Crime and Punishment: Oklahoma (& Texas) style!

[williatw]

A Real Public Opinion Poll: 8,000 People a Day Join NRA After Sandy Hook

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... nce-Dec-14


While the media seizes on the tragedy in Connecticut to tell us that Americans have now largely turned a corner and thrown away their love for 2nd Amendment freedoms, reality tells us something completely different.

The reality is that "8,000 new members" have the joined the National Rifle Association (NRA) every day since the terrible crime at Sandy Hook Elementary School was committed.

[ANTIcarrot]

Firearms safety training is usually a free service provided by NRA and law enforcement officials.

Straw man arguement. We are not talking about using them safely, but using them to reliably kill another person with minimum risk to bystanders; with a side order of CQB drills. I'm pretty sure police don't offer THAT training to the public at all, let alone for free.

I'll also point out that if it's commonly well known that senior staff members have firearms, a psychopath will simply clear out that part of a school first. Given how much of an advantage the psycho would have (he knows exactly what's going on, and doesn't have to worry about killing friends) I'm not sure guns would help.

Finally on this subject... The teachers know each other. The Police do not know them. If officers go into a school where there's shooting they may shoot everyone holding a hand gun. And what happens if a teacher at the school goes postal? "Well golly Mr Smith, I didn't you were one of us too! Do you have any idea where the sho...?" BANG!

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a time where a gun went off with no one touching it.

Then your knowledge appears to be limited to the point where you should gracefully bow out, and decline from giving a baseless opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_discharge
Older hand guns and modern rifles can go off if you drop them. And once again, it's a pretty basic rule that you don't point a loaded gun (or indeed, any gun) at someone, even if your finger is off the trigger. The rule does not have a clause that states, "Ignore if such and such a safety feature is present." If you do not understand the reasoning there, then once again, your knowledge appears to be limited to the point where you should gracefully bow out, and decline from giving a baseless opinion.

However long arms and older handguns are probably not the type to be issued to schools who go down this route, and could easily be kept out of school guns with basic legal clauses.

How many stupid, arogant, sadistic or corrupt teachers/other staff do you remember?

You can use that same argument against any nameless, faceless person to deprive them of their constitutional rights.

Strawman again. An american has the right to own and even use a gun. They do not have the right to use a gun in a professional capacity. Every single job which does require usage of guns usually has a high standard of entry.

Think of it this way: Knowing how to fly an aircraft is not the same thing as being allowed to fly a passenger jet. Doing something professionally that is also dangerous to yourself and/or those around you requires training and certification. If nothing else the paperwork will cost money. It always does.

What you need to grapple with is the fact that our Constitution was not written to pander to your pet fears.

And you need to take a happy pill. And maybe a 'basic knowledge on the reasoning behind gun safety rules' pill too, come to think of it.

I like guns. I like the engineering involved. I like the way they feel.

However, this proposed policy may end up injuring more children than it saves, via acidental discharges, and may only end up saving children very rarely even in genuine school shootings. Particularly since killing another person is difficult for most people, and I must assume most teachers.


As such, however admirable the intentions, it may simply be an inadvisable policy.


Which I can't help but observe would make the gun lobby a huge amount of money if it became state or federal policy. 100,000 school across america? $500 for each hand gun? Plus training? Inspection? Oversight? Parts & services? Hmm.

[paperburn1]

Never mind

[SheltonJ]

ANTIcarrot - you seem to be all over the place with your arguments but I will try to address them.

Firearms safety training - yes the NRA provides training, given a policy to support this I would imagine the local law enforcement might also provide/participate in this. In part they would want to be sure it was done right from their perspective.

High skill level training - this goes beyond what most police receive and is equivalent to SWAT training. This level of training is being offered for free by Front Sight Firearms Training Institute to teachers where the request comes the school board on their official letterhead. This level of training will allow them to actually be better trained than most law enforcement. It is not likely however that this level of training will significantly alter the deterrence gained by simply having some of the teachers armed. So yes it is available for free, and no it probably doesn't add that much additional deterrent value.

