An Alabama lawmaker says he's against arming teachers because most are women and "are scared of guns."
That's one guy who should have an appointment with Dr. Ruth, who once was a Haganah scout-sniper.
Back on the other side of the country, it seems that a certain anacephalic by the name of Trayon White Sr., who was elected to the D.C. Cidiot Council, blamed Jews for snowstorms.
These clowns aren't running hot-dog carts. They write laws, people. That should scare any rational person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Michael at Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse had the right answer for them...
" Please identify yourself to mental health as mentally incompetent and insane. You should never own a gun and you should never vote."
If they believe that they have the sole words on this maybe we are so screwed to have whimps and their bullies supposedly ruling us.
Eck!
Kinda stupid to want to arm teachers, not to mention the expense. Good for the gun manufactures of course.
First he insults women. (Someone send him a link to my blog. And Tam's "View from the Porch" and Antonia Okafor's "Be Empowered" Kathy Jackson's "Cornered Ca" and Jenn Jacques, and ... (I would include links, but that would just get my foot stuck in the anti-SPAM filter)
Then he insults cops. They are too stupid to do any thinking about the possibility of armed teachers.
As for the "too expensive to arm teachers" argument, that is a red herring. What the laws want to do is PERMIT teachers to carry their own guns. Plenty have them, even if you don't know any. I would also be willing to bet that if a teacher was allowed to carry a gun, and he or she couldn't afford one, a quick collection from folks in the community would provide funding.
A used Beretta 92S in 9mm can be had in "good" condition for $249, or in excellent condition for $279, with an extra 10 bucks for "hand select" from a local wholesaler. If you include transfer fees and shipping to your local federally licensed dealer, this would mean that a good, functional firearm with one 15-round magazine for 300 bucks could be had. They have been inspected by Beretta for any mechanical issues. This kind of thing might not get funded in San Francisco, but in Tampa, I can think of a dozen people who would contribute to a worthy cause.
If you don't like the 92S (and a lot of people hate the placement of the magazine release) there are other choices.
I've always felt that there should be minimum standards for our lawmakers, no matter what party they hail from.
Yes, it's a slippery slope and all that. But there are some REALLY stupid folks out there who make laws. And there are no minimums for them, either in intelligence nor education.
Deb, feel free to toss in the links. If it gets caught up in the spam filter, I'll release it.
If they want a revolver, used DAO Smith & Wesson Model 64s are out there for a great price.
You'd think that if 'the Rothschilds' were so powerful that they could control the weather than they could also disappear anyone that says a bad thing about them publicly.
"Kinda stupid to want to arm teachers, not to mention the expense."
Lets look at this...
First cost is a red herring. Seriously can you invest in a better straw man?
Many are likely armed on the outside. Some might even have defensive training.
They are prohibited from exercising self defense, doing so may make them a lucky or dead hero and also likely dismissed form their job if they do survive.
Lets consider the natural and protected right, that is of course self defense.
We can assume a lot of things but passive hide in a room or do nothing is not self defense.
Now we have gun free zones. They are also knife, club, pepper spray, and anything else free zones. Do people in that zone have the right to defend themselves anymore?
When "they" take a right away "they" assume full responsibility for the safety of everyone. Yes those same "they" are incapable. So by claiming its a bad idea
do YOU assume a role in that responsibility... or is it not my problem?
Remember the Trolley conundrum, your and do something or nothing but your there
and have an investment in improving the outcome, or not.
Here are some blogs of women who can and do carry weapons. Some are even instructors.
Be Empowered by Antonia Okafor
The Cornered Cat - by Kathy Jackson (firearms instructor)
Girls Just Want to Have Guns by Regis Giles (she is also an instructor)
Jenn Jacques
Tammy Bruce
The View from the Proch by Tamara Keel (who writes for a bunch of gun magazines)
"Remember the Trolley conundrum, your and do something or nothing but your there
and have an investment in improving the outcome, or not."
How about we let the CDC study it and find out what would improve the outcome before we accidentally turn classrooms into free-fire zones. If it turns out that arming someone in classrooms is the best practice, do it, if not, maybe try something else.
-Doug in Oakland
Those are just from my blogroll, and only include folks who have are focused pretty closely on guns, and not primarily on politics. So there are certainly more that could be added.
dinthebeast. Why is the CDC qualified to study firearms in the classroom? What insights do they have about the effects of various forms of training?
I know it is cool to think of guns as a disease, but there are a lot of guns never used in crime, and a lot of gun owners who are never involved with anything more serious than a speeding ticket.
What follows is a quote from Gun Culture 2.0 written by a college professor.
