Why teachers with guns won’t stop massacres
jaquen | Wikimedia Commons | Text by Dan
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said yesterday that having public schoolteachers armed with firearms is worth discussing, in the wake of the massacre in Newton, Conn. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has more or less said the same thing. Del. Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, has put in a bill mandating teachers-with-guns. Others in the pro-gun crowd are chiming in, so there seems to be some support coalescing around the idea that more guns are a solution to massacre tragedies like Newton and others.
They aren’t though. They’re an illogical band-aid, one that no doubt warms of the hearts of NRA nuts like Wayne LaPierre, who will say and do anything to goose gun sales in America.
The idea is criminally dumb. It ought to disqualify any politician who raises it from ever holding any office ever again. I can use the pro-gunners own “logic” to demonstrate why.
• Not every teacher is going to carry a gun, but the ones that do will have it in their purse or in a secure holster, or locked in a desk drawer where the kiddies can’t get it. They are not going to walk around each day expecting a massacre during classes, or walk around with a 9 mm pistol in their hands. Thus, it will be easy for a suicidal maniac armed with an AR-15 to get the drop on them.
• It is not at all unheard of for police officers to get killed with their own guns, after a recalcitrant suspect takes it away from the cop. Why should we expect this to be any different with teachers? Just one day last week there were something like 9 fights in one day at Patrick Henry High School, according to my son who is a student there. Do we need to teach school staff karate and jujitsu (in addition to gun safety) just so they can prevent some angry school bully from disarming them and capturing their guns?
• Even if armed teachers does deter school massacres — something that’s eminently debatable — it won’t necessarily deter any massacres in other places. It will merely push the problem to other so-called “gun-free zones” such as churches, temples, malls, movie theaters, high school (or college, or pro) football games, hospitals or anyplace else large numbers of people gather and are not exactly expecting a massacre-like attack.
So the next time some lunatic with a semiautomatic rifle shoots up a movie theater, will Govs. Bob McDonnell and Rick Perry called suggest armed ticket-takers, ushers, and popcorn-sellers? And the next time it happens in a Sikh temple, will they suggest armed clergy? And the next time it happens in a Safeway parking lot, with they suggest armed supermarket bagboys?
More guns is THEIR logic, in a society where there are more people on psychiatric meds than ever before.
It is not the answer though. There has to be a better one than always, more guns.
December 19, 2012 - 4:31 PM
Dan,
Police are trained now in these situations to LIMIT the fatalities.
Killers or Cowards..however you want to refer to them, enter areas where they know they wont be confronted and they can do damage.
McDonnell isnt proclaming to arm every teacher. He wants to discuss allowing administrators or certain faculty be trained.
I would like to ask if there have been any school massacres in schools that have School Resource Officers in Virginia? They are armed, and it seems that since most VA schools have these, we haven’t seen any K-12 instances in VA. I Wonder Why?
Please give Your plan to prevent these? If so we will all be at peace.
Does DETERING lead to PREVENTION?
Another potential issue: cops may mistake armed teachers/staff for the perp and shoot *them*.
I have a friend on Facebook who is rabidly pro-gun. He appears to have become psychotic since Sunday. He started posting stuff on Sunday and is just posting more and more insanity. Yesterday he posted a cartoon picture of Obama as Hitler and posted stuff about how the Nazi’s took away everyone’s guns. If it weren’t for the fact that I’ve known him since I was 14 years old and dearly love his mom, I would have already unfriended him. If I say anything to him it will just add fuel to the fire and I’ll receive a stupid little rant. Insanity at its finest.
Dan,
An interesting poll shows that more Americans believe that arming school officials would be more effective than banning guns.
Of more interest is that they believe decreasing violence in tv/movies/video games etc… would be more effective and even more effective would be better mental health treatment.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics
Debbie, just a guess: is your friend white, male, over thirty-five, and already suspicious of Obama before this tragedy? That seems to be the current profile of the typical paranoid gun zealot. Not all who fit those criteria are like that (e.g. Jason), but Dan’s VCDL picnic photo from last summer gives a pretty typical idea of their demographics.
I have been posting under the alias of Alfred. Seeing that some folks stick their necks way out by giving their real name, I have decided to use my last name to identify myself. As most people call me just ‘Newman’, I will not include my first name.
————————————
People have been comparing guns to automobiles. They say cars kill too, so why not ban cars. Fair enough.
The irony is, much more training is required to drive than to carry a concealed handgun.
To get my concealed carry permit in Virginia I:
1) Paid $25 and watched an internet video on handgun safety, took and passed the 15 question multiple guess test whereupon I was issued an official looking certificate of competence.
2) Filled out the state form and with the official looking certificate attached, turned that in with the registration fee.
3) Waited two weeks and got my new Concealed Carry Permit in the mail.
To get my drivers license I:
1) Took, and passed, the required driver training classroom course in high school. I don’t remember how many total hours that was, but way more than a 20 min. video.
2) Took, and passed, the test to obtain a “learner’s permit” that allowed me to train with a licensed adult in the car with me for up to six months.
3) Took, and passed, multiple hours of behind the wheel driver training with a certified instructor. I don’t remember the fee for those, but I am sure it was more than $25.
4) Even though I had passed all the required training, I still had to drive around the block with a state trooper in the car. Once he was satisfied, he gave me a temporary driver’s license.
5) Went before a judge to be lectured about the responsibilities of driving before being issued a permanent driver’s license by the court.
I don’t think banning certain firearms is going to solve the mass shooting problem, but if people are going to insist that all citizens be allowed to carry and conceal a handgun, the training should at least be as in depth as driver training.
Why dismiss the idea before having a discussion about it. Requiring teachers to pack heat is over the top but allowing certified individuals to carry concealed at work may help the issue. While there are some folks who are off the hook gun bozos in addition to being concealed carriers the majority of CCs you never will know about because they are so discreet about it. I know carriers who have family members that do not know when they carry. Having the firearm makes you a target and responsible concealed carriers know this. It is unlikely that a school teacher who is packin’ will let it slip that they are. Blatantly poo-pooing an idea is a big part of the problem the country is in now in all arenas.
