Tweet
About two days after an event that makes the conservative views look bad the right wing media start the, “what nobody is taking about… line of “reasoning.”
I’ve mocked these kind of statements before, but what occurs to me is that it is a construction that does have some utility.
How would this apply to the current Oakland shooting?
What nobody is talking about is that this is NOT about wanting to protect kids, it’s really about wanting a lethal response.
The solution suggested by the NRA gun lobby–having armed teachers–still does NOT stop the non-law abiding and “crazy person.” Just like the guns everywhere people claim that having a gun ban and no guns signs don’t stop crazy people.
Because unless the teachers are quick draw experts with extensive training they aren’t going to stop the shooter. If four highly trained armed cops, one a SWAT instructor, can be shot in a coffee shop before getting off a shot do we really think an 8 hour weapons course will give these teachers the skills needed?
This is not about wanting to protect kids from gun violence.
Because if they really wanted to protect kids in schools from harm they could demand money be spent on metal scanners, bulletproof glass, hardened security doors. They could unleash the TSA personnel on school buildings. The buildings could be treated like planes. When was the last time some, “crazy person” who didn’t “follow the rules” got on a plane and shot people up? Sure it would cost money, but aren’t our children worth it?
What nobody is talking about is that the Gun lobby has decided that all other solutions are worthless, so they will do nothing. And by worthless I mean they can’t make money on the solutions. Maybe Skeletor, should start talking about school safety so he can sell a few billion more nude scanners.
In fact, based on the gun lobby’s actions, and a multimillion dollar marketing and legislation budget, the gun lobby won’t act to prevent people from getting guns whom their own majority of members agree shouldn’t be getting guns.
They make it easy for criminals to get guns.
They oppose actions that let terrorists get guns.
They work to pass laws making it easy for people to carry weapons but difficult to stop them from getting weapons after they become non-law abiding citizens .
They don’t demand that there be a record of people with mental illness problems or who “just snap”. (So much for their claim they can’t do anything about crazy people. They can, but don’t, make sure crazy people are entered into a gun check database.)
There are things that they could do, but don’t. Because defending people is boring and doesn’t give the defender a sense of control and power.
They are convinced that their solution is the right solution, they turn other solutions into stawmen solutions.
Now as a thought experiment, what if we if we drilled down into their solution and ask what are they really willing to do, what won’t they be willing to do?
Spocko’s Fun Facts:
To get a cosmetology license in Oklahoma you need 1500 of training.
To get a conceal care license in Oklahoma you need 8 hours of training.
Dear Mr. “We Should Arm Teachers”
Let’s say that we decide to Arm Teachers as you want, what steps are you going to demand in exchange for putting more armed people in these situations? And by demand I mean, will you beef up current laws and implement better ones? After all, in lots of states like Oklahoma, the need for training in minimal. A few questions:
1) Will your law require Mandatory Psychological screening?
2) Will you implement live Paint-ball gun drills to see how well they react?
3) Will you demand 1500 hours on weapons training or is that only for cosmetologists?
4) Will there be quick draw training?
5) Will there be a review board that will repeal your new “Armed Teacher” law following the first 13 accidental shootings?
6) Will staff that aren’t quick enough on the draw to defend their students be fired?
7) How will you fund the defense of teachers who make mistakes? What about the pay offs for the student who reaches into their bag in a a threatening way?
How many examples would it take you to admit this is a bad idea and it doesn’t work? 4, 10, 1,000? None?
.
The answer is none, right? Because the idea of arming teachers with guns in schools never fails, only the teachers who are actually carrying the guns fail. And the people will fail because the ideal scenario is more rare than the usual scenario.
What nobody is talking about is the people pushing guns everywhere aren’t really concerned about protecting your kids. They care about getting more guns out there, no matter what.
Follow me around on twitter @spockosbrain
Want to hear Mike Stark and I discuss activism and the media? Listen to us on Virtually Speaking. Link
57 Comments
I couldnt get the video to embed. But click on the link, it is a trained DEA agent shooting himself in the foot while trying to talk about gun safety. I’m sure this 8 hours of teacher training will be fine.
Oh. My. Word.
Try to get a still from the video, if you could — perhaps right as he shoots himself in the foot.
Or better yet, if the video allows it, select the “long URL” option instead of the default “youtu.be” option. Long (original YouTube style) URLs work.
Long url.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY
Thanks, spocko. It’s all about the guns ‘n ammo industries making money, frankly. Probably no one was MORE delighted when Obama got elected than the guns ‘n ammo industries, who, even at the *worst* of the depression, was making ton$ and barrel$ and stack$ and pile$ of cold hard ca$h offa the rube$ by to$$ing out the red meat and saying: that “N” word’$ gonna $teal yer gun$… come buy MORE… quick!