Although it falls outside the scope of medical sociology proper, those considering studying guns in connection with health, illness, and injury do well to bear in mind that, on any given day in America, the vast majority of gun owners will not have any negative outcomes associated with their guns.
The best available estimates suggest that there are at least 300 million privately owned guns in some 50 million households in the U.S. today. According to the NCHS, in 2014 there were 11,008 homicides using firearms. Even using the faulty assumption that a person from a different household committed every homicide using a different gun, at most 0.022% of gun-owning households and 0.0037% of guns are “responsible” for firearms homicides. Looked at the other way around, at least 99.978% of gun owning households and 99.996% of guns are not involved in homicide in any given year. Even if we add non-fatal firearms injuries (73,505 in 2013) and suicides (21,386 in 2014), only 0.035% of guns and 0.21% of gun-owning households at most are “responsible.” Less than 99.965% of guns and 99.788% of gun-owning households are associated with any of these negative outcomes.
Doug, let’s keep the CDC outta the actual studying this, to avoid policital shit. I say let the data be collected by the CDC or whomever, but have several different groups conduct studies. We’ll probably get widely varying results, but then we have a team study the studies and determine which have validity. The study team would be something like 5 from each side and those 10 have to pick 5-7 others together. That way we’re actually likely to get some useful data for all sides.
D--
Consider the experiment. We have declared the places gun-free-zones and its a failed experiement. Note the known outcome. If case A we do nothing does it likely improve? If case B we do permit qualified teachers to carry will it likely get worse? IF we study it will case A improve over time? Since doing nothing is likely to not improve matters it would seem you are advocating doing nothing.
Consider that doing nothing is morally as bad as doing something that works out badly have we made any progress to improving matters. It appears not. Right now a perfect solution is unlikely, a better one is possible.
When the cops come, and see two people armed with guns, how are they suppose to react? Or do they wait to see who tries to shoot first?
Anon - You declare the experiment failed, but actually the numbers look pretty good if you compare it to injuries from firearms being present and handled in various locations. Even “expertly” trained, armed pilots have shot up some planes. I’d prefer to see some firm numbers on injuries from mishaps vs the current shooting problem before declaring things decided.
The police are terrified of DA’s scenario.
The police are only terrified because they fail to asses and simply react. DA's scenario is possible and even likely, but if cops knew that there might be armed teachers on scene, they'd have to think before shooting.
Most SWAT folks I have met can't do that. Other cops, perhaps.
Then again, it's probable that by the time the cops get there, there isn't any more shooting. The shooter will probably have offed himself, or the teacher will have done it for him.
As far as studies, yes, I'd like to see some.... But the CDC can't be non political about Rhinovirus, much less firearms.
Still haven’t answered the question, B. What if there are two or three teachers armed and respond to the active shooter? The cops see three or four shooters, but who is who?
Din, it has failed student are dying.
As to the case you mentioned. Someone will drop their gun and get grabbed.
if they dont they are shot, that bad but consider if the bad guy got to continue shooting even more dead. I also posited that only qualified and maybe even identified to the police would be carrying. Bottom line it sucks but it can be better than doing nothing.
The cops are not terrified of that, they want better too so long as they get to go home at night.
As to plane being shot up.. CITE. As a pilot I"m sorta in the loop and its not common, as in very rare. But hey while we wait for perfect, victims will be waiting for help. I'm also old enough to remember aircraft hijacking being relatively common what changed?
There may be some evidence that the "300 million guns in private hands" may be a considerable underestimate, off by 50% or more.
School shooters are predators. Predators go where prey are easy pickings. Lambing season on sheep farms, the Second Happy Time.
Taking everyone's guns is a Feinstein-grade drug-induced fantasy. Laws only hinder those inclined to obey the law. Forbidding the possession of guns on school property or declaring "gun safe zones" do nothing to those who intend to do harm.
It's time to start exploring other possibilities.
Maybe recognizing that moar technological marvels designed to maim and kill aren’t the answer?
Luna Schlosser: "Regis - register commies, not guns." What's that mean?
Miles Monroe: What?
Luna Schlosser: "Register commies, not guns."
Miles Monroe: Oh, he was probably a member of the National Rifle Association. There was a group that helped criminals get guns so they could shoot citizens. It was a public service.
Anon, I never said common, but it has happened (e.g. 2008,USAir, revealed common pilot holster had a serious design flaw). Now, there are ~3.2 million teachers in the U.S. and less than 100,000 active ATP’s. There is no data on total armed pilots (FFDO), but several incidents have occurred (a discharge, a loss of custody, a flushing of live ammunition, etc), so let’s assume about 10%? The average airline pilot works with the public about half what a teacher does each month, so 10,000 FFDO’s over 15 years is 75,000 teacher equivalent year interaction periods. So, if we multiply by 42.7, we get a theoretical 128 incidents with a completely armed teacher force, but more realistically, I think 1 in 15 teachers is a fair number, so 3 times 14 is 42 incidents of varying severity PER YEAR!