Having teachers carrying guns is simply not the answer. Having school resource officers in the schools, more training for teachers on how and what to do in these situations is important. I am a teacher and I feel there are many layers…gun control, increase funding to local/federal mental health agencies, educating the public and parents on mental illness, providing resources and supports to families experiencing mental illness and school safety.. conversation on all 3 issues have begun and needs to continue.
“Thus, it will be easy for a suicidal maniac armed with an AR-15 to get the drop on them.”
And it’s so difficult now?
In a scenario like VT, where the shooter went from room to room, there could have been an opportunity to stop him, even if the gun were locked in a desk. The first room might not have had enough warning, but the other rooms that knew he was coming in time to barricade themselves in would also have had time to take aim with a weapon, had they had one.
“It is not at all unheard of for police officers to get killed with their own guns…”
But I’m sure you’re not going to try to make a case that, because of this, police officers should not be armed.
“Even if armed does deter school massacres — something that’s eminently debatable — it won’t necessarily deter any massacres in other places.”
So we talk about other solutions for other places. Why does everyone seem to think we have to come up with a “one-size-fits” all solution for every possible scenario?
BTW, what’s your opinion on providing teachers with tasers vs. firearms?
“An interesting poll shows that more Americans believe that arming school officials would be more effective than banning guns.”
–Comment by mikeO
If I’m not mistaken, mikeO was the one arguing against income tax increases on the rich, under the logic that while it would raise money, it would not raise nearly enough to close the budget gap.
Now, mikeO seems to be arguing that teachers should be armed, even though he would be forced to admit that this would not solve the problem of massacres in movie theaters, Sikh temples, shopping malls or supermarket parking lots.
Disconnect there!
“even though he would be forced to admit that this would not solve the problem of massacres in movie theaters, Sikh temples, shopping malls or supermarket parking lots.”
Well Dan, we’re not talking about any of those things. We’re specifically talking about how to address the problem in schools.
The solution to massacres in schools will not likely be the same as the solution to massacres in movie theaters or malls. Since those are all very different places and circumstances.
And NONE of it is going to get solved unless people, just for a while, lay off trying to come up with snarky comebacks and actually engage in a rational discussion. The bickering about “rabid pro-gunners” and “anti-gun liberal zealots” has to stop. We all want the same thing here. No one wants more children to die, or anyone else for that matter.
And leave the godforsaken NRA out of it. They do not represent all gun owners. Taking clever verbal shots at the NRA isn’t very helpful either.
Dan,
I know it is “orange” season but you are mixing them with “apples”; and I was not a participant in the survey…
However, ill bite;
I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong but; are you suggesting by the analogy, that I said, money raised from “rich” will solve “part of the problem”, but not fix the entire problem and is thereby not worthy?
Using that logic “arming” teachers would solve “part” of the problem but not your theaters, temples, etc… So you must be in favor of it.
My only comment on the “school official” issue was that the Gov. said it was worthy of discussion, and this poll bears that out.
Sadly, liberal politicians now want to “use” this tragedy to limit discussion to their own goals and no real solution for the problem.
Yes, just like “taxing the rich” will not solve the problem of our runaway “spending”; “arming” school officials will not solve the problem of “nuts” who choose to take others lives. The difference is we know that the former could turn to a negative and the latter has not been tried.
Not for nothing but guns are the answer to guns is pretty much a “one-size-fits” all answer too.
@Sandi “Not for nothing but guns are the answer to guns is pretty much a “one-size-fits” all answer too.”
Not to me. That’s why I’d like to see a real discussion of ALL the possibilities. Let’s talk about the merits of assault weapon bans (I’m not a supporter myself, but let’s talk about it…we know it’s going to be on the table). Let’s talk about the pros and cons of armed teachers and principals. Let’s talk about the possibility of armed policeman in schools. Let’s talk about more basic security measures, like bullet proof classroom doors that lock from the inside. An honest discussion should include all of these things, and the solution is likely to be a combination of measures. Immediately dismissing any idea because it comes from a Democrat or a Republican is not going to advance the conversation.
We took our kids out of the public schools partly because of the actions of an SRO. Now you want them in elementary schools too? No thanks. And I might be wrong, but I believe SROs are not trained for confronting an armed intruder. Maybe someone can clarify that for me.
I’m a teacher and would not want teachers to carry any type of firearms. I would support having a few weapons locked in a secure location (say a gun safe) in the school. I’ve sat quietly on the floor in the corner of my classroom with 20 small children during a “lockdown”. Scary stuff – you feel completely vulnerable – like a sitting duck. If someone wants to break the glass on the locked door and enter the room, nothing will stop them. I think it would make everyone involved feel more empowered if they knew the “armed good guys”(trained school personnel) are also in the building working to “eradicate the problem”.
1) I suspect that it won’t be long before some, not all, of the gun nuts start to question the patriotism of teachers like Todd in SW City, because they do not want to carry a gun.
2) The main point here, folks, is that the end to this arm-teachers, arm-preachers, arm-ushers stuff comes only when EVERYONE is armed. That includes every employee in a private business, too, btw, because all of us know that workplace massacres are more common than school massacres.
3) The first time some teacher with a Glock fails to thwart a classroom massacre, some nut out there is going to call the teacher a gutless commie and THEN suggest, feigning wisdom: “Well, THAT didn’t work. I guess we’ll have to arm the students!”
And THEN, every sensible parent will take their kids out of public schools. Which is probably what some of these Neanderthal thinkers want.
I say arm the teachers and the students, that will be a sight better than what we have in place now, which is nothing but fake hopeful security. Guns are good when used the right way. You don’t need an assault weapon, all you need is a good handgun that can hit it’s target at about 15 yards. You guys need to make sure that your wives can shoot well, take them to the range if you need to. You have a responsibility to protect your family, friends and those at your churches. Don’t listen to all this liberal mumbo jumbo, we need men in today’s world, not a bunch of panty waist, fraidy cats.
Lets cut spending on schools, stuff the classrooms, overwork the teachers, then make sure plenty of firearms are on hand. What could possibly go wrong with that plan.