On the subject of the gunman first hunting down the armed staff, I don't think you get the point of concealed carry. First the gun man will not know in advance who is armed. Second if they are armed, he will not seek to confront them. Most of these shootings end as soon as armed resistance is encountered. These people are cowards, they seek unarmed victims on purpose. Otherwise, following your line of reasoning they would simply go to the police station first to kill all of the armed police and then proceed to kill who ever else it was they really wanted to kill.

Your final point about teachers knowing each other actually points out the advantage of armed teachers. They know who belongs and who doesn't. They are much less likely to shoot someone in error. In general private citizens have a much lower rate of shooting the wrong person than the police due. This is because they are already on scene as the conflict evolves and have a much clearer understanding of who the bad guy is.

Your final comment really makes it seem like you have watched too many movies.

[Diogenes]

Firearms safety training is usually a free service provided by NRA and law enforcement officials.

Straw man arguement. We are not talking about using them safely, but using them to reliably kill another person with minimum risk to bystanders; with a side order of CQB drills. I'm pretty sure police don't offer THAT training to the public at all, let alone for free.

I'll also point out that if it's commonly well known that senior staff members have firearms, a psychopath will simply clear out that part of a school first. Given how much of an advantage the psycho would have (he knows exactly what's going on, and doesn't have to worry about killing friends) I'm not sure guns would help.

The Experience of Israel refutes this argument.





http://1389blog.com/2012/12/17/in-which ... k-tragedy/

[Blankbeard]

I'll also point out that if it's commonly well known that senior staff members have firearms, a psychopath will simply clear out that part of a school first. Given how much of an advantage the psycho would have (he knows exactly what's going on, and doesn't have to worry about killing friends) I'm not sure guns would help.

I am aware of no evidence that indicates that shooters will behave as you indicate. Indeed, they consistently target those who are least capable of defending themselves. Why would they suddenly switch to targeting the least vulnerable? If suicide by cop is the goal, it's generally easy to arrange.

Finally on this subject... The teachers know each other. The Police do not know them. If officers go into a school where there's shooting they may shoot everyone holding a hand gun. And what happens if a teacher at the school goes postal? "Well golly Mr Smith, I didn't you were one of us too! Do you have any idea where the sho...?" BANG!

You can construct any number of scenarios. What if the shooter dresses as (or IS) a police officer? Now we can't let the police into the school.

Presumably, an armed teacher will distinguish themselves from a shooter by putting down their gun and cooperating with police. Police can (and should) communicate before shooting.

Snipping the middle bit.

However, this proposed policy may end up injuring more children than it saves, via acidental discharges, and may only end up saving children very rarely even in genuine school shootings. Particularly since killing another person is difficult for most people, and I must assume most teachers.

Evidence indicates that concealed carry doesn't increase deaths by accidental discharge so I see little reason to expect an increase in child injuries by allowing teachers to carry.
http://www.kc3.com/pdf/lott.pdf

On the issue of killing, I don't think effective deterrence requires killing. Simply removing school zones as guaranteed gun-free zones may be enough to dissuade shooters. The Colorado shooter didn't simply pick the closest or the most packed theater for his target, he picked the only theater that advertised a gun ban. If that was truly his reason for picking that theater, a strategy based on increasing uncertainty seems promising.

I believe the biggest problem with allowing teachers to carry firearms is that very few of them will opt to do so.

As such, however admirable the intentions, it may simply be an inadvisable policy.

Which I can't help but observe would make the gun lobby a huge amount of money if it became state or federal policy. 100,000 school across america? $500 for each hand gun? Plus training? Inspection? Oversight? Parts & services? Hmm.

That represents an increase of roughly 50 million dollars as a one-time expenditure in a six billion dollar a year industry. I really doubt if the "gun lobby" is salivating over a rather minor increase.

[williatw]

Firearms safety training is usually a free service provided by NRA and law enforcement officials.

Straw man arguement. We are not talking about using them safely, but using them to reliably kill another person with minimum risk to bystanders; with a side order of CQB drills. I'm pretty sure police don't offer THAT training to the public at all, let alone for free.

