We can't shoot our way out of the gun problem...

After the disruptive mess that was Act 10 and the funding cuts to our schools, the attempted voter suppression in his unconstitutional Voter ID law, and now the loss of millions due to his incompetent management of WEDC, I thought the Governor Walker couldn't do much more damage.  Boy was I wrong: 


On Wednesday Gov.Walker said that arming school officials should be "part of the discussion."  Well maybe it should, as in: "That's a bad idea! end of discussion."

Let's look at the facts: even counting the recent tragedies in Connecticut and elsewhere, we need to remember that schools are the safest place for kids in this country, safer than homes and safer than anyplace else kids are likely to be found.  And not by a little, by a lot.  The first principle of change is: don't mess up what you've got!  
Can we anticipate the effects of guns in schools?  First question: will armed teachers have an impact on reducing events like last Friday's?  30 years of experience says no:  Of the 62 mass shootings in the US in the last 30 years, not one was stopped by an armed civilian.  In a few cases the shooter was apprehended by an armed civilian, after they stopped shooting; but in a similar number of cases the armed civilian ended up dead or severely injured.  Based on that real experience it is probable that an armed school staff would have a negligible small impact on shooting rampages.  Consider, the one person involved in the Sandy Hook rampage who had an arsenal of weapons for self protection, became the first victim.
And what about the collateral damage?  Every year in the US there are about 650 accidental shooting deaths and 15000 injuries.  5 children are shot accidentally every day.   If you extrapolate that rate per gun into 4 guns per school you end up with an expected 31 accidental shootings per year in schools.  And that is just accidents, it doesn't count the all to frequent incidents of "He had something in his hand, I thought it was a gun" - something that happens regularly even with highly trained police; or situations where an emotionally distressed or disturbed person creates a confrontation that has the potential to turn deadly in the presence of a gun.  And don't forget, even police officers only hit their intended targets about 1 in 5 shots.
School can be a difficult place, with young men and women going through difficult changes and situations for which they are as yet poorly emotionally and socially prepared.  Indeed, 4000 teens are sufficiently emotionally distraught to commit suicide each year, introducing deadly weapons into this environment is destined to make schools a more dangerous place.  
I could go on, but the youtube video is worth a million words:  Here a police officer accidentally shoots himself in front of a class room full of students.  Ironically while lecturing about gun safety.
In short, we can't shoot our way out of our gun crime problem, and suggestions that we can ignore reality.

Ugh.

If this nation’s founders could witness us trying to parse the text of the 2^nd amendment into a basis of arms regulation today, they would either laugh or cry (or probably both, they were a mixed lot!)   On the day the 2^nd amendment was written the height of military technology was the muzzle loading rifled musket, hostile and well-armed foreign powers and aboriginal peoples sat just beyond poorly defined western borders, and any assistance could only come at walking pace.  And yet some how we don’t question the idea that the 2^nd amendment was the last word when it comes to arms regulation, and that it is appropriate to stretch it around everything from handguns to nuclear weapons.   

The founders would call us idiots – in slightly more polite language – and then explain, slowly and in small words, that their laws were meant for their time, and that they gave us the means and intended that we update our governance to fit our times.  In their times they had to fear madmen, but not a madman armed with killing machines of incredible efficiency.  Does anyone think that if Adam Lanza had walked into an elementary school with a muzzle loading musket that 26 people would be dead?

In a limited sense the gun rights people are correct: there will always be deranged people dedicated to the commission of mass crimes.  No laws will stop them.  However you can limit the damage they can do by making it difficult to obtain weapons of excessive efficiency.  Making it harder will reduce the incidents and their lethality.  

Virtually everyone agrees in prohibition of arms at some level.  I know of no one who thinks surface to air missiles should be readily available to the public.  The difference between the most ardent guns right supporter and the gun control activist is only where to draw the line.  This is what I think:  there are two reasonable uses of guns: personal protection and hunting/sport.  Neither semi-automatic versions of assault rifles, or handguns with 13 round clips than can be reloaded in seconds, are essential for either of these purposes.  It’s time for them to go. 

Will anything significant come of this tragedy?  No, arms regulation in this country is written and promoted by the well-funded lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers and dealers, masquerading as a grass-roots organization.  Its intent is always and exclusively to maximize the profitability of its funders.  How did we get to a world were our representatives hold their allegiance to gun dealers and Grover Norquist above their oath to us?  We all know that answer to that.  Before we can fix anything in this country, we need to first fix the campaign finance system, so that our leaders can represent the people’s interests alone.  Gun dealers and  Norquist deserve their say, but they aren't entitled to drown out the voices of the rest of us.

So what is the board up to?

After all the extreme churn the last couple of years over startling budget deficit, building consolidation, and the (unnecessary) fallout of Act 10, I welcome this period when our meetings are occupied working through mundane policy updates.  I'm not arguing that policies on concussions, foundation relations and fundraising aren't important, just that its a relief to work on brass tacks.

Unfortunately I'm sure it will be over all to soon!