Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[paperburn1]

I am not pretending this is a serious issue.
It is a serious issue.
\You need to start acting like this is a serious issue as well. There are two sides to this story. Some people are not comfortable with guns that could exists in the educational facility. This is just fact.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, have served in the military as a Marine and spent the entirety of my career in the military industrial process as a civilian as well. I have owned firearms my entire life. I believe in the right of individuals to own firearms.

But this quote unquote right to possess a firearm is not for everyone. The United States it's entire life has issued and revoke rights of groups of individuals from its beginning. From the whiskey rebellion's, the World War II internment of the Japanese individuals who were United States citizens, to the fact that we remove gun ownership from felons that are convicted of a class I felony. We need to revisit this issue and make some hard determinations of who can and cannot possess a firearm.

I cannot in good faith uphold the right of an 18-year-old
(or anyone )who has had no military or professional training to possess a military grade weapon. These are the individuals regardless of political belief that are causing the majority of these incidents. The far right has to realize sooner or later that not everyone is capable of possessing a firearm. We need to get on board with this concept before the left sided knee-jerk reaction takes away this right or makes it impossible to process these types of firearms. We need to get control of the situation now not later because the tide has turned. Even us middle road persona are getting tired of the NRA's bull ship.
So rather than spouting off on some forum call your Congressman, call your representative and let them know what provisions and adjustments that you can be comfortable with that would help us retain our rights but also help keep the guns out of the hands that don't have the skill ,capability, or mental wherewithal to use them. Concealed carry would be a perfect example of the program that could be applied to military grade weapons. Not everybody can get one, if you do get one you get training, and you are now legally given a social responsibility for correct use and can be held accountable for misuse.

We need to stop ,think ,reevaluate and in act a plan before us too late

[Diogenes]

I would luv to ask said navy seal/army ranger a question; given the choice of inadequately trained average middle age teacher with his Glock engaging immediately (in less than one minute) the teenage nutjob with the AR15 and the alternative of letting him (the nutjob) plunk away at the kids for ~5-10 minutes or so before the police arrive/decide it is tactically sound to engage, which would he/you choose? Especially if his (the navy seal's) son/daughter/grandkids were in that school? And of course there might even be more than one teacher in the school armed?

The mere knowledge that there are armed people in the building ready to shoot at him will discourage many would be shooters before a single shot is fired.

The primary benefit of Arming trained teachers is deterrence. You win all the engagements that didn't happen.

[Diogenes]

As a side note a long time ago in a place far far away, I was in Israel and we were in a part of town where there had been some violence previously. I was sort of slack-jawed amazed when a school trip of children went by and the teachers /guards were carrying rifles. But then again every man and woman in Israel does a military service if I'm not mistaken and are well trained in the use of a weapon

[choff]

The thing is, this guy was reported to police 39 times before going postal, by himself included. It isn't a case of there not being a system to counter the threat, it's a clear cut case of the system in place failing catastrophically. The most plausible explanation is that the school administrators didn't want students being arrested for crimes in order to maintain government spending grants. They had an agreement in place with the local police that even police officers were complaining about.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9668 ... 74784.html

Rather than create more laws and rules, fix the problems with the ones already there.

[paperburn1]

There were so many fails in the system in this case it was mind boggling. but it was more than the local police , the human services and even the FBI blew the pooch on this one. on a side note of my informal poll of teachers, 0 for 6 against arming themselves

[TDPerk]

There were so many fails in the system in this case it was mind boggling. but it was more than the local police , the human services and even the FBI blew the pooch on this one. on a side note of my informal poll of teachers, 0 for 6 against arming themselves

The fact this was in part the result of massive fails by all levels of government is reason to remove authority from either individuals involved, government generally -- and, really, I think both.

I am unconcerned with the fact you commonly associate with immature people. The adults in the country so far quite outnumber the aged infants.

To deal with fire we have fire alarms, fire departments, sprinklers, and fire extinguishers. To deal with violent people we have PA systems, police, and us -- with a right to be armed -- and I argue a duty to be so.