Now we have to consider what happens with an armed teacher. Will incidents escalate? What will happen in a large school when one teacher doesn’t recognize the other armed teacher(s)? Can the teacher pull the trigger when he/she knows the student? What happens during a lockdown...does the armed teacher have to abandon their kids to try to protect others? When a lockdown drill happens, what are the chances of an accidental discharge? (Stonekettle Station reminds us there is no such thing as an “accidental” discharge) From what B. says, he is expecting the armed teacher to abandon his students to attempt to locate and neutralize the “attacker”. I don’t know about you, but I’m not really sure about this plan. Is the teacher supposed to move the students into another room before playing hide and seek? Most schools have multiple routes to almost all points on campus, so that’s a plan for failure. Double the kids in a room is a possible carnage, especially since, based on this scenario, the teacher in there is likely unarmed. And yes, that also argues the current status is the same.
I’m not saying what is or isn’t the answer, I’m saying we need some real, hard data on the options and idea. We have to decide what is an acceptable loss rate for kids in school, how’s that for a fucked up thing to say? If the acceptable rate is zero, arming teachers is NOT the answer, but neither is confiscating all guns, FYI.
These imagined scenarios are silly. If the police show up at a shooting, and two or more armed persons are encountered, simply don't shoot the ones who drop their weapons and put their hands up. Clear the area, find out who was a shooter and who was a defender.
The greatest effect of allowing teachers to carry should be deterrence. Currently, any shooter can be certain that, barring on-campus armed cops, there will be noone to stop him. If there is a fair chance that someone could target him, these incidents will likely be greatly reduced.
I have no hard data on this in schools, but people- troops, civilians- move very differently in safe areas versus when under fire.
Or the shooter can turn around and start shooting at the cops as they come in. Please try to limit your scenarios to reality and not some Steven Seagal movie.
"School shooters are predators."
So are child molesters. I don't want the teacher who molested me to have a gun.
"It's time to start exploring other possibilities."
That was my point. I have owned firearms since my eighth Christmas, but I don't particularly want to live in an ongoing gun fight, as I already did that in the late eighties when I lived behind the MacArthur BART station at the height of the crack epidemic. It sucked really hard.
Prohibition laws don't work. I don't give two hairs on a rat's furry ass who does the science, as long as they are good at what they do. The goddamn Dickey Amendment didn't just stop the CDC from studying gun violence (which is a public health issue, whether you want to admit it or not) it had the knock-on effect of drying up funding for any private studies also, as the threat to other funding was implied.
If you don't want to know what might work, if you don't want anyone else to be able to know what might work because you are afraid of what that might be, you are definitely not on the moral side of the Trolley conundrum.
-Doug in Oakland
CP88, my recollection is that the holster used by the FFDOs was selected and mandated by DHS.
Well here is the score...
* So long as there a chance something bad can happen don't do anything.
* What if both have a gun... again we should do nothing.
* If all fails study it until it gets worse.
* "Data" and what is the criteria, how do we test the data? Again do nothing.
* One event in the last 10 years is not data, its a point, its also negligence.
On extrapolating events from a single or limited set of cheery picked data points is not statistically viable. We can all multiply but random events are indeed still statistically random and do not scale uniformly.
We are dealing with people, a few bad, most endeavor to do good. ALL are prone to error. We are not trying to fix dumb errors as they are terrible in themselves
but can be reduced with education and training. We are trying to fix the more horrific cases were its not a case of negligence its a spree that doesn't stop till the shooter is stopped.
As to negligence, there are no accidents. If the gun goes off its because a HUMAN
had his fingers on the trigger, or allowed something to get there. That's a failure of responsibility to insure safety. Those that carry daily know that a good holster prevents disaster. They also know that once it comes out of the holster it better be for serious reasons, training, or maintenance.
At the current time its believed that these spree shooters go to the place they know they can do horrific things. ALL of those places have no or very little protection for those people unable to defend themselves. It would seem that
making those places less inviting by security that works and the risk of being
shot goes to make the those places less appealing for the criminal.
An aside... Not all schools are good candidates for armed teachers. As one writer
not here has said some of the inner city schools in crime/gang areas might have to try something different as gangs would take that as a challenge.