I’m a teacher and a gun owner. I would be more than willing to conceal and carry at work, because it’s better to be safe than sorry. If I did conceal and carry then I would be concerned about breaking up a fight and that would be a discussion that is needed and is a valid point. The point I don’t understand is outlawing guns, even assault rifles. There are more than enough out there now to cause a problem and we need to remember criminals don’t follow the laws, hence they are called criminals. So why would changing the laws help? Please answer that one, outlawing drugs has not stopped the drug problem, prohibition didn’t keep people from drinking either. I think there is not one easy solution, but I think that arming teachers would be a step in the right direction and a small part of the solution.
I don’t want to carry a gun at school, but I would. I surely would.
I, too, have hidden, huddled in the corner of a darkened room with my class. Sometimes there are one or two who don’t recognize the severity of the situation and wiggle and giggle (and pass gas). Other teachers and I have wondered how many darkened rooms an assailant would need to pass before figuring out that we ARE in the rooms. We worry about the kids who are in the hallway, or the restroom, or travelling between classes, or in the big glassy cafeteria. We worry about being on the playground or loading cars and buses. Long ago, I remember a fellow teacher telling me about sitting in a meeting with a parent and looking down to see a pistol in the woman’s purse. Damn!
I don’t know the right thing to do. I’d rather not carry a gun. I’ve never owned one and I’ve only twice have I fired one. I’d rather the teachers on either side of me protect my babies and me, but they might rather I protect them. Yes…I would learn and carry if it were required. I know a lot of teachers who already have guns. By-the-way, I am a woman and have been teaching a looong time.
I see what you are saying Mike O, sadly, conservative politicians now want to “use” this tragedy to limit discussion of “assault weapons” ban and more funding for mental health screenings and intervention and to further their own goals of no real solution for the problem.
Yes, just like “armed teachers” will not solve the problem of mass shootings, banning “assault weapons” might not solve the problem of “nuts” who choose to take other’s lives. The difference is we know that the former could turn to a negative and the latter has no real down side.
I am still waiting for someone who so dearly and desperately clings to the second amendment to explain to me why the obvious qualifier that begins the prose is so vehemently denied. What, exactly, about a “well regulated militia” do they not understand?
And since I am new to this blog, I will just say that I am a Democrat, life long, a hunter, a fisherman, and an owner of several guns. Is there a place for me in this discussion?
Society has an issue-lets bring the discussion of violence in movies and video games into the picture-that is the real problem-yes let us discuss limitations on free speech-that will start them howling!
The reason gunman choose theaters and school is because they are guaranteed of an unarmed target group. Teacher don’t have to pack heat. They just have to convince the bad guy that there is a possibility they may be packing heat. It’s the equivalent of parking a police car out front.
Liberal politicians brought up “assault weapons” Sandi, not conservatives.
“Neanderthal thinkers ”
Is that some of that new civility we’ve been hearing about?
Dan
I am for much more gun control and banning rapid fire machine guns. But I’d also be more comfortable if I knew that a few well trained teachers or administrators had access to a gun in an emergency. It just doesn’t seem appropriate to be completely at the mercy of one of these shooters without a hope of defense.
Sorry Dan, it is your logic that is criminally stupid. Police officers don’t walk around with their guns in their hands either. They carry them in security holsters to keep people from getting to them. So using your logic, the police might as well not carry either because the a criminal might get the drop on them since the cop has his gun in his holster.
And again, it is the anti-gun lobby that is criminally stupid for blaming the gun and thinking that a law is going to stop things like this. What is truly moronic is the people who refuse to lock up criminals and criminally insane people because it is unpleasant for them to live their life institutionalized. No, no, much better to return them to the community to victimize others. Then these same geniuses who want to return unstable people to society wail and moan about turning schools into prisons if anyone dare suggest even the most reasonable, common sense security measures.
No, no. It makes much more sense to blame the gun, lobby to ban guns and ignore the fact that there are already more than enough guns in the US to arm every adult in the country.
So what would be the end result be when a teacher who is armed, and has that one kid who tries his last nerve and one day loses it, pulls out the gun and kills all his students?
The idea is criminally dumb. It ought to disqualify any politician who raises it from ever holding any office ever again. I can use the pro-gunners own “logic” to demonstrate why.
Text by Dan
The logic that follows his text is criminally dumb. CCP holders, more often than not, make a positive difference in such situations; and, must accept the potential adverse consequences and risk of taking action. Designated gun free zones are targets of deranged perpetrators which is statistically proven. Eliminating such gun free zones by allowing CCP holders to carry has minimal cost and overwhelming potential benefits. One person can make a difference.
Anyone of the school administrators or teachers involved with the shooting at Sandy Hook could have made difference if they had just gotten a single shot off as Lanza shot himself upon hearing sirens. Every teacher doesn’t need to be armed; just one. The real security comes from the CCP holder being potentially everyone or anyone. As to other gun free target zones a CCP should be a permit to carry anywhere and everywhere we want to be safe. Imagine, some security everywhere.
BTW; this proposal doesn’t add more guns…but would take advantage of the guns and CCP holders already existing. This diatribe of Lypocrisy is contrary to known facts and statistics and makes the erroneous assumption that gun owners, and CCP holders in particular, are not responsible or safe in their handling of firearms. Reality is the exact opposite of this assumption. CCP holders are among the most law abiding and responsible citizens we have as demonstrated by their ability to obtain a permit, their voluntary acceptance of the responsibility in owning and carrying a weapon, and by any measure of crime statistics they are a safe
and lsw abiding group.
We also know that banning or controlling guns does not work except for law abiding citizens so any additional such control only facilitates the
deranged perps. Such action only makes sense if the goal sought is not the protection of the children but rather gun control for some political agenda. Liberals already support abortion; risking our children to deranged perps by ignoring common sense solutions in lieu of political gain is not a far leap as they are now demonstrating in the limelight of the Sandy Hook victims.
“The logic that follows his text is criminally dumb. CCP holders, more often than not, make a positive difference in such situations; and, must accept the potential adverse consequences and risk of taking action. Designated gun free zones are targets of deranged perpetrators which is statistically proven. Eliminating such gun free zones by allowing CCP holders to carry has minimal cost and overwhelming potential benefits. One person can make a difference.”
–Comment by Leon
Leon, they are making a difference all right — though not necessarily in ways you comprehend.