I'll also point out that if it's commonly well known that senior staff members have firearms, a psychopath will simply clear out that part of a school first. Given how much of an advantage the psycho would have (he knows exactly what's going on, and doesn't have to worry about killing friends) I'm not sure guns would help.

The Experience of Israel refutes this argument.





http://1389blog.com/2012/12/17/in-which ... k-tragedy/

N.R.A. Press Conference: Group Calls for Armed Guards in Schools

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZb8EXUrQTo


Listening too it..I think Wayne Lapiere is giving a good account would agree with just about all of what he says, he was wise to wait a week to collect his thoughts before speaking.

[paperburn1]

And in Texas armed teachers have been the standard since 2009 and there have been no incidence of mass killing the most counties. As a matter of fact the incident of school violence is extremely low in the Texas counties a permit teachers to carry and there are documented incidents were they have prevented school attack by doing so.

[Diogenes]

N.R.A. Press Conference: Group Calls for Armed Guards in Schools

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZb8EXUrQTo


Listening too it..I think Wayne Lapiere is giving a good account would agree with just about all of what he says, he was wise to wait a week to collect his thoughts before speaking.

I agree. No decision should be rushed into during a moment of emotional distraught.

I disagree with the notion of armed guards. It would be horrendously expensive, and the vast majority of them will serve no purpose for the vast majority of the time. The Idea of allowing Principals and Teachers to maintain a weapon obtainable by them during a crises is much more economically efficient, and will accomplish the same level of deterrence. Perhaps wall safes or some such?


If such a arraignment becomes common knowledge it will prevent attacks before they even occur, the same way it has done so in Israel.

[williatw]

N.R.A. Press Conference: Group Calls for Armed Guards in Schools

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZb8EXUrQTo


Listening too it..I think Wayne Lapiere is giving a good account would agree with just about all of what he says, he was wise to wait a week to collect his thoughts before speaking.

I agree. No decision should be rushed into during a moment of emotional distraught.

I disagree with the notion of armed guards. It would be horrendously expensive, and the vast majority of them will serve no purpose for the vast majority of the time. The Idea of allowing Principals and Teachers to maintain a weapon obtainable by them during a crises is much more economically efficient, and will accomplish the same level of deterrence. Perhaps wall safes or some such?

Don't think by any means he is limiting it to just paid professional guards. Think his point was that police/guards could be quickly deployed if Congress/Obama were serious about doing anything about it quickly. LA Pierre and Asa Hutchison mentioned properly trained volunteers, several times and I believe teachers or school officials as well. How many teachers, principals and other school officials already have CCW licenses and/or military background, and would be very interested in supplemental NRA sponsored training? They already have a long history as such, they trained the instructor that did my CCW license training (and as an aside in my 11 member class there were three women, one of whom was a public school teacher).

If such an arraignment becomes common knowledge it will prevent attacks before they even occur, the same way it has done so in Israel.

Yeah that is the key, these people are cowards, when the Connecticut killer was accosted when the police finally arrived, he promptly killed himself. The Aurora shooter immediately surrendered with no resistance, they both had "body armor", made no difference. When LA Pierre said our money, our celebrities and our politicians are worth protecting with armed guards, why not our children? Think he nailed it with that, wouldn't be at all surprised if gun manufacturers get on board in the week months to follow as far as supporting the NRA sponsored training with donations.

[williatw]

And in Texas armed teachers have been the standard since 2009 and there have been no incidence of mass killing the most counties. As a matter of fact the incident of school violence is extremely low in the Texas counties a permit teachers to carry and there are documented incidents were they have prevented school attack by doing so.

Quoting from Lapierre above: Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

[paperburn1]

I still believe that there is a large amount of information not being published that would change the public sentiments on the current media efforts to push gun control.

[GIThruster]

Straw man arguement. We are not talking about using them safely, but using them to reliably kill another person with minimum risk to bystanders; with a side order of CQB drills. I'm pretty sure police don't offer THAT training to the public at all, let alone for free.

