Oxford High School, Michigan, school shooting.

[Warp12]

Because giving teachers guns on the classroom will result in:

Accidental shootings.

Stolen guns.

Teachers making bad judgements in tense situations, and firing guns when no guns ought to be fired.

Teachers making bad judgements in high pressure situations, and shooting the wrong people.

Fights that escalate to deadly force.

Shootings done in self defense where the self defense claim is based on the fear that an attacker will take the gun.

And, since teachers are not immune from mental illness, anger, stress induced breakdowns, and all the other things that cause people to snap, there will be an occasional murder.

All very good points. How do you feel about armed security officers? Because, the guns aren't going away anytime soon.

Don't some schools have metal detectors, at least? Keeping them off campus would obviously be the favored way to engineer the problem out.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Guns could go away quick if we wanted.
Until then, the answer can't be "more guns".
The number of privately owned guns has skyrocketed in recent years, and, surprise surprise, it hasn't stopped mass shootings.

 

[Warp12]

Guns could go away quick if we wanted.Until then, the answer can't be "more guns".
The number of privately owned guns has skyrocketed in recent years, and, surprise surprise, it hasn't stopped mass shootings.

I don't see how this happens in the current political climate. And I don't see that changing for a long, long time.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Then just demand that people have insurance for their guns, just like you would for a car.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I don't see how this happens in the current political climate. And I don't see that changing for a long, long time.

And that's why every year, more children will die.

 

[Warp12]

And that's why every year, more children will die.

School mass shootings are not really even on the radar as far as gun deaths. I mean, they are a hot topic in the media, sure. But in the grand scheme, small potatoes. People hardly make an issue out of gun deaths in urban environments, compared to something like this. And those killings are daily.

 

[Disbelief]

All very good points. How do you feel about armed security officers? Because, the guns aren't going away anytime soon.

Don't some schools have metal detectors, at least? Keeping them off campus would obviously be the favored way to engineer the problem out.

Sure, some schools have metal detectors but is that really the answer? A school with 1800 students trying to get in every morning, and you have to basically hand scan everyone. Almost every kid will have some type of metal on them every morning.

As for the armed security, they had security at the school. That's one of the reasons he was stopped within 5 minutes, but it was already too late.

 

[Warp12]

Sure, some schools have metal detectors but is that really the answer? A school with 1800 students trying to get in every morning, and you have to basically hand scan everyone. Almost every kid will have some type of metal on them every morning.

As for the armed security, they had security at the school. That's one of the reasons he was stopped within 5 minutes, but it was already too late.

I think there are plenty of "is that the answer" debates to be had. But you have to look at the reality of the situation, and do something that can realistically be implemented. Guns are not going away in the near future. That is just a pipe dream.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's too late to do anything. There are too many guns in circulation to do anything about it.
America is willing to have these periodic child sacrifices in order to keep their guns.
We all know what the answer is but it will never happen.

 

[Tero]

Onion fails to run the story. There were already 4 mass shootings in 2021. Links here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'No_W...Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens

 

[Armitage72]

Yeah there's no way in hell that'd happen here.

There was an episode of a TV show in the 70s in which a man was portrayed as being somewhat nuts because he had handguns concealed in every room of his house so he would always be able to defend himself. This included a gun in his shower ("Didn't you ever see "Psycho"?")
Attitudes like that seem to be outliers less and less. I've overheard people talk about needing to be able to defend themselves if gang members with automatic weapons suddenly break down their front door. You can't do that if your gun is safely secured.

 

[plague311]

I was...debating someone on Facebook about gun culture a few years back. I mentioned that I've never fired a gun, and I don't own one. He basically called me crazy. He was shocked I would advertise to the world that I was unarmed. Here I am, a few years later, still no one has broken into my house. Hell, I don't even lock my doors.

 

[The Don]

There was an episode of a TV show in the 70s in which a man was portrayed as being somewhat nuts because he had handguns concealed in every room of his house so he would always be able to defend himself. This included a gun in his shower ("Didn't you ever see "Psycho"?")
Attitudes like that seem to be outliers less and less. I've overheard people talk about needing to be able to defend themselves if gang members with automatic weapons suddenly break down their front door. You can't do that if your gun is safely secured.

Someone far more knowledgeable than I expressed the opinion that if you are worried about (the minuscule risk of) a home invasion then you'd be better off investing in more robust doors than self defence guns on the grounds the doors would be more effective and the risk of suicide, self injury or accidentally injuring others would be significantly lower than if guns are strewn around the house.

Of course passive defence like that isn't "sexy" and doesn't allow the homeowner to fantasise about being the hero, saving their family, in a home invasion scenario.

Then again firing on a gang of home invaders armed with automatic weapons may have unintended negative consequences if your aim isn't as good as you thought and/or you're overwhelmed by numbers.

Both my late uncle and my current B-I-L ascribed/ascribe to the "unsecured guns all over the house just in case" school of home defence. We used to stay with my uncle for weeks at a time and it was quite harrowing on occasions when he thought he heard a home invader in the middle of the night (there never was one) and walked around his house alarmed and half-asleep looking for movement in the shadows.