Maybe dealing with the fear of guns is a first step as well. The people in those buildings are knowledgeable might have a better idea of how to deal with an active shooter if they knew about guns. We know hiding or diving under a desk are ineffective. I hope we don't need to point out data points proving that! As someone else suggested if all else fails run, its damn hard to hit a moving target and it beats being at close range where even an idiot shooter can hit something.
From where I sit gun free zones are a a total failure as they lack one important
item. The people that are responsible for their existence have made NO commitment to protecting those inside that zone. I will repeat myself. Those that are RESPONSIBLE have claimed they are not at fault and its someone elses failure.
Well then who the hell is?
So if I'm in such a gun free {which for school means any potential weapon} zone
Who do I sue if a person with a gun does walk in? What is the penalty for those responsible for my safety and what is their culpability for that failure?
Somebody? No one? Myself?
Get it? There is for all of those cases someone along with the shooters not
being responsible for safety. They failed, they get to go home, they are not at risk for injury or death and likely not even their job. It would seem to me as a person responsible for myself that the collective you are putting me at risk.
That is intolerable.
Eck!
Moar guns!
DA would you like to say something meaningful this time... snark or whatever that was is not helping and is somewhat antagonizing.
With that I repeat, gun free is not working... New event Maryland school shooting hitting the news. This time the resource officer was there and did shoot the perp who is apparently critically injured. The suck is others were still injured or killed.
Eck!
Yes, Comrade, it was.
Nah, when the kids get to age 15 or so, arm them as well. Why take any chances with teachers who don’t appreciate the glory of firearms?
Eck!, what is the security answer for schools then and who will pay for it? Schools are underfunded as it is, this “idea” requires huge manpower and money.
Let’s say we hire armed guards for all schools, what’s the standard for removing a guard? Who is responsible when a guard shoots up a school? How much do we have to pay to get reliable guards? Are we gonna pay for bulletproof glass (a relative term, as we all know)?
CP,
Yes, that's the problem, money. Commitment is the other.
Well, what we do know?
The existing scheme doesn't work. Suggestions that there is many somethings that might work are met with... What if, and still no action.
What's interesting is likely we will find that this was an overt act by someone that deserved being watched. And nobody did anything. Because it was someone eles job, no money, not my pay grade, the system..., or what?
But in the end we do nothing, does that make us all somehow responsible?
Eck!
DA, please review Rules 1 and 2.A
Pointing out holes in people’s arguments and dissing the NRA are my crimes? Please tell me which of my comments here may have crossed the line.
Eck!, I fear the result of not trying anything will be that which you (and I) most certainly don’t want. It is possible that as these kinds of things happen more and more, there will eventually be an overturning of the 2nd Amendment and a massive confiscation of guns. The dullest voter can comprehend that if there are no guns there are no shootings (not true, but much of what Donnie promised was not true either), and act against their own best interests.
There are too many people who are willing to limit our Constitutional Rights, our Representatives prime among them. At a certain tipping point, the clamor will be too much for those “solons” and we will tip into the abyss. There are those who posture with “from my cold, dead hands”, and they’ll never take my guns, but in the end, as the sun sets on American Democracy, most will go without a whimper into that good night. We are seeming right now what a personality cult can do in American politics, what we haven’t seen yet is will we recover from this or is this the point where the slide begins.
Off topic, but criminal charges in the U.S.S. McCain collision:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/japan-may-seek-negligent-homicide-charges-in-uss-fitzgerald-collision-case/
DA, let's start with the "moar guns" and "arming 15 year olds" comments.
Borepatch, I don't know how I feel about that. I'll blog on it.
Then I’ll just say it outright: Accepting that schools will be hit by armed gunmen, and the only alternative is turning them into armed camps, is sheer madness.
DA, when was the last serious fire at a school? When was the last school flattened by a tornado or an earthquake?
But every school prepares for fire and practices what to do. Schools in tornado country or earthquake country prepare and drill for those eventualities.
Schools will be hit by gunmen. Those lunatics regard it as their chance for infamy, or immortality of a sort. Even the president at the time knew the name of the Asswipe of Newton. If that loser had lived a normal life and died at the age of 85, odds are hat nobody, outside of his family and work, would have ever known who he was. But his name was world-famous, for a time. The two assholes from Colorado are still widely known. As is the Church-shooting Nazi.
It will happen again. The cops are routinely, now, getting tipped off by kids planning it. Some are sheer fantasies, but nobody's taking a chance anymore. Some clown tried to shoot up a school in Maryland very recently, only this time, the school resource officer shot him.
Denial of a threat and refusing to realistically plan for it are not the actions of rational people.
And with that, I think we're done, here.
Post a Comment