Irritated dude in pizza line shoots another antsy customer.
MORE great moments in concealed carry!
Welcome, perch.
Yes, just like “armed teachers” will not solve the problem of mass shootings, banning “assault weapons” might not solve the problem of “nuts” who choose to take other’s lives. The difference is we know that the former could turn to a negative and the latter has no real down side.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 19, 2012 @ 8:30 pm
IMO; the elimination of gun free target zones has no down side and the banning of assualt weapons has been proven to be totally ineffective.
The liberal assumptions provided by Sandi represent a political agenda; not a solution.
You don’t need an assault weapon, all you need is a good handgun that can hit it’s target at about 15 yards
comment by Kendra
Kendra, how would that have helped protect against Malvo’s Bushmaster that was 100 yards away, which he used against people loading groceries and pumping gas?
Perch, there is always room for more voices if they are not more interested in insults than conversation, we have plenty of those already.
Big Hokie asks: “So why would changing the laws help?” Sure, I will try to answer that one. The reason we ban, restrict or outlaw something is to make the strong statement that we, as a society do not want it, support it, or believe it is acceptable. It is our highest form of refusal. Does that ever absolutely stop people from doing it and breaking the law? Of course not, but we seldom repeal a law or ban just because some people refuse to abide by it. Would the world be better if we gave up and said do all the drugs you want just because the laws do not stop everyone? Drunk Drivers? Rape, Robbery, Assault, Vandalism?? You can go down the list. We do not make laws thinking they will end every instance of behavior we do not want in our society. We make laws for the kind of society we are working to have and we punish people who break the laws. Sometimes even before they hurt someone.
You are correct, there is no one solution and none of them are going to be easy, or cheap. I am not against arming school personnel, but it is a sad admission of our failure.
E. Duane – I would imagine some sort of mental testing would be required for the teacher who want to carry.
So terps’s post came to my mind as the closest to my thinking. Im sure this will bring down a pile of no way, but I’d trade away having a designated person at schools with access to arms for a ban on private ownership of automatic and semi automatic weapons.
Where does the money come from? Defense.
Dan@32…Dan, surely know that human beings are not perfect. CCP holders
are human. Your referenced case will be decided in the courts as to whether it was a justifiable use of a weapon. Despite how it is resolved
the statistics are clear that, much more often than not, CCP holders are
a positive for society. For every bad scenerio you can blog there are a hundred successful and positive actions to contradict the negative light which you, in your bias, cast upon CCP holders. CCP holders all must accept that any use of their weapon will be scrutinized from a legal standpoint. They accept and take this risk to protect themselves, their loved ones and frequently, complete strangers. This is considerably more
responsibility than you undertake in misrepresenting the undeniable positive impact CCP holders have in reducing crime.
Leon conveniently never offers those proven facts and statistics he claims.
For over four years I have read posts from those who carry guns everywhere they go and not one of them has claimed to have been their own or anyone else’s security. Only someone living in a cave does not know that there is always the possibility of a “CCP holder being potentially everyone or anyone”. I will take my chances in “gun free target zones” any day rather than turn “security” over to the people who post as CCP advocates. IMO, that is insecurity everywhere. Their “creativity” in presenting information is nothing to brag on, I’m just sayin’.
There is nothing stopping us from already taking “advantage of the guns and CCP holders already existing”. We do not find that statistically or actually to be a blessing. This is not about gun owners per se, this is about how killers, especially mass shooters, get their weapons so easily when they are often later reported to be “disturbed”. That matters to us, why does it not matter to you?
I admit I have not seen every post, has even one gun advocate here expressed one word about the irresponsible gun owner who allowed her disturbed son access to her guns? She cost her own life and many others, but she was a “law abiding gun owner”.
) I suspect that it won’t be long before some, not all, of the gun nuts start to question the patriotism of teachers like Todd in SW City, because they do not want to carry a gun.
2) The main point here, folks, is that the end to this arm-teachers, arm-preachers, arm-ushers stuff comes only when EVERYONE is armed. That includes every employee in a private business, too, btw, because all of us know that workplace massacres are more common than school massacres.
3) The first time some teacher with a Glock fails to thwart a classroom massacre, some nut out there is going to call the teacher a gutless commie and THEN suggest, feigning wisdom: “Well, THAT didn’t work. I guess we’ll have to arm the students!”
And THEN, every sensible parent will take their kids out of public schools. Which is probably what some of these Neanderthal thinkers want.
Comment by Dan Casey — December 19, 2012 @ 7:14 pm
The logic is overboard. Simply let a CCP be for everywhere; eliminate the gun free target zones. The security for Todd and his class might well
be the teacher one door up the hall which he will not realize until action
is necessary or a situation develops. The main point should be. . .the bad guys are armed; self defense is OK. . .let those with the courage and responsibility to provide such do so.
BTW; if I could afford to get my child out of public school I’d Neanderthal my way to it. Better education is better education.
What, exactly, about a “well regulated militia” do they not understand?comment by Perch
Perch, welcome to the blog from another fellow gun owner and supporter of common sense public safety measures.
The politically motivated and tortured logic that Justice Scalia used in his (hypocritically activist) D.C. v. Heller decision a few years ago claimed to find a personal right to bear arms that many, many years of previous Supreme Courts did not. He made semantic and logical contortions to claim that the first part of the 2A, the part about a well regulated militia, meant nothing. Some respecter of original intent that Scalia is, huh?
In reality it hasn’t made a major difference, though; it was essentially just justifying the status quo of gun ownership, with an eye to facilitating putting more guns into more public places. But like other poorly justified SCOTUS decisions, it’s time may be limited. And make no mistake, the reasoning in D.C. v. Heller was as strained in pursuit of a political end as the Dred Scott decision.