The NRA is a debased outfit only interested in making money for the industry. They don’t give one shit about people being killed needlessly. Frankly from the 1%’s point of view: who gives a shit a few more serfs are offed? Less of them to worry about.
But unless or until citizens stop drinking the idiotic 2d Amend Kool Aid, well get prepared for more of the same, I’m sorry to say.
And no, we won’t see TSA personnel in the schools. Too much of a waste of money to “protect” students. Just sell more guns ‘n ammo to the school systems uselessly: CHA-CHING!!!!!!
I am so tired of the coffee shop shooting being raised as if it was definitive proof that armed citizens can’t respond to threats from armed whackos. Those four cops were ambushed, hit by a surprise attack. They were all sitting together, two (presumably) with their backs to the shooter. That’s completely different from a teacher in a classroom hearing shots coming from the hallway, administration office, or another classroom. In that scenario, the teacher has a chance to retrieve their weapon and prepare to engage the shooter, either by moving out in the direction of the gunfire or by waiting for the shooter to attempt to enter their classroom.
Draw the analogy another way: put the cops in four different rooms in the coffee shot. The first one, maybe the first two, get hit before they can react. But bet your bottom dollar, the remaining officers are able to engage and shoot back. Doubt it? Well, somewhere out there (perhaps it was an MSNBC show) is one of those “caught on video” clips where a deranged shooter walks into a local police station and opens fire with a shotgun. A couple of cops are hit, one seriously, but other officers return fire from everywhere. Ones that aren’t in the room when the shooting starts arrive almost immediately and in a matter of seconds the shooter is down.
Spocko and others like him want to wave a magic wand and get rid of all guns in the hands of citizens. I’m sure he’s basing his case on the documented success Prohibition had in eliminating alcohol and the fabulous way that the War on Drugs has eliminated drug abuse, drug smuggling, illegal drug manufacturing, etc.
No TSA in schools?
Got news for you, bucko: many elementary and high schools already have armed campus police. At the most imfamous school shooting (Columbine) a campus security officer returned fire at Klebold and Harris from the parking lot where he was eating lunch when the shooting broke out.
At the Oregon school where another shooter (Kip Hinkle?) opened fire in the cafeteria, a campus officer took the shooter into custody when he stopped to reload.
That’s not the TSA. It’s a different security system. I was referring specifically to the TSA.
I know what you were specifically referring to. But the gist of your comment was that we wouldn’t be providing security to schools, when in fact in many areas we do.
NRA = material support for domestic terrorists. I want them indefinitely detained. Holder, get on it.
Yes. Armed citizens can respond to threats from armed wackos. But can you see that you selected scenarios were you have a teacher in one room hearing gun fire somewhere else and then they “retrieve their weapon and prepare to engage the shooter, either by moving out in the direction of the gunfire or by waiting for the shooter to attempt to enter their classroom.”
The first teacher/students are dead right? You’ve just written them off to fit your best case fantasy scenario. Because these attacks are almost always surprise attacks. For the first dead, it’s almost always a surprise attack. The current story about the Oakland shooting says the shooter was sitting in class, stood up and shot and killed the teacher and then other students. So unless the teacher was just like Raylan Gibbins in Justified squaring off against Dickie where they both know what is happening, the reaction time of the teacher with the gun could not have saved their life or the lives of the other people shot quickly with multiple rounds. So you need to go to this next level, the armed teacher who is going to get their gun and run toward the gun shots. Or we have a teacher who is waiting for the shooter attempting to enter their classroom. Shooter opens the door and bam! Bad guy is dead, Of course maybe its just another student running into the classroom in the confusion.
But all these scenarios leave out the other hundreds of days in the year where nothing like this happens, but the proposed solution to this problem creates new problems that nobody is talking about. Training is just one of them. Accidents? Misunderstandings? Fights escalating to death?
I know that some schools have metal detectors and security guards. But as I’ve been told over and over a dedicated bad guy won’t care. So to prepare for that day, instead of figuring out a solution that won’t let the “bad guy” get to the kids, the gun lobby decides that the “common sense” solution is to arm teachers. If the bulletproof glass and security systems lobby was strong maybe they would turning the schools into a place as safe as the interior of a bank vault of an airplane.
That IS what we did with the airplane transportation and it wasn’t a “magic wand” You think the billions on airport security was a “Magic wand?” no. It was money and policies and the will to them put into place to deal with a problem. Lots of theater to show the folks “something is happening” It also involved behind the scenes work to make sure that terrorists would not be getting on planes period.
What do you call it when someone purposefully creates a statement that doesn’t accurately illustrate your views? A strawman argument.
