guns

[soberups]

Judge & jury, in the hands of a charter school teacher? Interesting.

No.

Had I been the armed teacher in that room...before resorting to lethal force I would have evaluated what threat, if any, the man posed to the students in my care.

Obviously, if the man was unarmed and merely shouting and acting strangely, lethal force would not be appropriate and I would simply remove the children from the room and call 911.

If, however, the man was armed or otherwise posed a risk to the children due to disparity of force (for example a 300 lb psychotic man vs a 120 lb female school teacher) then lethal force does become appropriate. It has nothing to do with being "judge and jury", and everything to do with the fundamental human right of defense of self and others.

 

[soberups]

So, Newtown does matter, in some small sense?

At least we have that going for us

Newtown matters in the sense that if you didnt know how to behave appropriately in a classroom before you sure as hell ought to know how to behave appropriately now.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, held up a print out of a study done by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data-gathering and research organization run by Syracuse University, that found that out of 90 federal jurisdictions, in 2012 Chicago ranked last for prosecuting bad guys with guns. LaPierre asked, “Do you know where Chicago ranks in terms of enforcement of the federal gun laws? Out of 90 jurisdictions in the country, they ranked 90th.


Proof The Obama Administration Is Going After The Good Guys With Guns - Forbes

 

[roadrunner2012]

Look people, no one wants to take away a legal firearm from a person who legally obtains it. What sane people are asking, is that once you acquire a legal firearm, you keep it out of reach of people who should not have access to it.

If I am a parent and have a mentally unstable child in the home, or who has access to the home, the firearm is not available to them. That doesn't mean under my mattress. If my spouse is a little off, they too, don't have access to the firearm. If I live alone, the firearm should be kept in a locked, safe place. If I live in a dangerous neighborhood, I buy alarms and security devices, and keep my firearm in a locked, secure, place.

If I want to buy a firearm, I submit myself to an intensive background check. If I've ever had a PPO, or called a suicide hotline or 911 for destructive behavior, I don't get a weapon. I shouldn't have one. I could be a danger not only to myself, but to others.

If I am a school teacher, my main concern is making sure each child in my care has a chance to make the best of themselves. One can not stop a crazy person from walking into any public place and deciding to kill everyone. School teachers should not have to be expected to defend against a crazy person anymore than the ticket taker at the movie theater, or an amusement park.

Ther only thing some people are asking, is that it is harder to buy a weapon capable of firing 150+ rounds in a couple of minutes than it is to buy a pack of cigarettes.

It should not be a point of contention, it should be common sense.

Ask someone in the Armed Forces if they have unfettered access to their firearms. Ask an active Reserve member.

Your right to bear arms should not infringe on my right to live. Those who fear their own government should just leave. This isn't North Korea.

 

[bbsam]

No.

Had I been the armed teacher in that room...before resorting to lethal force I would have evaluated what threat, if any, the man posed to the students in my care.

Obviously, if the man was unarmed and merely shouting and acting strangely, lethal force would not be appropriate and I would simply remove the children from the room and call 911.

If, however, the man was armed or otherwise posed a risk to the children due to disparity of force (for example a 300 lb psychotic man vs a 120 lb female school teacher) then lethal force does become appropriate. It has nothing to do with being "judge and jury", and everything to do with the fundamental human right of defense of self and others.

And you believe that all would use your most excellent judgment?

 

[soberups]

No.

Had I been the armed teacher in that room...before resorting to lethal force I would have evaluated what threat, if any, the man posed to the students in my care.

Obviously, if the man was unarmed and merely shouting and acting strangely, lethal force would not be appropriate and I would simply remove the children from the room and call 911.

If, however, the man was armed or otherwise posed a risk to the children due to disparity of force (for example a 300 lb psychotic man vs a 120 lb female school teacher) then lethal force does become appropriate. It has nothing to do with being "judge and jury", and everything to do with the fundamental human right of defense of self and others.

And you believe that all would use your most excellent judgment?

If I trust someone to educate my child, I would trust them to protect my child.

 

[bbsam]

Not me. Frightened people do stupid things and bullets that miss their target don't miraculously drop to the floor.

 

[roadrunner2012]

If I trust someone to educate my child, I would trust them to protect my child.

And pay them accordingly, as well as provide continuing training at the taxpayers expense?

 

[bbsam]

Just to be clear, I don't trust them with corporal punishment so I damn sure don't trust high anxiety gun play around my kids.

 

[roadrunner2012]

Just to be clear, I don't trust them with corporal punishment so I damn sure don't trust high anxiety gun play around my kids.

There you go, being rational and all.

Just to toss out a figure, how about $120k/yr, plus all training paid for by the State, as well as continuing education? That is for a first year teacher. More skills/seniority= more $$$

If you can teach science and qualify on a typical police handgun course, maybe $200k/yr.

Who's for it?

 

[soberups]

Not me. Frightened people do stupid things and bullets that miss their target don't miraculously drop to the floor.

So whats the alternative? In case you havent noticed, the lunatics havent been paying much attention to the "gun free zone" signs on the doors at Thurston, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, or any of the other schools that have gotten shot up over the last 15 years.

None of the feel good laws that the libs keep throwing around would have made a damn bit of difference in the outcome of any of these shootings. An armed teacher at least might have.