I admit I have not seen every post, has even one gun advocate here expressed one word about the irresponsible gun owner who allowed her disturbed son access to her guns? She cost her own life and many others, but she was a “law abiding gun owner”.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 19, 2012 @ 10:22 pm
What have you heard, read or been told that makes you assume she was an irresponsible gun owner. My guess is it’s simply your liberal bias.
has even one gun advocate here expressed one word about the irresponsible gun owner who allowed her disturbed son access to her guns?
question from Sandi
Sandi, I’m not sure they have; I haven’t seen one. On last Thursday, a description of her personal armory would have surely had them applauding her. But I did see the VCDL gun extremist and Blacksburg real estate middleman John Wilburn, four days after the child slaughter, post about how great and fun the Bushmaster type rifle used was. I haven’t seen any indication that the victims are more than abstractions to him, though, which may be a necessary mindset to keep on thinking the child slaughter weapon is so much fun that he’d publicly praise it that much.
37.Leon conveniently never offers those proven facts and statistics he claims.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 19, 2012 @ 10:22 pm
If you are really interested in this issue rather than a liberal political agenda it will only take you a very short amount of time to get up to speed on the statistics. Take a break from blogging instead of spreading you Lypocrisy. I’ll not waste my time on doing it for you.
@ Kendra 7:38
Just to clarify – A gun makes a man?
and
@ E Duane 9:21
dude……really?
Sandi. . .for the lazy or liberally impaired: http://www.naturalnews.com/038404_massacres_gun_owners_defense.html
There have been several cases of teachers having sex with students and other stupid things. How would you know which teachers you could trust with a gun?
I don’t think banning certain firearms is going to solve the mass shooting problem, but if people are going to insist that all citizens be allowed to carry and conceal a handgun, the training should at least be as in depth as driver training.
Comment by NEWMAN — December 19, 2012 @ 5:25 pm
When I went to HS in this State Hunter Safety programs were taught in school. IMO, safety and proper care and usage of firearms is a parental responsibility.
Guess the NRA member who wrote this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
“The reason gunman choose theaters and school is because they are guaranteed of an unarmed target group.”
And how would they know nobody in a theater is packing, Henry. I guarantee you that some of the heat packers on this blog carry their guns to the movies.
I’ll tell you, Dan, that Florida stand your ground law is just the greatest. With such a handy excuse, you can shoot teens who won’t turn down their music, obnoxious pizza customers, and suspicious-looking dark-skinned people carrying Skittles.
” If someone wants to break the glass on the locked door and enter the room, nothing will stop them. ”
I know something that will stop them. A 9mm round to the torso will stop them.
“And how would they know nobody in a theater is packing, Henry”
Easy. The theater did not allow Conceal Carry. There was sign out front.
Oh, the heresy! Henry already is re-evaluating his fealty to the great one.
Goodlatte is on a key committee to move gun control through the Congress. He’s already said he will support no responsible gun safety laws. For those who voted for him, elections have consequences. We cannot let the gun zealots make our laws any longer. The majority of voters understand change is required to insure a safer society. We must take our country back from the lobbyists, the extremists, and the uninformed.
Teresa,
Rep. Goodlatte has been known to change his mind, when he detects a change in the mind of yhe electorate. RECALL, his explanation for abandoning his pledge to serve no more than 12 years: the public didn’t care about term limits anymore.
Thus, if Goodlatte detects that the public has a mind for gun control, he’ll let that legislation through.
Original post:
“it won’t necessarily deter any massacres in other places. It will merely push the problem to other so-called “gun-free zones” such as churches, temples, malls, movie theaters, high school (or college, or pro) football games, hospitals…”
Yes, we need to abolish “gun free zones” across the board.
NEWMAN:
“Seeing that some folks stick their necks way out by giving their real name, I have decided to use my last name to identify myself.”
The biggest thing your risking is repetitive, ugly, personal badmouthing from the cowrdly classless anonymous blog entity known as Warren who may drag you or some impied refernce to you through the mud with nearly everything he posts. Whtever you do don’t disagree with him.
Warren:
“35.You don’t need an assault weapon, all you need is a good handgun that can hit it’s target at about 15 yards
comment by Kendra
Kendra, how would that have helped protect against Malvo’s Bushmaster that was 100 yards away, which he used against people loading groceries and pumping gas?”
How are shootings in school halways and classrooms anywhere near 100 yard shots?
And what was the purpose of spending all day again talking trash about me? Life sure must have dealt you the Short straw….
NEWMAN:
“the training [to carry a concealed handgun] should at least be as in depth as driver training.”
One’s rights should not have the barrier to access that one’s privileges have.
Warren:
“But I did see the VCDL gun extremist and Blacksburg real estate middleman John Wilburn, four days after the child slaughter, post about how great and fun the Bushmaster type rifle used was.”
Was this just to slander me and my business? That had nothing whatsoever to do with anything here. Why is attacking my business tolerated here, Dan? As for the second part, you’re making some stuff up; I defended the AR-15′s capabilities a few days after the shootings, but you were dancing in the blood of first graders pushing your political agenda THREE HOURS after the shootings.
Teresa:
“We must take our country back from… the uninformed.”
I’ve read you thougths on guns a number of times and you are not that well informed. Sorry.
Warren @ 5:13 pm, you nailed it.
“Easy. The theater did not allow Conceal Carry. There was sign out front.”
We already know that doesn’t stop some of our carriers on the blog.
For this to be a good idea some assumptions need to be made:
-no teacher with a gun would ever use it irresponsibly or in anger.
-the chances of a student ever gaining control of the gun would need to be zero.
-parents would be OK with it by a large percentage preventing a mass exodus to home schooling.
These are false assumptions in my opinion. It seems odd to me that many who think our teachers are currently too incompetent to do the job they are trained to do are arguing that arming them to do something they are not trained to do is a good idea.
The bottom line is that schools are statistically among the safest places in our society. Pull up the statistics and compare the likliehood of getting shot in a private residence where guns are often readily available and schools where they are banned. The fact is schools are safer and while 26 people is a lot-it is a drop in the bucket when it comes to homicides by gun in our country (over 10,00 per year). I know perception>reality on this issue, but this problem isn’t school specific.
I am not going to make a clean sweep and say that every gun lover on this blog is like this; but most of you have a RAMBO complex.
You imagine yourself big and bad with your gun(s)… then all of a sudden lurking out of the thick jungle brush at Starbucks, a drug lord appears with his ninjas! And not just any old ninja! Ninjas that trained in Antartica, clubbing baby seals and walking to school in the snow up hill both ways… you know real hard-a$$es!