This kind of argument is weak. Please do not make broad sweeping generalizations based on what you perceive my desires to be (and my use of magic.)
So I’ll ask, are there cases where guns should not be in the hands of citizens? I’m not talking ALL citizens. Would you be for making it hard for someone with a history of violent mental illness to get a gun? How about terrorists on the no-fly list? And if you agree that they shouldn’t be able to legally get a gun do you now become one of those “others like him” who want to keep guns away from some citizens? If you support the states reporting into the mental health registry for gun checks you are now just like me. Of course the next comment is usually, “You can get a gun anywhere easily with out ID or a gun check.” I might agree with you and then ask what steps you have done to make it harder for that to happen. Have you asked for gun show loophole to be closed? What I’ve found is that there ARE things that people can do that are not “magic wands” But it is easier to just throw up your hands and say, “There is nothing that can be done.”
The people who could have supported some of these very sensible acts have not only not supported them but actively fought them. They are big believers in the “slippery slope” argument. That if we encourage or support better gun check registration it will only hurt law abiding citizens! There is no solution that works for them that doesn’t involve easier availability and less restrictions. What if they were in the position of thinking, “What can we do to stop the “crazy people” and the “bad guys” from not only getting guns legally, but illegally.” But they are not. That is NOT in their job, that is “someone else’s problem” A problem that they helped create and keep going because it benefits them.
The gun lobby has blocked efforts to computerize recording of serial numbers of guns. They sit in boxes, scanned and un-cataloged. The gun lobby has blocked efforts to get “crazy people” enrolled in a national database of mentally ill. They block efforts of “law-abiding citizens” who had conceal carry permits to get them revoked after they are no longer a “law-abiding citizen”
These efforts could have an impact on the bad guys and crazy people when they are trying to get guns. But they don’t, because it is more important that more guns be out there than fewer, even if they are in the hands of bad guys. Because when bad guys have guns, then the good guys need guns! It’s a win, win sale!
And how do you propose to do that — keep “crazy people” and “bad guys” from getting guns illegally, Spocko?
And so for a teacher “retrieving” their gun, I’m talking about getting it from the locking guncase in their desk, not having to go out to their car or a locker in the hallway, etc.
And Spocko — In your answer to my question @13, be sure to explain how your solution for keeping villains from getting guns is superior to what has worked, you know, so well, in keeping illegal drugs out of people’s hands.
You come up with a proposal that will actually work, in real life, and I’ll support it. But even if every legitimate gun owner was required to keep their weapon(s) in a full-size gun safe, that would be no deterrent to determined bad guys. Why? Because if thieves will use stolen tow trucks to remove entire ATM machines from convenience stores and even bank walls, then they’ll gladly find a way to carry off a gun safe to a location where they can break into it at their convenience.
Beachpopulist. Can you first agree that we should make efforts to keep “crazy people” and “bad guys” from getting guns legally?
Okay. retrieving gun from locking guncase in desk. Do you agree that they should not be carrying a gun in their holster with a round in the chamber while teaching?
Arming teachers with guns seems like an idiotic idea.
Why not lock the classroom doors so that the shooter cannot get in. Then call the police and let them handle the situation.
A lot of teachers couldn’t hit the side of a barn from 10 feet away, let alone a person moving and shooting at them. They probably would be more likely to miss the shooter and kill or wound a student or another teacher.
I am a firm believer that guns do not belong in schools.
makes good sense
teacher can lock the door from their desk,or automatic lock ,like cars have
this violent stupid evil segment of this country,the mind boggles
I see that you have thought through some of the implications. Yet arming teachers is exactly the solution proposed by the radical faction of the NRA and the people in the gun lobby who support them.
Right now they are working to get more people carrying on college campuses and working to pass laws to make it legal to carry there. This is their own version of MAD. An escalation of the arms race. They make it clear that there are a lot of bad guys out there that are coming to your “victim disarmament zone” to shoot you. Therefore the only solution is for you to carry. The greater implications of more people with guns are not taken into consideration.
And when they pass these laws, there are “unintended consequences” that aren’t seen. They can quote statistics, but what they don’t want to talk about is the change in attitudes that they want to foster in the world.
In this future school I’m now working in an armed camp, the paranoia that some people feel that everyone is out to shoot me has now been transferred to everyone, students and teachers and the solution is not just defense, but lethal response.
Because clearly a lethal response is better than just defense. And having a lethal response sends a message they want sent. But the ability to have a lethal response that will supposedly give great satisfaction to the shooter is going to bring up more situations where a lethal response was NOT needed and not intended.
The issue is all the reasons that people feel they need to carry a weapon. What exactly are they afraid of? How likely is it to actually happen as opposed to other adverse events? These are cultural issues that are actually of recent origins. Until you deal with the cultural issues that create the demand to conceal carry, folks will find a way.
