Jan 2013
#17
Oh. I guess because your example of how security doesn't work seemed to argue against your
ancianita
Jan 2013
#25
I'm ready to address this if you can link some critical mass of "exceptions" that you imply here.
ancianita
Jan 2013
#43
Having unarmed entry guards in a country of 300 million guns makes absolutely no sense.
ancianita
Jan 2013
#48
Principals know that for every entry and exit point you need an armed guard, and their communities
ancianita
Jan 2013
#30
I would totally agree with this. The problem is the registering. I've suggested that every state
ancianita
Jan 2013
#69
I have never been in a school where the janitor was anything less than a charity hire.
Buzz Clik
Jan 2013
#28
I know that if the custodians would have had guns when I went to school, I would have been shot
liberal N proud
Jan 2013
#33