Then there you are, reading your latest edition of Highlights for children, struggling to figure out a six letter word that means redneck in proper English,you notice them walking in with their Obama buttons and Koran. Then you whip out your concealed 240G machinegun! Belt fed, air cooled, cyclic rate of 1000 rounds a minute! Manly weapon! Max effective range of 1800 meters! You take out all of them nasty ninjas trying to rob Starbucks!The bastards almost spilled your nonfat latte with soy (because you are lactose intolerant)and after that you are given a key to the city. Mitt Romney and Charlton Heston, make you the poster boy for weapons in America! You then go on to be the president of the USA and the NRA at the same time… and who knew all of this would start from a guy with a third grade education, 4 ex-wives and a partridge in a pear tree…
*No ninjas were harmed in the making of this post.
JohnW, kind of s bummer to be on the other end of “stupid people shouldn’t get to ______” , isn’t it.
#54”If someone wants to break the glass on the locked door and enter the room, nothing will stop them. ”
I know something that will stop them. A 9mm round to the torso will stop them.
You’re right and this old girl, who dislikes guns, is willing to learn and carry! I, too, have practiced hiding with my students in a darkened room. A room with a big outside window and two inside windows which makes it very hard to find places to hide. There are always one or two CHILDREN who behave as children do, giggling and wiggling (and passing gas) or telling me they have to go to the bathroom, no matter how I’ve explained the situation. You can’t suggest I tell them anything I haven’t already told them in all these years. And I do have classroom control, but they are KIDS, DARLING KIDS and they behave as children do, which is what I love about them and what makes them so vulnerable! Other teachers and I have wondered how many darkened rooms a shooter would have to pass before realizing that hundreds of children didn’t just disappear into thin air. That we ARE in the classrooms. We worry about children caught in the hallways, in the big glassy cafeteria, the gym, the restrooms, the playground, boarding buses or unloading cars. I don’t know the answer. I just know I’d feel safer if I had a responsible, well-trained, armed person near us.
One more thing… For Heaven’s Sake, Duane! “So what would be the end result be when a teacher who is armed, and has that one kid who tries his last nerve and one day loses it, pulls out the gun and kills all his students?”
There are kids who pluck our last nerves all the time. Don’t you think teachers accept that as a given? I haven’t heard of any teachers stabbing them with their apple paring knives!
I cannot believe I’ve let myself get involved with this blog!
By-the-way, it’s not the kids who get on our last nerves. It’s the administrators! JUST KIDDING!
A link to a thoughtful article by a sportswriter. The best observations are from the NRA members.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8759364/sports-reaction-newtown
“Henry already is re-evaluating his fealty to the great one.”
This is why the civility stuff is a bunch of crap. Instead of focusing on the argument, you are playing ridiculous strawman games with the poster. And it’s your blog. The “civility” notion is an attempt to silence people you don’t like, not make the blog a better place. That much is obvious.
If you want to know what I think, ask me. Don’t tell me what I think.
That was written in 1991, years after liberals were crowing about Reagan having Alzheimer’s.
As a police officer and a teacher, if a teacher and the school administration feel comfortable with a teacher being armed, I have no problem with that. As a parent of a school aged child, I would want my son’s teacher able to protect him is necessary. Because it all boils down to this; there are evil people is this world. When this evil comes, do you want to be a sheep and hide in a corner, hoping for someone to come save you, or do you want to have the ability to save yourself? I chose to not become a victim, and am willing to bet the parents of my students would rather me be prepared to protect their kids than be like a flock of sheep waiting to be slaughtered.
There are heads that it would be very uncomfortable to be in. Not to mention confusing.
I do not think that you folks are actually clear on what you are saying. One day you are here b&m to the skies over how awful, irresponsible, lacking and pitiful parents are, now suddenly, “safety and proper care and usage of firearms is a parental responsibility“. And do I even need to mention the verbal slaughter you offer teachers, schools and education regularly and now you want to “arm the teachers and the students“?
Yes indeed, “let those with the courage and responsibility to provide such do so“, after all, what could go wrong?
I would really love for folks like John Wilburn, Leon, Pistol Pete, Suzie, Lake Claytor, Chuck, Mike O, and certainly Henry, to be responsible for classroom safety. I am so thankful I do not have grandchildren.
@Sandi Saunders: “I would really love for folks like John Wilburn, Leon, Pistol Pete, Suzie, Lake Claytor, Chuck, Mike O, and certainly Henry, to be responsible for classroom safety. I am so thankful I do not have grandchildren.”
I’m sad to be left out, but I’m sure it is because I believe that my family also has a right to not be slaughtered at Valley View Mall, where we unfortunately frequent about once every two to three years, where, by the way, it is not illegal to carry a gun.
@gdad: “We already know that doesn’t stop some of our carriers on the blog.”
In some states those signs carry the force of law. I’m not certain about Colorado in that regard. In Virginia, however, they do not. If you’ve ever snuck a bag of candy into a movie with you, you’re guilty of the same thing, violating their rules.
Later taters, gotta bounce.
Oh for goodness sakes, Henry, lighten up. I was kidding with that comment, and it was not uncivil.
And besides, Reagan was was a gun-controller long before he ever ran for president:
“Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”
You have got to wonder what it is that Henry considers to be uncivil. The obvious answer from his posts, is anything a liberal, Democrat or progressive person posts. Henry, your call outs are as selective as any on the blog.
I am sure that you too would make a fine classroom guard Jack. I hope you are appreciative of the sacrifice this nation makes for your right to guns.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-deaths-in-america-projected-to-soon-top-car-fatalities-8426644.html
So, if we give teachers guns so that they are “able” to return fire and “protect the children”…does it then follow that they become REPONSIBLE for doing this? And then liable if they fail?
Arming teachers is no answer.
Henry just needs a good cry…
wilbert:
“For this to be a good idea some assumptions need to be made:
-no teacher with a gun would ever use it irresponsibly or in anger.
-the chances of a student ever gaining control of the gun would need to be zero.
-parents would be OK with it by a large percentage preventing a mass exodus to home schooling.”