It has a long history. After all, Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel.
The school issue goes deeper than metal detectors. What about school is heating up the emotions to the point that folks see weapons as necessary? My suspicion is that the underfunding of schools in general and schools in certain neighborhoods in particular is a major indirect contributor.
There are as many weapons in the US as there are people. There is no way that state power is either going to identify all of them or reduce their numbers. Cultural change can, however. That doesn’t depend on politicians in the pockets of the gun industry.
These are not comparable. Prohibition made nearly all alcohol illegal. No one here is saying make all guns illegal. The War on Drugs has not focused on drug abuse, which is in line with spocko’s interest in dealing with “sick” people. The argument that in some select cases rampant gun proliferation makes us safer is similar to Justice Kennedy’s reasoning that if one person can smuggle a weapon into jail, then everybody should be strip-searched.
I am fairly certain that if people were carrying guns on campus when I was in college, I wouldn’t be here now, the simple reason being that kids in college get fucked up (drinking et al) and truly anything can happen. I wouldn’t feel safer at all.
The president has decided he and all future presidents can disappear any American for any reason, so long as he claims “suspicion of terrorism”.
Nothing to worry about there, silly pro-gun rubes.
The dead people are the price we pay for the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. What the hell did they think would happen?
Well the Supreme Court did stop short of making gun ownership and possession and absolute right. I’m more aggravated with the Members of Congress and state legislators who have sold their souls to the NRA and the gun industry.
But there might be a Darwin award in their future. Conceal carry will be legal at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
What the hell do you think would happen if every civilian gun in America were confiscated?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If Obama and the shadow government are corrupt enough to declare the power to disappear anybody they don’t like – in a country full of guns – how much further do you think they would go if there was no possibility of armed resistance to this tyranny?
The ATF was busted selling guns to drug lords, hoping to use the violence to restrict gun ownership in the US, for Chrissake.
All evidence points to 9/11 being a government sanctioned or engineered act of terror against the US.
The director of the 9/11 Commission (Phillip Zelikow) was an expert on the searing effects of shocking events on the public consciousness. He wrote his first draft before the investigation even started, and shut down all real investigation into the events. He also wrote the Bush doctrine based on a paper written for Netanyahu, and he also said that we went into Iraq to protect Israel, and that this was totally reasonable.
Food for thought.
Louis –
Spocko clearly stated, quote:
Get that, illegally? In case you missed it the first time, I’ll say it again: illegally.
But when pressed on how to do that, he offered no answer, no solution. When he, or you, has such an answer, get back to me. In the meantime, the “magical thinking” that we can someone just wish away guns is a tragic farce.
And I’ll just add:
Oh, no? Well, maybe not technically “here” but have you ever noticed something about all those stats that you see from the gun-control lobby showing how many fewer gun deaths there are in certain other countries? Funny thing is, you see, those countries ban (literally or virtually) private ownership of firearms.
So the argument used here to limit firearms is based on the idea that limiting should gradually, inevitably, lead to banning private ownership or possession. This, of course, includes the friendly neighborhood bodega or convenience store owner who otherwise would be held up on, say, a daily basis. Same with jewelry store owners and other retail establishments.
wow! tweeted and recommended with thanks spocko. i love the way you think dood!!!
Hey folks, stop in and comment! I’m here.
The answer always seems to be more guns. In fact, the answers to just about everything in this country seem to be to double down on what is causing the problem to begin with. Take health care for example: What does one do when the for profit insurance companies become so greedy that inevitably only the very wealthy are entitled to decent health care? Apparently the answer is to codify and formalize the position in the system of the same entities that are the problem to begin with into law, along with a mandate that we buy their incredibly over priced but extremely useless and crappy product. I think they’ve confused the words “exceptionalism” and “stupid”. Just my .02.
I’ll buy your .02 for a dollar.
At my college (in 1969 the Ohio National Guard occupied the campus, in 1970 the college closed early after a student strike on behalf of college working staff) the only security I recall was at the library exit, a senior citizen asked you to open your briefcase or shoulder bag to make sure you weren’t stealing any books or mistakenly borrowing them without checking them out. That was when everyone said the country was coming apart. They were right.
Look at that, the free market in action! You must made 98 cents in pure profit!
I’ve been trying to respond to BeachPopulist, but my browser crashed.
:-(
I will say quickly if he (or she) shows up again that I appreciate the comments and I’m working on some replys, but that it would be helpful if he/or she answered some of my questions.
