.

Connecticut School Leaders: Don't Arm Educators in Wake of Newtown

School officials from across the state met in a symposium this week to discuss school safety issues arising from the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. One take away from the meeting was that they don't want guns in schools.

Amid increasing calls to arm educators in the wake of the Newtown shootings, school leaders who met earlier this week in Southington agreed that guns have no place in Connecticut's schools.

The gathering of the Connecticut School Security Symposium on Monday in Southington drew more than 800 educators. The event was closed to the public, but a group of schools officials talked to reporters on Tuesday during a press conference in West Hartford, according to the website CT News Junkie.

In Danbury, the Board of Education decided two things. It will implement any security measures it can ASAP, and look for long-term solutions between now and April, its deadline for the study. Oxford is in the midst of doing the same thing (more to come soon on Oxford's school safety response). 

Oxford Superintendent of Schools Tim Connellan said teachers should act as educators, not armed patrol personnel. 

Joseph Cirasuolo, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, told the website that officials discussed a wide range of issues related to school security during the symposium, including how schools should safegaurd against tragedies like the Newtown shootings. Some of the issues covered, Cirasuolo said, included installing bulletproof glass in schools and improving buzzer entry systems. 

He said there was no single or easy solution to the matter of school security, though the education officials dismissed the idea of arming teachers or other school officials, the website reports.

“One of the things that was recommended against very strongly was arming teachers and principals, because when it comes down to it you can make sure somebody knows how to use a firearm — shoot it — but you need to make sure the person that has the firearm knows how to use it in a school setting,” Cirasuolo told CT News Junkie.