All shooters practice the skills the police are trained in in how to shoot reliably. If you want real training in how to be lethal you need far more training than the police receive. You could for instance go to Massad Ayoob's Lethal Force institute and learn all sorts of unusual things like night fighting or how to point your weapon in the dark. That is however NOT REQUIRED for the average citizen to protect school children. You're making vacuous arguments here. Try to remember that the law is intended primarily as a deterrent, and we should not expect any school teachers to ever have to fire a weapon in self defense.

I'll also point out that if it's commonly well known that senior staff members have firearms, a psychopath will simply clear out that part of a school first.

Point out as many irrelevant facts as you like--again, the same could be said of police officers placed in the school, or even soldiers. While you're at it, why don't you postulate the consequences if a meteor should fall on the school at an inopportune moment. "I'm sorry my weapon discharged officer, but when the meteor hit it hit me right in the Glock."

If officers go into a school where there's shooting they may shoot everyone holding a hand gun.

This is one reason why many police would like to be the only people to own and carry weapons, but this doesn't mean we should restrict our Constitutional rights based upon the sentiments of the police. Better is expect them to act responsibly. You can be assured, the police in that town in TX that allows their teachers to carry in class, all know about the law there. Assuming less is just stupid.

Then your knowledge appears to be limited to the point where you should gracefully bow out, and decline from giving a baseless opinion.

You're the one making baseless and childish arguments. You didn't say "accidental discharge". You asked whether there aren't thousands of guns going off each year without anyone touching them. Knocking a weapon to the floor so it discharges is not a gun going off without anyone touching it. And the point is moot. Modern weapons are all designed not to discharge when knocked about. Anyone who receives proper gun safety training knows to carry semi-autos with the chamber empty and modern revolves cannot discharge when dropped for the reason I already explained. Instead of fabricating crazy arguments about incidents with lightning strike probabilities, you would be better served to learn something about handgun safety. Linking from wiki after making such a misinformed and pathetic argument does not conceal your ignorance.

Strawman again. An american has the right to own and even use a gun. They do not have the right to use a gun in a professional capacity. Every single job which does require usage of guns usually has a high standard of entry.

No, it doesn't. You're again making assumptions about things you know nothing about. Police typically have the same firearms training as what you can get from any NRA safety training instructor. This should be the minimum requirement for anyone carrying concealed for any purpose. Unless a police officer has received SWAT training, odds are he has no more firearms training than Joe the Plumber down the street, if Joe is carrying concealed. The details here are up to the state and they will vary, but my argument is not a straw man argument and your response is again of ignorance. Why are you writing about an issue that you know nothing about?

. . .this proposed policy may end up injuring more children than it saves, via acidental discharges, and may only end up saving children very rarely even in genuine school shootings.

You can make up whatever scenario suits you, but it should be obvious there have been no such incidents in the schools that allow concealed carry. You're making up scenarios again, just like the fabrication about guns going off by themselves. If you can't reason out your point of view using the facts, then there must be something wrong with your position. We like facts. Fantasies don't make good arguments.

Which I can't help but observe would make the gun lobby a huge amount of money if it became state or federal policy. 100,000 school across america? $500 for each hand gun? Plus training? Inspection? Oversight? Parts & services? Hmm.

Absurd. No one has proposed anyone who does not already own a gun go out and buy one. We're here talking about school teachers who presently own guns and either have or would get a concealed carry permit. None of your arguments stand up and most of them are just nonsensical. And just saying, this is because you're arguing about something you know nothing about.

[MSimon]

Every single job which does require usage of guns usually has a high standard of entry.

You mean like police? Are you kidding me? High standards of entry?

Ever hear of the Ramparts scandal?

I liked this one too:

Female US cop caught on tape giving two women body cavity search during routine traffic stop… and ‘using the SAME gloves on both’.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/12/dont-get-cavities/

Real high standards there. And BTW - no drugs were found.

[Diogenes]

I still believe that there is a large amount of information not being published that would change the public sentiments on the current media efforts to push gun control.

The Left-Wing dominated media is the greatest threat to our freedom in this nation.