Hi BeachPopulist. First I want to thank you for coming in and discussing this on the threads. I really appreciate it. One of the reasons that I like you here is so I figure out how best to discuss these issues and figure out where I have common ground with people who have a different view on the issues. One problem is when I misinterpret someone else’s views or someone misinterpret mine. I won’t ascribe this to malice, just a failure to be clear.
I have tried to respond to your comment and questions as best I can, I’ve asked you several questions that I think that we can agree upon because I’m trying to see where our views line up. I don’t want to ascribe to you views that aren’t yours. And I can’t know that unless you respond to my questions. So to go back to the first issue.
You said:
I do not bring up that coffee shop case as definitive proof that armed citizens can’t respond to threats. I said “Yes, armed citizens can respond to threats”, but the issue here is the first round of dead who simply can’t respond fast enough even when armed.
I used the Cops being shot case because I wanted an example outside of the school with armed personnel. If I had a case of an armed teacher who was carrying, with one in the chamber, and was still shot by surprise I would have used it. However I do have other cases of armed cops being shot by surprise.
But taken by surprise is still taken by surprise. Being armed can’t turn you into The Flash. I then went on to explain that in the current case, as well as dozens of shootings I’ve read about, the element of surprise wins in the first round, Would agree with that? That is my first question to you.
Secondly, the armed teachers you have discussed have guns in their desk safe. Correct? That means that there is room after room of armed teachers. Because you haven’t suggested concealed carry with one in the chamber, one or more of the teachers (and students) will die in the initial shooting because they can not get to their guns.Will you agree that is the most likely scenario?
Then after the shooting starts the other teachers, security or administration members supposedly get out their guns to track down and kill the shooter or to protect the students in the class. This is the real goal of the armed teachers/admin. To have a wave of armed teachers to hunt down and kill or to protect other students. Is this correct?
Now,what I’m pointing out is that even with armed teachers, they are not going to stop that first round of bullets. The way that stops is by making it next to impossible for guns to enter the classroom. And I point out that there are entities that HAVE made enclosed spaces hard for guns to enter. I used airplanes for an example. I could have used other facilities like prisons. My point is that it CAN be done if we were willing to spend the money on it, which we were with the planes, but are not with the schools. That doesn’t take magic, it takes cash and political will. We say that are children are precious, but clearly not as precious as the people flying in planes.
So I do have a solution for protecting children. It doesn’t involved waving a magic wand. And it is an expensive solution. but if I was selling security building devices and nude scanners I would TOTALLY suggest it.
You know what’s interesting? Most people know who the crazy people are. Why, then, are the crazy people allowed to have guns? And still, every once in a while, someone will go bat-shit-crazy….. life is kinda random sometimes. Keep track of he crazies and don’t let them have guns or walk onto school campuses…..and then hope for the best.
PS: And leave the rest of us the fuck alone!
Finding out that the NRA blocks the mental health registry shows me just how little the NRA cares about stopping anyone from getting guns. As you say, people know, yet rather than making it harder for “crazy people” to get guns they make sure they can so there is always an excuse.
I responded to your post @ 6. spocko didn’t mention “illegal” until @ 11. So I’m not sure what you’re responding to or make sense of your response when you’re addressing something that was brought up after I responded to you.
What’s with getting in my face with the condescending tone. I ain’t deef.
I’ll assume there’s some history here (at fdl) with you that I’m unaware of, because as far as I can tell, you are intuiting things that haven’t been said in this thread.
In any event, I do believe that there should be some regulation of handguns. There are some people, e.g., mentally unfit, who shouldn’t be able to buy a handgun. There are also dealers who knowingly sell into the black market and these should be limited.
The number and availability of illegal handguns is directly proportional to the number of available handguns, and in the USA, available handguns are legion. I know in my gut that more guns is not the answer. If I were a kid and knew my teacher had a gun, I might feel intimidated or I might think “How cool, I can’t wait till I get one too” or something else, but it would certainly effect me, and I’m grateful I didn’t have to go through that experience.
I don’t really expect any change. It’s gotten worse and worse over the years. A friend of mine was killed in the 101 California St. massacre in San Francisco, after which there was a ban on some weapons. That didn’t last long – Bush let it expire. I live in Oakland now, where fly-by shootings and murder are commonplace.
Thanks Louis. I just reread my post at 12. I was referring to the NRA
Types who Agree that crazy people and criminals shouldn’t get guns legally.