John M. Joy January 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM
"I've yet to hear a convincing argument why limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less is denying gun owners their "rights"." For homework tonight, Google "Koreatown LA Riots" " I don't believe even the most "leftie" of liberals is advocating for the confiscation of legally owned firearms." Then you haven't been paying attention.
Bernard January 12, 2013 at 01:05 AM
Exceptions do not make the rule. Name any mainstream progressives that have advocated confiscation of all firearms. By advocated, I mean proposed in legislation or other meaningful way. I have often thought that an NRA convention would be an interesting scene for a mass shooting but I am not advocating it.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 01:06 AM
@john, so you're bring up 20 year old riots to tell me Obama is coming for our guns in 2013 ? Sorry, no connection..... There will always be a fringe on the left who call for "banning & confiscating all guns" just like there's a fringe on the right who believe they might have to overthrow the govt. via armed conflict in the next week or so. Neither group is grounded in reality.
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 01:09 AM
@john, you actually think about mass shootings at particular locations. You are a deranged individual. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 01:10 AM
Here is the latest proposal by the anti-gun nuts http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 01:10 AM
Joe Blow 1 hour ago john, your last post goes beyond belief and shows just how paranoid YOU really are. You are more afraid of a firearm enthusiast than a mentally deranged individual when all of the mass murders, Newtown included, were perpetrated by mental deranged people hopped up on prescription medication. The NRA is an organization founded to protect MY right to own a firearm and to protect myself and my family from people like YOU. I am proud to say I am a life member and will continue to fight for my constitutional right to protect myself and family with a firearm if the need arises. "Two dogs", are you for real? You need some serious mental help.
John M. Joy January 12, 2013 at 01:10 AM
You asked for an argument - I guess to you not convincing - why a high capacity magazine restriction is unreasonable. I provided you a bona fide example, in our lifetime (assuming you are not a teenager). Since I'm guessing you did not bother to Google, let me explain: those people in Koreatown were left to their fate when the LA police turned tail and ran that day.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 01:19 AM
@Joe....yeah, that's going to pass....right next to the bath salts legislation....doubtful, maybe this one will pass though.... http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00124-R00-SB.htm
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 01:29 AM
@ John, is this the article you're referring to ? http://thepatriotperspective.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/magazine-bans-and-why-standard-capacity-magazines-are-important/ So those poor Koreans would have been overwhelmed with only 10 round magazines instead of 30+ round clips ?
Oxford Resident January 12, 2013 at 01:41 AM
I think this basically settles the "no one is coming for your guns" argument that the left likes to trot out. The proposal, on its face, would limit us all to single shot firearms. While this is only in committee and the details and specific language have yet to be drafted, I question the use of the statement "one made to FIRE a single round" as opposed to "one made to HOLD a single round". All of the firearms I've had experience with FIRE a single round, one pull, one round, but they HOLD multiple rounds. Or does it mean any gun that can fire more than once in its EXISTENCE will be banned? That would effectively ban every firearm. Maybe splitting hairs, but if this were to become law, the difference is a glaringly significant one.
John M. Joy January 12, 2013 at 02:18 AM
I was thinking of http://www.ammoland.com/2012/05/1992-l-a-riots-or-how-californians-learned-then-forgot-to-embrace-the-gun/#axzz2HiqAsFXO or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots or http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/23/when-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown/ or http://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/saved-by-a-semi-automatic-assault-rifle-the-story-of-koreatown-during-the-la-riots/
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 02:35 AM
@OC do you know how long it takes to change out a magazine? Less than 2 seconds and if multiple firearms are used it is a mute point. All feel good politics that only affects law abiding citizens.
Bernard January 12, 2013 at 04:20 AM
Not exactly confiscation from my reading. It is restrictive and I don't support that type of measure. I was thinking nationally as state measures tend to get nutty as this demonstrates. As for my fantasies, I have to work hard to not wish that the evil so easily disregarded by the careless and callous not be visited on them. I remain a work in progress.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 01:57 PM
@Joe - My point exactly. Only takes seconds to change out a magazine so limiting them to 10 rounds or less should not be a big pill to swallow......and please, don't paint me as anti-gun. I am no where near where some of the way-out lefties are who spout, "ban guns", or "less guns" but then bristle & whine about 1st amendment when you bring up violent video games. As I have said several times in the forum, the ultimate best solution will a balanced approach of tightened gun laws, additional security measures with the option of armed staff, (either uniformed or teachers) at schools & other public places, addtional mental health resources. I do believe though if you have a family member in the house who is using state or federal mental health agencies, the agency should have a right to ask if there are firearms in the house & be able to verify how they're secured and adjust or coordinate treatment with other agencies that deal with firearm registration. I believe too that there needs to be a way to ensure that gun owners have their firearms secured safely. I do realize that many of them do already and I applaud their acceptance of responsibility. However, there are enough stories in the news of kids bringing their Dad's, brother's, uncle's, etc. gun to school, not to kill but to show off, that gun security is a valid concern.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 01:58 PM
I had to break up my comments.... Centrists from both the pro & anti gun groups need to come together to find common ground. Folks howled at Wayne LaPierre's comments stating good guys with guys will stop bad guys with guns but they forget that coward Adam Lanza only took his own life when he realized armed resistance was about to confront him and he could no longer walk the halls leisurely shooting little 6-7 year olds. My blood boils even now typing those words. With what I know now I blame the entire incident on Nancy Lanza for not have her firearms properly secured. This was a woman who had received 290K in court ordered alimony just in 2012. She of all people could afford a gun safe.
Oxford Resident January 12, 2013 at 04:07 PM
If we all can agree that high capacity magazines vs swapping out a lower capacity magazine provide no time savings for good guys or bad guys, then why ban them? To feel like your doing something? That makes it a political issue, not a safety issue. We need solutions, not token legislation.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 06:33 PM
....and your solutions are ? I think "sport" shooting will be no less sporting if AR-15's only have a 10 round clip as opposed to a 30 round one. Let's be honest, if such a ban were passed you would likely see an unprecedented run on high capacity magazines anyways. That said, it should still be done.
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 06:38 PM
That said, you will see ZERO reduction in crime. What's the point? Address the problem instead of playing "feel good" politics with my rights.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 06:42 PM
Again you offer no solutions. This was just one of several ideas I presented...and your 2nd amendment doesn't mention anything specific to magazine capacity....
Oxford Resident January 12, 2013 at 06:46 PM
So your argument is "you don't have a solution, so let's do something equally as useless". That's really not an argument.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 06:50 PM
No, I believe that limiting magazine capacity will have a limited effect initially but a greater effect as time passes and the current inventory of high capacity magazines ages, becomes obsolete due to design changes, etc. Again this is just one of several proposals but still one more than what you've offered.....
Oxford Resident January 12, 2013 at 06:54 PM
Your beliefs do not constitute facts. We've already established that high capacity magazines provide no advantage over multiple smaller capacity magazines, so we are still at "you can't have that because I said so" which is a political discussion. So no, we've both offered zero solutions to the actual problem at hand. Any solutions should stand on their own as being effective at addressing the problem, simply existing as an idea does not warrant implementation.
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 07:51 PM
I never claimed to offer a solution but by the same token I'm not offering politics disguised as "a solution". Do you want a solution? How about enforcing the 20,000 some odd gun laws that are already on the books and mental illness?
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 07:53 PM
Please elaborate just what this "effect" is to which you are referring because I'm not seeing it. You've offered nothing but "feel good" politics.
OxfordCitizen January 12, 2013 at 08:25 PM
....and neither one of you have offered any solutions at all. I find your lack of ideas rather disappointing. I believe limiting magazine capacity has value, you do not. Your argument that it only takes a couple seconds to swap magazine works equally against & for you. After Sandy Hook rest assured, something will be done. If I were you I'd be bringing ideas to the table. Simply thumping your fist on your chest proclaiming 2nd amendment rights will not make anyone safer nor prevent current gun laws from being strengthened. Enjoy your "feel good" politics.
Joe Blow January 12, 2013 at 08:38 PM
If you look a few posts up I did offer a "solution" but you must have overlooked it so here it is again; I never claimed to offer a solution but by the same token I'm not offering politics disguised as "a solution". Do you want a solution? How about enforcing the 20,000 some odd gun laws that are already on the books and mental illness? I have asked repeatedly what you "believe limiting magazine capacity" will do to solve anything and you never have answered the question because there is no answer. People like you who continually put your head in the sand of the real problem and attack law abiding citizens is a problem unto itself. How about you address that one.
Oxford Resident January 12, 2013 at 08:41 PM
I'm sorry your disappointed in me. I was unaware that implementing a useless law was better than implementing no law. Check my posts, I never claimed a second amendment right to high-capacity magazines. I simply claimed that doing something useless just to say you did something is playing politics.Your characterization of me chest-thumping is way off. That simply amounts to name-calling, something I haven't resorted to. We are at an impasse, good luck to you, I hope your next idea can stand a healthy discussion better than this one did.
Citizen X January 13, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Great idea, isolation, guns + paranoia make for great citizens & a great country. You're living in the wrong century. Do you like electricity or do you find it un-Godly & new-fangled?
John M. Joy January 13, 2013 at 02:09 AM
Well, seeing as I'm in the IT industry, methinks I like my 'leck-tricky just fine, thanks.
OxfordCitizen January 13, 2013 at 12:21 PM
@Oxford Resident, You feel that limiting magazine capacity has no value. I do. We disagree. Impasse. As I said previously, this was just one of several suggestions I put forth. As I also said previously, the safety issue will not be solved by gun legislation alone. To simply knock the ideas put forth by others without offering alternatives is not a healthy or productive discussion. I apologize if you felt I was name calling at you. That was not my intent. Good luck to you as well. @Joe Blow, please name some of the 20,000 guns & mental health laws on the books that are not being enforced that would directly affect the issues we are all facing.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something