 

[bbsam]

It begins with two simple facts. First, nobody's Second Amendment rights are being infringed upon. The amendment does not prohibit regulation and the Supreme Court has a long history of upholding gun laws. Second is refuting the idea that gets put forth here all the time. We will not prevent every senseless killing or mass killing. That's not within the scope of anything put forth.

Analogy: Your house was robbed by a thief coming in the back window. Lock the window but don't worry about the wide open front door. But the thief didn't use the front door. Is that any reason to leave it open?

After 9/11, things got alot tougher in airports. Is that any reason to let law abiding citizens carry guns on planes? No. The hijackers didn't use guns. Doesn't matter.

Universal background checks, mental health aptitude testing. Yearly should be sufficient. Close the loopholes. This should be a good start. Won't stop all violence or killing. That would require a complete gun ban. That's unconstitutional and wouldn't have any measurable support anyway.



Beyond these steps, on site at schools I would support universal strip searches before arms d teachers.

 

[soberups]

If I am a school teacher, my main concern is making sure each child in my care has a chance to make the best of themselves.

They cant make the best of themselves if an Adam Lanza wannabe with a weapon shows up at the school and kills them.

 

[soberups]

One can not stop a crazy person from walking into any public place and deciding to kill everyone. .

One can stop a crazy person from walking into a public place and killing everyone...if one is armed.

There is a reason that the lunatics are picking schools to commit the massacres in as opposed to, say, police stations or gun shows.

Its the same reason that the jackals and hyenas go after the newborns or the weak/injured wildebeest instead of the big bulls with the horns. Lunatics, like hyenas and jackals, have an innate desire for self-preservation, hence they choose soft targets instead of hard ones.

 

[soberups]

. School teachers should not have to be expected to defend against a crazy person anymore than the ticket taker at the movie theater, or an amusement park.

What about the school teachers who want to be armed and want the ability to defend their students?

What about trained volunteers? What about retired LEO or military or emergency responders?

I agree with you that no teacher should be expected to defend against a crazy person, but unfortunately we dont yet live in a utopia and whether they expect to or not they may wind up having to do it anyway. You speak of the ideal world; I speak of the real one.

Two of the members of my gun club (that I know of, anyway) are teachers. Both of them have carry permits, and both of them carry while at school. I can gurantee you they arent the only ones.

According to the reports I read, the principal at Sandy Hook threw her body at Lanza before she died in a futile attempt to protect her students. My guess is that, in that final moment of her life, she would have much preferred to be throwing a load of 00 buckshot or a few high velocity hollowpoints at the bastard instead of just her body. I would also guess that the parents of the Sandy Hook victims probably feel the same way.

 

[soberups]

Look people, no one wants to take away a legal firearm from a person who legally obtains it.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
--Diane Feinstien 60 Minutes interview, Feb. 5th, 1995.---

18 years have passed and that harpy is still pushing her same old anti-gun agenda. Do you really expect me to believe that she and Bloomberg and Pelosi and Schumer will support my 2nd Amendment rights?

 

[bbsam]

Do you really believe that in a senate that requires sixty votes to conclude that they should wipe their collective asses that your Second Amendment rights are in danger?

 

[wkmac]

Do you really believe that in a senate that requires sixty votes to conclude that they should wipe their collective asses that your Second Amendment rights are in danger?

You gotta admit they did a lot of damage to the 1st, 4th, 5th so anything is possible.

We should also note that a lot of people afraid the 2nd will be done away never as much as offered a peep in defense of the 1st, 4th and 5th and some even championed it.

 

[soberups]

Do you really believe that in a senate that requires sixty votes to conclude that they should wipe their collective asses that your Second Amendment rights are in danger?

Yes.

There are other ways to disarm the American public besides an outright ban.

Its called "death by a thousand cuts." Creeping incrementalism. You start out with reasonable-sounding feel-good crap like limits on magazine capacity. First its 15, then its 10, then its 7 like what they just passed in New York. You start taxing ammo or firearm components...slowly at first, but increasing them until shooting becomes unaffordable. You impose requirements for (unaffordable) liability insurance on gun owners. You impose ever more stringent "training" and "mental health testing". Under the guise of "enviornmental protection" you ban lead ammunition, making it unaffordable. You impose requirements for non existent "smart gun" and "child proof" technology on all new guns that make them either unaffordable or impossible to manufacture. You pass "zoning" or "fire safety" requirements on lawful firearms dealers that has the practical effect of driving them out of business. You bankrupt firearms manufacturers by allowing them to be held financially liable for the criminal misuse of their products. You require useless "microstamping" of ejected casings on all new semi-automatic guns (already passed in CA)that make these guns impossibly expensive to manufacture.

None of this is paranoia. Every one of these ridiculous ideas either has been proposed or has already been implemented in places like New York and the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia. Dont tell me "not to worry" about my 2nd Amendment rights just because there doesnt happen to be a liberal supermajority in the Senate at this particular moment. I dont always agree with the NRA, but if it werent for them a lot of these liberal, nanny-state wet dream proposals would be the law by now, and my 2nd Amendment rights would only exist in theory.

 

[moreluck]

Colorado movie theater massacre suspect learns if he could face execution | Fox News