And there are lots of them. But they are not in charge. If you manage to talk to these people and get them to agree with you they often instantly discount that effort and go to the problem of illegal guns. my father the hunter would be one of the people who agrees on stopping crazy people from getting guns and bad guys legally. He too might throw up his hands at illegal guns, but not before pointing out that to even TRY to keep the mentally ill from getting guns legally is just irresponsible. This whole idea that any kind of rules guidelines or restrictions on legal gun sales “just punishes law abiding cItizens” is a line used by people who have the impatience of children getting a toy, not an adult taking possession of a deadly weapon. I also suspect, but can not prove, that a number of “law abiding citizens” do not want anyone to look to closely at them in case it turns out they are not so law abiding. Or not so sane. If I can not hide my past, it behooves me to not make it easy for it to find me. If I’m worried some one will find out I was doing the kind of nutty things that Loughner was doing I’m sure not going to want that to get in my way of getting a legal weapon. And that is a question. Do you, Mr responsible gun owner want Loughner to get a weapon? Do you believe that the state and the community have an obligation to make it hard for him to get guns.? That is a question. If you don’t think it should be hard why not? Jumping to the, “oh he’ll get them illegally is a cop out.”
I DO think we should make it hard for “crazy people” to easily get guns. If you think crazy people should legally have guns then when The Loughners shoot and kill i go right to your doorstep and say,”you made this possible. He pulled the trigger but you protected him every step of the way to that Safeway parking lot. ” oh and if you long for your armed brethren to have been their to “save the day” I’ll remind you they were and they failed. They didn’t get they shot off, but they almost shot the guy who took the gun from Loughner.
I was 1 block away from 101 California during the shooting. I’m thinking of moving to Oakland. And I’m not going to get a hand gun. I’m going to get to know my neighbors.
Oh and That doesn’t mean I wouldnt defend myself in my home if attacked.
There’s a lot to be said for Oakland. The weather is great. The people are great. I know everyone on my block, something I could not say in SF, and we look out for each other.
Now that’s “revolutionary” in a society that worships the “individual.”
Follow the NRA’s dumb premise to its logical conclusion and teaching colleges have to include firearms training in their curriculum.
And then you have authority figures in every classroom with guns. Classrooms are supposed to be safe spaces for children. You know that teacher who made your life miserable in seventh grade? Armed. You know that rageaholic gym teacher that punched a kid that time? Armed. Your cuddly kindergarten teacher? Has a gun in her desk and 35 six-year-olds because the same idiots who want to arm teachers cut school budgets because teachers are the real enemy.
These are the same bedwetting cowards who can’t handle the idea that other people aren’t bedwetting cowards, and they are no friends to teachers and children.
If teachers are required to have guns, you are selecting for willing gun carriers in a similar way to screening a jury pool on capital punishment. You might as well require all teachers to become members of the NRA in order to teach. Good way to prepare our kids for military careers as well.
Execellent point. I had not concidered that. I will add it to my list of impact questions.
Also: picture the annual review.
Dept. Supervisor: You’re a natural in the classroom but your range scores have suffered.
First Grade Teacher: I’m teaching kids to read.
DS: Fine, but don’t let that distract you from being a well-armed militia of one.
It’s sad that no one here has realized that spocko has been less than honest about the NRA. Accepting misinformation put forth in this article has led to this diatribe of inane and foolish rhetoric instead of constructive and useful ideas. It also fosters ignorance for those that really don’t know the facts. The last time I bought a gun at a gun show I had to wait for a background check. And no, I am not an NRA troll. I think BeachPopulist is the most realistic one here today.
Rickster:
Thank you for your comment. “less than honest about the NRA” is kind of a broad statement.
First, the NRA is a big organization. The views of the majority of the membership do not alway match the views of the leadership. Perhaps I could be more accurate and refer to them as the “gun lobby directed leadership” or “the faction in the NRA who havd the majority of the funds used to spend on pro-guns everywhere and to fight programs that would be supported by mists members”
So thank you for reminding me that I need to be more specific.
“Lead to Inane and foolish ideas instead of constructive and useful ideas.”
This thread is not over. You still have a chance to provide the constructive and useful ideas. Because I’m all ears. Pointy ones at that. I read a LOT of articles, comments and blogs written by people who are leaders in the NRA, founders of groups supporting conceal carry, open carry and hunting and sport shooting. I also read news stories following gun shootings at schools, accidental shootings and shooting in home invasions.
The trend that I am addressing is not a fantasy I’m making up, in other posts I have quoted people specifically calling for armed teachers in schools. However rarely is their an opposing voice to ask, “Okay, you are serious. What would that look like, how would that work? What would it cost?” the other part of this is the part where people in this comments SAY it is about protecting the children, but based on their other comments you can see that protecting the children is not the primary concern. If it was there are other methods that also protect the children. Methods that do not involve a lethal response. Now since I wasn’t as specific as I might have been, I will work in the future to name these people (who represent a well funded part of the NRA, more specifically so their can be no confusion. You see, I WANT to reach that part of the NRA (and the public) who can see just what a disaster more guns everywhere – especially in the schools- will lead to. The effort to increase gun out in society is a big legislative and cultural effort. This is only visable to the mainstream news and public after a tradegy. But what does NOT happen after a tradegy is a look at the attitudes and laws and lobbying efforts that got us here. There is also not a look at the suggestions for new laws and lobbying efforts that will take us to a place that increases the odds of more tradegies while failing to actually keep kids safe.