Even if you choose not to be, or those you commonly know choose not to be, it is a right with which you cannot legitimately interfere with with the force of law, only illegitimately under false color of law.

[TDPerk]

it's a clear cut case of the system in place failing catastrophically

More to the point, it was not a failure at all. It was the obvious and necessary result of policies conceived of and approved of by Democrat partisans in a county of FL where Dems reign and have for decades, to the detriment of all. Similar results are seen in Detroit and Flint, MI. For that matter the slums of DC or the feces and needle ridden sidewalks of San Francisco.

[TDPerk]

An example of rational adults in operation.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/26/florida-l ... arry-guns/

Except for this.

" They did, however, agree to raise the legal age for purchasing a firearm to 21 " <-- No feloniously minded people will pay that law any mind. It criminalizes nothing which is malum in se, it is mere childish feelgood security theater.

Which can only make those who are childish feel better.

I love this tidbit from a Democrat professional infant:

"“It bothers me to think as a father of two young boys to tell them to not be aggressive to your teacher,” said Sen. Oscar Branynon (D-Miami Gardens).

The lawmaker told the Sun Sentinel that he and other black fathers across Florida will now have to include teachers when talking to their children about how to act around armed authority figures.

“Please don’t make it dangerous for children who look like my children to go to school,” he said."

Don't be violent asshats should cover the matter, and since you are talking about behavior, what does their appearance have to do with it? Does this mook have any idea how it sounds to mature human beings that to his mind his children are only told not to be aggressive to armed people -- meaning it's ok to be aggressive to unarmed people? If that's not what he means, maybe he should learn the English language better, and express what he actually means. If that really is what he means, I argue it goes to demonstrate the fundamentally criminal nature of the Democrat Party, that he has not been expelled from it. If what he means is what he has been quoted as saying, it should of right be a career ending scandal.

[paperburn1]

Despite your insistence to the contrary, I support a citizen's right to be armed, Just as well I support the idea that a person can chose not to be armed.
What I do have a problem with is there is no clear method in the system to identify those that need NOT to be trusted with a gun.
I have yet to find an educator that is comfortable with being armed in the school system. If there are educators that are willing to be armed I have no problem with that as well.
For me this implies that we need to find a better solution than armed teachers. A solution the majority of educators are comfortable with in the school system.

An example of rational adults in operation.

" They did, however, agree to raise the legal age for purchasing a firearm to 21 " <-- No feloniously minded people will pay that law any mind. It criminalizes nothing which is malum in se, it is mere childish feelgood security theater.

"

This and other shooter were not identified by the system as felonious persons, Those few that are will find a gun though straw purchases or other loopholes. I agree, but they are not the majority. But to stop a law that would prevent a majority from having the potential to be bad actors just because a few will get by is fallacious logic.

How about this, you must be 21 to by a military grade weapon or have a parent that would sign for and be held legally responsible and culpable for the individual's action with the weapon. Are you in?

next will come the faulty logic out troops are allowed the weapon but in reality when not in a war zone they have extremely limited access to their weapons on station at home.
I work part time in a friends pawn shop and a TBI marine whos father I know but his kid did not know me. I knew he had been in trouble with the law several times after he came back and was medically retired. I knew he had tried to commit suicide twice both times nearly succeeding. He passed his NICS background check. I engaged him in casual conversation and ask him why he wanted the shotgun. He made it sound like a light hearted quip but he said to shoot something and maybe himself. I stopped the sale right there much to his anger. We notified the police. Later that week he tried the suicide by cop thing. If not for notifying the PD he would most likely be dead now. I am willing to bet he would still pass the background check today. This is what the problem is,
Havelock is a small military town and we all in general watch each others back, Some gun dealers are not nearly aware as we are and motivated by profit. We probably stop 6 or 8 straw purchases a year, of those I bet 4 or 5 still get a gun from other dealers / flea mall purchases.
In north Carolina you need to be 21 an a permit from the sheriff in your county to purchase a handgun. I would have no objection to the same system for military grade weapons.