So what all do you do in the course of your daily life when you don’t get a 100% guarantee? The chances of the first one are as good as we’ll do. I mean, if we don’t trust teachers, who can we trust in this world? The chances of the second one can be well managed to prevent unauthorized possession. I would suggest the teachers carry either discretely on their person or in a retention holster. For some prctical reasons, I like the former, but either is valid. As for the third, when the parents didn’t pull kids in mass exodous over the Ten Commandments coming down, sex education coming in, SOLs or the other controversies, they won’t over this. Armed teachers will be a big deal in the media, but once the news stories have run their course, it will be uneventful.
Justin True, your #65 was hilarious! It’s a different kind of funny than Steve C’s essays, but I very much enjoy them.
What I would personally like to see happen is that the current law banning firearms in K-12 schools be amended to allow (ALLOW, not mandate) school employees and administrators to carry a concealed weapon, if they meet the legal requirements to do so.
Then, each school system could decide independently if they wish to implement a policy to allow any members of their staff to carry. The parents of the students would have input, and the school board would make that decision.
Forget what idiot Bob Marshall was proposing….it should never be mandatory. But the option should be there for the communities who feel it is right for them.
In the days immediately following the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, my daughter’s middle school classroom had a discussion about what they are supposed to do if a similar incident were to take place at their school. Naturally the teacher was explaining how, at the first sign of danger, they would lock the door, turn off the lights, and huddle together in a corner out of the line of sight of the door.
My daughter told me that one of her classmates asked “What do we do if the guy with the gun gets into our room?”
The teacher’s answer? “We just hope he doesn’t shoot anyone.”
Obviously that is the only answer she could give, because the current “lockdown” training doesn’t extend to what one is supposed to do if the shooter gains entrance to the room you are hiding in.
A lot of you have stated that “Armed teachers are not the answer”, but are you satisfied with the current protocol?
Is “we hope he doesn’t shoot anyone” an acceptable plan of action for you? Is that the only choice you’d want to be faced with if you were that teacher, or if your child was inside that classroom, at that moment? We HOPE he doesn’t shoot anyone?
Teachers need to have the ability to do something to protect themselves and their students, should they actually be confronted by the killer. Whether that something is having their own firearm is debatable. I concur with the problems of teachers not wanting to carry guns, not wanting to be liable for their actions with a gun, etc.
But, does that mean we offer them nothing? Is this really an “all or nothing” situation? I don’t think so. But unless people can get past the strict “Guns are the answer!” vs. “Guns are evil!” dichotomy and try to find a middle of the road solution, nothing will come of this debate, and we’ll just twiddle our thumbs until the next massacre happens, and then start blaming each other with the same old tired accusations all over again.
Arming teachers is no answer.
Comment by Kristen — December 20, 2012 @ 10:32 am
Agreed, just allow the one’s who have already armed themselves and possess valid CCP permits to carry in the no gun zones targeted by deranged perp.
I’d rather have a teacher able to return fire protecting my child rather than one whose protective action is to hide in a corner and hope the danger ignores them. One person can make a difference.
Kristen:
“Arming teachers is no answer.”
More laws is no answer. There has to be a tangible backstop and arming teachers is a good one.
VT Hokie:
“Then, each school system could decide independently if they wish to implement a policy to allow any members of their staff to carry. The parents of the students would have input, and the school board would make that decision.”
This still misses the mark as it allows for the leftist hoplophobes that make up many, if not most, school boards to ban guns, most of which would do so. If the General Assembly would protect the teachers’ right to carry and let the teachers themselves make that decision, it would be more effective. More armed guards would be a good proposal too IMO.
My son will enter kindergarten next fall. I never thought his mortality is what I would have to worry about, nor whether his teacher had a Glock strapped to her thigh.
I don’t want my baby, or anyone’s child, to be a sitting duck. I also am not comfortable with teachers being armed in the classroom. Some posters have mentioned keeping weapons locked up in a safe at the school, and having certain personnel responsible for their use if necessary. I would be okay with that; I just don’t want a gun in my son’s classroom. Those personnel who are authorized to use the weapons must be required to undergo weapons training and be proficient in their use, which of course is not required under the current VA CCP law.
VT Hokie writes:
What I would personally like to see happen is that the current law banning firearms in K-12 schools be amended to allow (ALLOW, not mandate) school employees and administrators to carry a concealed weapon, if they meet the legal requirements to do so.
My issue with this is that, especially in VA, the legal requirements to obtain a CCP are so thin that the only barrier to a CCP is a criminal record.
I’m not disagreeing outright with VT Hokie’s suggestion, but there are a huge number of variables and other cans of worms there. Among them:
(1) Communities would be very divided over whether to allow that option, as if we needed more things to argue about
(2) Teachers and other administrators would have to weigh the possibility of lawsuits, etc. should their guns ever be used in school (by themselves or someone who took them)…they would also probably need extra insurance
(3) School board personnel (using VT’s model) could potentially be sued no matter which choice they make, depending on scenarios that play out later (a mass shooting at an ‘unarmed’ school vs. an accidental shooting at one that is legally ‘armed’, for instance).
My guess is that only a tiny percentage of teachers would ever carry a gun in school under any circumstances, based on a family history full of teachers and school administrators (and friendships with many others).
FWIW, I had a H.S. teacher who kept a loaded gun openly displayed in the classroom for years (I still don’t know why). This was many years ago when I (and many other boys) had a deer rifle or squirrel gun in my car in the school parking lot in order to hit the woods as quickly as possible after school.
Thanks, JW!
Lori and Say What:
I earlier, in another blog post, made the suggestion of giving teachers access to a non-lethal means of defense like a taser, rather than a firearm. Not a perfect solution, as they would be defending themselves against someone with a lethal weapon, but still a good step up from being completely defenseless. It could disable the shooter long enough to give the kids a chance to run to safety, the armed officer on site to arrive at the scene, or the off-site police responding to the call to arrive.
It’s not a fail-safe plan, but I think it could save lives. And tasers would hopefully not trigger the huge political hoopla that any discussion of guns seems to bring about.
Nosaj — December 20, 2012 @ 8:44 am
Thanks for the great link, Nosaj. I particularly like this from the end of the essay: “I know you love hunting and target shooting. But don’t you see?
The hunted — the targets — have become us.”