So again thank you for your comment. I do not think you are an NRA troll. I would appreciate you comment in the future to come earlier and be more specific so I can address them and be more clear in my remarks.
LLAP
Spocko
Spocko –
Sorry to respond so late. I logged off yesterday and didn’t come back on until a few minutes ago. So, to respond to your points and several others.
1. Yes, in a surprise attack, some people will die or be wounded before others can respond.
2. Yes, in a general sense, the theory behind having armed teachers is that, once the initial attack occurs, they have some means to defend the remaining students and staff, and hopefully have some method of containing the shooter until cops arrive.
But here’s the thing: in most instances, the shootings play out in stages. There’s the first attack, in the lobby or the hallway, and then the shooter advances toward other targets or target areas. This “lag time” is what would allow armed teachers to respond. Here’s a couple of examples, from real life:
a) VA Tech — One of the casualties was a professor who, upon hearing the shots, had students shove his desk against the front door of the classroom. Others shoved their desks against the back door. Then the prof leaned against his desk to help put more weight behind the blockade. Guess what? The shooter simply fired through the door, killing the teacher, then shoved his way into the room and methodically went about shooting students. (IIRC, a couple of students jumped out the second or third floor window.) If this prof had a firearm, he could have shot the killer through the door instead of the other way around. He could also have engaged the shooter from the doorway when the shooter was down the hallway. The prof wouldn’t have had to just sit there like a tin duck in the shooting gallery and wait for the Angel of Death to arrive.
Also of note at VA Tech is that the shooter chained the doors shut before opening fire. That kept targets in and the cops out until they could breach the door. With one or more armed teachers there would have been someone inside who could confront, delay, disable, or kill the shooter, and thus minimize the damage.
2. Columbine — It doesn’t take much to throw off even the best-laid plans of demented shooters. Klebold and Harris planned to start in the cafeteria because that’s where the campus cop normally ate lunch. Once they killed him, it would be open season. But that particular day the cop decided to eat lunch his car. (Nice day, didn’t wanna have to listen to the noise of the kids, whatever the reason.) Upon hearing the initial shots he called for backup. Harris and Klebold then came to the library windows to see where he was. An exchange of fire took place, augmented when a local cop arrived to join in.
That brief firefight allowed untold numbers of students to escape from other classrooms. It threw Harris and Klebold off their plan, and greatly limited the overall casualty count.
3. Killeen, TX — The imfamous cafeteria shooting. One of the survivors was a lady who had her pistol in the glove compartment of her car — where it did her and everyone else absolutely no good. She had to watch helplessly as her parents were killed and she was wounded. (IIRC, she later led the movement which resulted in the TX legislature revising the concealed carry laws to avoid such a situation in the future.)
(Note: I’ve been shot at and believe me, there is no more frustrating, helpless feeling than not being able to do anything but run, duck, and hope. Even Usain Bolt can’t outrun a bullet. Fortunately for me, the shooter in my situation was using a small caliber Saturday Night Special and I had a brick wall to duck behind. But if he’d been armed with a larger caliber weapon like an AK, he could have chewed up that wall — and me — like hamburger.)
Now, about armed teachers in general:
1. Unlike Juliana’s contention –
what we’re talking about is allowing teachers to have guns. That’s a huge difference.
2. Some teachers are ex-military. There were three that I know of at the high school I attended. Lots of teachers who double as sports coaches are vets, or members of the Reserves or National Guard. Others, esp. in more sparsely populated states, are hunters. They’ve grown up with firearms and know how to handle them safely. They’re not drunken yayhoos from the local biker bar.
3. Some teachers are even reserve police officers. One history teacher at my local high school is a good example.
4. The idea that some teachers are armed is very likely to discourage attacks in the first place. It’s my personal theory that demented shooters often look for soft targets. (The whacko in my previous example who opened fire in the lobby of a police station is a glaring exception, probably looking at a “suicide by cop” scenario. As an expert on serial killers once remarked, “They prey on the weak. I’ve never heard of a serial killer who stalked body builders and weight lifters.”
This is way the students should not be aware of which teachers are armed and which aren’t.
5. Nobody that I know of who is in their right mind advocates just having teachers carry guns willy-nilly. I would suggest that teachers who choose to do so should have to undergo additional training with the local PD, including proficiency testing on a course where targets pop up and you have to determine friend or foe before firing. They should have to recertify annually, probably prior to the start of each fall semester.