My question is what is your solution to the "young guns " problem.

[williatw]

I have yet to find an educator that is comfortable with being armed in the school system. If there are educators that are willing to be armed I have no problem with that as well. For me this implies that we need to find a better solution than armed teachers. A solution the majority of educators are comfortable with in the school system.

Not sure why you think we need a "majority of educators" to agree with the idea of arming teachers. The goal is to have a voluntary few qualified teachers/support staff trained armed and ready if need be in the majority of schools. Yes I know "trained" in this context doesn't mean army/police swat/ level training but it is better than a disarmed shooting gallery.

How about this, you must be 21 to by a military grade weapon or have a parent that would sign for and be held legally responsible and culpable for the individual's action with the weapon.

If you seriously think that would make a difference and just as importantly satisfy the gun control people you are being willfully naïve; they will settle for nothing less than totally disarmament by the death of a thousand cuts. If they get their assault weapons bill passed somehow they will make sure that the wording of the law makes "assault weapons" as vaguely defined as they can get away with; thereby opening the doors for the regulators to ban whatever they wish. And of course unlike Bill Clinton's ban there will be no sunset clause.

next will come the faulty logic out troops are allowed the weapon but in reality when not in a war zone they have extremely limited access to their weapons on station at home.

Or any weapons at all; yes...which explains the Ford Hood slaughter; again chalk up another one for gun free zones again. Thank Bush Senior (and Bill Clinton) for that one.

My question is what is your solution to the "young guns " problem.

Let's start with eliminating Federal and State gun free zones; which have been an abject failure, and actually encourage the very thing they are supposed allegedly to prevent; mass public shootings. They ain't called victim disarmament zones for nothing. And as an aside maybe we should stop giving these loser shooters the notoriety/fame they obviously crave; instead how about tried, convicted, executed and then buried in an unmarked grave with their face/name redacted as much as possible when the stories are reported. You want to cover something cover the victims or maybe the heroes (if any) who put and end to his/their rampage? They clearly sane or not get off on the massive media public attention; that also fuels it. Wonder how long before the media demands the right to interview this freak job and ask him why he did it?

[ladajo]

What is "a military grade weapon"?

What is an "Assault Rifle"?

I think that folks are trying to solve a 'broad' problem without trying to understand the nature of the problem.
The issue at hand is a "Wicked Problem", and has no easy single solution. Fundamental to solving Wicked Problems is taking to understand what the problem really is and consists of (ie. its base nature and components).

Rules, like Labels tend to drive things badly with the more one has.

I think the better route is like Labels, less of them and better considered. We, as humans, have a tendency to add complexity when we don't understand something, thinking that this complexity will help us understand it or manage it better. The opposite tends to happen, especially over time.

On principle, Rules should be simple and few.

Gun rules:
1.) Everyone has the right to arm themselves.
2.) Folks who abuse rights lose them.
3.) Folks who don't understand what a right means, don't have it.

Now we need definitions for some key terms:
"Arm"
"Right (n)"
"Everyone"
"Abuse"
"Understand"

Here is where the debate really lays IMHO.
Arms - firearms, explosives, and projectile devices capable of causing death of a Human through normal functioning.
Right - a privilege conferred by being human, alive or dead.
Everyone - all humans
Abuse - actions which deprive other humans of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
Understand the meaning - the mental capacity, from maturity and respect perspectives, to appreciate the authority, responsibilities, and accountabilities associated with the Right.

So the tricky one here is "Understand", in regards to 'how do you know they understand?'
Is it age, licensing, probation, etc.? How do we do this part?
As for abuse of a Right, well, commensurate Sanctions apply. And once the Right is gone, then there are more severe Sanctions for those who still try to exercise it without having it. And, any Sanctions should be commensurate with the gravity of the Right, which in the case of Bearing Arms, is about as extreme as it gets.
Now we are somewhat prepared to head into the depths of the debate, regarding willful, verses not, maturity, respect, etc. and so on.
For me, willful means that this person would do it again given the circumstances, and probably would do other things that are 'wrong'. Sanction accordingly.
Not willful, ie. accident, unintended, whatever, should only mean the severity of the Sanction is less, not that there shouldn't be one. And, if they are good and decent folk, as an unintended event would seem to indicate, then they won't do it again. If not, then "twice is a choice", and Sanction accordingly.