 

[Warp12]

It's too late to do anything. There are too many guns in circulation to do anything about it.
America is willing to have these periodic child sacrifices in order to keep their guns.
We all know what the answer is but it will never happen.

As I say, these "child sacrifices" are hardly of any concern in the grand scheme. That is just what gets the most press. If it were only these types of school shootings, we wouldn't have much of an issue to address.

While the guns aren't going away, there are probably some changes that could happen. I am surprised that their aren't more gun "buy back" type efforts. I think there should be stiffer penalties for gun crimes and accomplices (such as the parents here, imo). Required training for ownership, and a better vetting process. These things at least have some possibility of becoming reality.

But, banning guns? Not happening.

 

[Meadmaker]

All very good points. How do you feel about armed security officers? Because, the guns aren't going away anytime soon.

Don't some schools have metal detectors, at least? Keeping them off campus would obviously be the favored way to engineer the problem out.

I'm not crazy about armed security officers, but at least with armed security officers, you have people who are trained in a meaningful manner and whose whole job, and probably whole career, is related to knowing how and when to use a gun and, even more importantly, when not to use a gun.


That doesn't mean they always get it right,which is why we end up with high profile trials and lawsuits when the cops kill someone who really should not have been killed.

The School Resource Officers have full police training. Private security guards vary, I'm sure, but they probably have some pretty extensive training before carrying a gun. Armed teachers would probably be required to pass an 8 hour gun safety class, and their real job is to teach. I don't see any reason to believe that someone who chose to spend her life teaching history would be very good at knowing when and how to use a gun.

 

[Armitage72]

Three children being killed was sufficient for the sale of lawn darts to be banned in the US. I guess we're lucky that they were thrown instead of being launched from a gun.

 

[Meadmaker]

But, banning guns? Not happening.

No one is proposing that.

To be fair, some people would propose that if they thought it could happen. Heck, in some cities, those laws were actually passed. (See the Heller decision.) I can see a "slippery slope" argument that if you start by banning handguns with 15 shot quick change magazines, they'll want to move on to any handguns, but at least at the moment, that's not on the table, and the Supreme Court says it will take a constitutional amendment to put it on the table.

For me, I would make it difficult to purchase the sort of gun used at Oxford High School, require significant restrictions on how they are stored, and make it darned near impossible to legally carry except to and from a gun range in a locked container in the trunk.

A lot of people will say the "carry" aspect wouldn't have made any difference in this case. It was already illegal for the kid to carry a gun, so it doesn't matter. However, that overlooks something. I'll bet we'll find that the elder Mr. Crumbley had a concealed carry permit and intended to carry that gun. If he hadn't been allowed to get that permit, he might not have bought the gun, and left it where his kid could take it.

 

[Warp12]

"We have had the opportunity to view the video and what is depicted on that video - I don't have the words," Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Marc Keast said Wednesday.

Keast watched the footage in preparation for 15-year-old suspect Ethan Crumbley’s first court appearance on Wednesday. He was hit with 24 charges, which include four counts of first-degree murder, seven counts of assault with intent to murder, one count of terrorism, and 12 counts of possession of a firearm.

His attorney entered a not guilty plea.

Of course there is a not guilty plea, as to be expected.

But, damn if this doesn't kind of make me wish this kid could be executed NOW. Just thinking of the trial, the costs, taxpayers footing his bill for life...and the suffering of the families and victims. It isn't like there is any chance he didn't kill those people in a premeditated fashion.

What a waste of a human.

 

[Warp12]

A lot of people will say the "carry" aspect wouldn't have made any difference in this case. It was already illegal for the kid to carry a gun, so it doesn't matter. However, that overlooks something. I'll bet we'll find that the elder Mr. Crumbley had a concealed carry permit and intended to carry that gun. If he hadn't been allowed to get that permit, he might not have bought the gun, and left it where his kid could take it.

How about the parents also facing murder charges in cases like this?

 

[Meadmaker]

How about the parents also facing murder charges in cases like this?

People think that increasing penalties is going to make a significant difference. However, its effect will be marginal. If a person is not intending to commit a crime, the penalty for that crime isn't a deterrent. The Crumbleys had no idea that their gun would be used to kill anyone. Charging them with murder wouldn't have any effect, because they couldn't imagine that happening anyway.

They should be held responsible for not keeping their gun locked up, but that's it. That should probably include being sued by the families for contributing to the wrongful death. So, they end up with possibly some jail time, at least a criminal record, bankrupt, a son rotting in jail for the rest of his life, and a guilty conscience knowing they enabled it. That seems enough in the way of punishment. More punishment wouldn't benefit anything, because the next yahoos that leave their guns accessible won't imagine that it will happen to them, either.


ETA: And, one more comment. They didn't murder anyone. I think only murderers should be charged with murder. What they (or one or the other) did was pretty bad, but it was negligience, not murder. There might conceivably be room for some variation of "felony murder", but I think that gets abused, and really shouldn't apply here. I don't know if Michigan has that sort of law or how widely applied it is.