Dearie –
You and Spocko and others have raised the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of “crazies”. I concur with the concept, and I support the practice of doing so. But I raise the questions:
“What constitutes a crazy?”
“Who determines that someone is, or is not, too mentally unbalanced to legally possess a firearm?”
There are some obvious answers having to do with those who have been institutionalized, diagnosed as schitzophrenic, anti-social personality disorder, delusional, etc. But other definitions are quite a bit more fungible. For instance, how about anyone who has sought psychiatric care? Does that include folks who seem a shrink for problems with work, parents, kids, spouses? You’re depressed, get Xanax or Prozac, and immediately disqualified from owning a firearm? Think that might discourage you from seeing a shrink in the first place? How about a woman for whom the source of her depression is an abusive former husband or lover who has threatened to kill her? The choice: therapy or having a weapon and some chance to defend yourself if he shows up to break in your house?
There are instances of cops being wife beaters. So some states have passed laws saying that if a spouse claims her cop hubby has abused or threatened her, he must surrender all firearms, including his duty weapon, and be put on desk duty. Good idea — in theory. And in some instances, in fact. But in other cases it has become another weapon of wives and divorce lawyers to leverage favorable settlements and child custody issues. Remember, in many of these cases, you only have to allege the abuse; the cop is off the street for however many months it takes for the charge to be heard. (Or dropped, once wifey gets what she wants.)
The point is, ascertaining a fair, legal, enforceable standard of “crazy” isn’t as easy at it sounds at first blush. On top of that, a lot of people who flip out don’t have a known history of psychiatric problems. Look at the airline pilot who wigged-out recently. Friends, neighbors, family all profess to be stunned. Can’t understand what triggered the breakdown.
Thank BeachPopulist. That is really helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully reply and address the various points.
“Nobody that I know of who is in their right mind advocates just having teachers carry guns willy-nilly.”
Unfortunately, I’ve been coming across people who are advocating this. Now of course maybe they are just using shorthand for a much more reasoned and measured approach, but not always. If I talk to them and they DO recommend all teachers carry do I have your permission to say “you must not be in your right mind”? :-)
One of my best friends is a reserve police officer who totally understands the need for training especially in crisis situations. He gets very upset at low levels some states have for gun safety for people with conceal carry permits. He’s been on those “pop up courses” and saw how poor his scores were for someone who already had lots of training.
My next step is to talk to some of the people who are pushing this armed teachers model to see if they have been as thoughtful as you. I’m also looking for people who have considered this and rejected it and why. There are aspects of this suggestion that I want to explore fuller for the thousands of schools during the hundred of days where there is no shooter. One of the things that I’ve noted is that the people who suggest armed teachers like to comment about how this is “good for student discipline”. I don’t just take that as a cheap joke. I want to know what that really means. Do they seriously like the idea that the students know that if they get out of line the teacher will shoot them? I’ve been reading the comments in some of the forums where they are suggesting this, and instead of dismissing it as hyperbole or a joke I want to know if they really are fine with that threat hanging over the kid’s head of death for disobedience. I
Again, thank you for your response. I appreciate it.
Hey, no problem. I’m just here to serve! Really, I enjoy the interplay and appreciate your willingness to dive deep into the practical realities of the issue. Speaking of which, the idea that armed teachers add to student discipline is, in general, either an intentional joke or completely looney.
The only situations I can think of where that might be true would be in schools with such a crime and gang problem as to be virtually unmanageable. Hell, in many schools in high crime neighborhoods, armed cops man the entrances as every kid goes through a metal detector. Other than no back-scatter x-ray machines, it’s like going to the airport just to take algebra class. In fact, these campuses are in the least danger of being subjected to a mass killer/spree killer scenario. precisely because the entrances are manned and the grounds patrolled.
Again, it’s an issue of “soft targets”. Columbine, the school in Kentucky, the one in Oregon, what do they have in common? Generally low-crime middle class suburban locales. (I think the reason for the campus cop at Columbine had mostly to do with parent-driven efforts to keep drugs off campus, rather than any fear of violence.)
Also, one other thing just occurred to me: what is the deterrent effect of potential shooters just knowing that teachers are (or may be) armed? What if around the school there are signs posted that say:
“WARNING: ARMED FACULTY — Certain employees, including teachers, on this campus are armed and authorized to use deadly force to protect themselves, students, staff, and others legally present on these grounds.”
You can never prove a negative, but just common sense leads me to believe that more than a few potential whacko shooters would think about finding another, easier, target. That might end up in more shootings at malls or other public facilities, but in the end, with armed teachers what we’re trying to do is protect students, youngsters unable to protect themselves in any meaningful way.