At the end of the argument here, I am not sure where I stand on the idea of licensing for all, as I see both benefits in seeking to support Rule 3 above, however I also see it as fraught with danger regarding abuse of licensing, either too restrictive or too loose. So, probably, I am more in the camp of letting incompetence be demonstrated, and/or putting the burden on the sourcer of the arms by tying their fates together. Not an easy answer here. So maybe age is a starter, with some other factors like documented violent behaviour, documented incapacities, etc (Background checks). And making it stick by tying the parties together for risk of Sanctions. Also note, that I am trying to broaden and not differentiating in arms "types", as there is no sense is trying to create multiple sub-categories like "military grade" or "assault rifle". etc.
Again, this is hard, as how should private or 'not-in-person' transfers of ownership be managed? Or homebuilds? Etc.

Overall, I don't have a good answer. I do know that I should, and am, try to understand the problem better before seeking answers. Walking the dog above is one way of exploring the issue, and is by no means a proposed answer or answers.

[Diogenes]

I have yet to find an educator that is comfortable with being armed in the school system.

To how many have you spoken that has had familiarity with firearms? If the answer is "zero", then your first problem is that these people do not know whereof they speak.


I have known several anti-gun people whom had a complete turnaround on the subject when they had someone show them how to shoot.


The way I envision the idea of arming teachers is to attach gun safes to some structural member in their classrooms, and should the need arise, they can open the safes and take hold of a firearm.


I see nothing but mischief arising if the teacher is expected to have the firearm on their person.


They should put them in the classrooms, and keep them locked up until they are needed.

[Tom Ligon]

I recently visited my old high school. I got in via the metal detector with 3-4 uniformed guards present. I dropped off some materials I was donating in the office.

The principal is an interesting fellow ... he has two Master's degrees, but his first degree is:

Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice

Just to be clear, that's the degree cops go for. His full resume is not listed, but I suspect he was a cop or something close for his first job.

Sounds to me as if he's qualified.

There is a legitimate worry about having individual teachers packing heat. How would the firearm be secured? If they were just using concealed carry, it is possible one or a few students might jump them, overpower them, and take the weapon. I think a more practical approach, in schools that cannot afford guards, might be to keep a modest and well-secured armory in the main office, and have them available in an emergency for a few teachers, and maybe a principal who started his career as a cop, trained to use them.

A friend of mine in college was anti-gun, until he found out what Schlumberger was paying for overseas assignments. Then he found out the overseas assignments that year were in Uganda. Consequently, he developed a sudden interest in learning to shoot. I taught him to shoot my .22 rifle, but he really got into it when a friend taught him to use a Colt .45 automatic.

[paperburn1]

Question, if they can afford to give bonuses to teachers, would it not be better to have another SRO instead?
As far as fort Hood, I came into the Marines in 1980, well trained, lean and green. And when on post our arms were in the armory and this was a policy that extended long before my tours.. So blaming anyone for Fort Hood or gun free zones is just not correct.

But ladajo is correct we need to "Walk the dog" on this one and figures something out.
Talked to the principal at white oak today and all of her teachers including one former marine and one former coast guard both male expressed disfavor of personal carry. The principle said she has been sued twice by parents and hates to think of the legal ramifications and responsibly for carry in school. The only way she would feel comfortable about even trying the idea out would be if the superintendent would make himself the responsible party for lawsuits. If he is unwilling she stated she would find another employment. The only one that said she would carry was the 69 year old receptionist .

Second question
Have any of you actually talked to a educator about this issue? It is very enlightening.

[TDPerk]

Have any of you actually talked to a educator about this issue? It is very enlightening.

It would seem you only talk to one emotionally immature sort of educator.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02- ... after-huge