Lori: “My issue with this is that, especially in VA, the legal requirements to obtain a CCP are so thin that the only barrier to a CCP is a criminal record.”
If the school is making the policy to allow CC for teachers, they could also stipulate what training they require, as a matter of policy. Or additional requirements to be permitted to CC on school grounds could be written into the law. While I don’t personally have any justification for additional requirements beyond what is currently required for citizens in general to obtain a CCP, I realize that the higher standard might make such a change in the law more palatable, I would be willing to make that concession.
John Wilburn: “This still misses the mark as it allows for the leftist hoplophobes that make up many, if not most, school boards to ban guns, most of which would do so.”
Yes, but as it stands right now guns are banned in school. So some schools would chose to maintain the status quo, but others would be free to choose a different path, without being in violation of the law.
“I don’t want my baby, or anyone’s child, to be a sitting duck. I also am not comfortable with teachers being armed in the classroom.”
Yet, the moment a murderer sets foot in that classroom, you will wish that teacher had a Glock strapped to her hip worse than anything. This sounds rooted in fear of the guns themselves. Youth firearm education and adult firearm education would do wonders for this. A properly holstered handgun is very safe to carry.
John Wilburn, I get it that in your world you really do believe any idea except your own “misses the mark” and that people who do not see the panacea you do in armed citizenry are just “leftist hoplophobes”, but surely, even you know that not all “gun free target rich environments” are the fault of “leftist hoplophobes”.
And do I really need to mention that being called a “leftist hoplophobe” is not conducive to listening to whatever your point is?
Lori and Nosaj,
Yes, interesting article. But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting.
Why do I see the NRA and other gun rights advocates helping school districts write “self defense policy” in our future? Oddly, this tragedy might give them MORE access, support and power.
Lori and VT Hokie and Say What, I appreciate your willingness to explore the many tentacles of this issue. You each make valid, reasoned points, and such discussions will help us find the viable middle ground between the extremes. Early in this thread, Mark made a very important observation that has gone unnoticed:
Another potential issue: cops may mistake armed teachers/staff for the perp and shoot *them*.
Comment by Mark — December 19, 2012 @ 5:01 pm
VT Hokie, I can see the appeal to use of tasers, though I am not sure it is reasonable to think someone could get close enough to use a taser, even the kind that extends 10-15 feet. That said, all levels of threat response should be discussed.
I chose to not become a victim, and am willing to bet the parents of my students would rather me be prepared to protect their kids than be like a flock of sheep waiting to be slaughtered.
@ Mac (8:50am)
Sounds like you’re already “packing heat” and not waiting for the politicians to hash this out. What other school protocols are you ignoring?
Jack, it has nothing to do with self defense or the defense of others either. In fact, I don’t think the ‘right’ to self-defense is enshrined anywhere in the constitution.
Yet, the moment a murderer sets foot in that classroom, you will wish that teacher had a Glock strapped to her hip worse than anything. This sounds rooted in fear of the guns themselves. Youth firearm education and adult firearm education would do wonders for this. A properly holstered handgun is very safe to carry.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 20, 2012 @ 2:25 pm
John Wilburn, in 2011, 56 police officers were killed innthe line of duty, and 7 of those were killed with the own guns. A properly holstered gun is safe, but there is still significant risk associated with carrying that gun. Gun retention is difficult, and to suggest otherwise is misleading.
At least we now know that the “lock down” concept doesn’t work. Just think, people were calling for Dr. Steger’s resignation because he didn’t “lock down” Va Tech.
Don’t forget, if you’re using a Taser you’d better make that very first shot count. It’s the only one you’ll get.
Sandi, re 8:30pm
Do you have any actual facts that conservative politicians tried to use the tragedy as you suggested? From what I have seen the only comments they made are in response to liberal attacks on gun ownership. I have not seen “one” politician suggest that mental health issues should not be addressed.
Because “you” say something does not make it true.
Here is an interesting scenario on which I would love to hear your opinion.
We know that this guy had “mental” problems and access to guns.
Given that even “liberals” admit that banning all guns will not stop those with “mental” problems from attempting to kill innocents (by whatever means).
Therefore, to solve the problem, wouldn’t the logical “solution” be for the “government” to rid society of all people with “mental” problems?
I would never suggest this as a solution; just an example of how liberals say they want to “solve” a problem, without honestly looking for a real solution (to a problem that will never be solved).
A properly holstered handgun is very safe to carry.
comment by John Wilburn
I can think of at least two reasons why John Wilburn would love this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0
I cannot help but think that Americans, with the masterful intelligence we can sometimes muster, can find a way to secure schools, or at least most schools, without arming classroom teachers. Maybe not, but I am holding out hope.
I thought they wanted Steger’s head for not telling people what had happened for over an hour.
That was part of it Sandi, but there was a lot of discussion about locking down the campus. I kept wondering about the results of that day if only one other person had been armed and trained in the use of their firearm.
I find the mental gymnastics it takes to deny even the most basic and sensible firearm regulation quite interesting. It is astonishing,
on the one hand the gun advocates minimize the number of assault weapon murders by quoting these as “only” 1- 2% of all gun incidents, but then, illogically advise the arming of teachers in every grade/every school…why? if these murderous assault weapons events are so rare…
Back in the “day”; kids were taught morals, and the danger and proper use of firearms. They now get their “training” from movies and video games.
The biggest problem now is that this type of education would take time away from teaching them how to put condoms on bananas. (just not enough time in a day for everything).
One question that comes to my mind is, given the choice, would those valiant teachers and school officials rather have had a gun instead of a pencil when confronting this nut?
Connecticut: Strictest gun laws in the country. Didn’t stop the killings. We tried it the liberals’ way, and it didn’t work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/15/what-makes-americas-gun-culture-totally-unique-in-the-world-as-demonstrated-in-four-charts/
Americans don’t just have more guns that anyone else – 270 million privately held firearms. They also have the highest gun ownership per capita rate in the world, with an average of about nine guns for every 10 Americans. The second highest gun ownership rate in the world is Yemen; yes, Americans have nearly twice as many guns per person as do Yemenis, who live in a conflict-torn Arab nation still dealing with poverty, political unrest, a separatist Shia insurgency, an al-Qaeda branch, and the aftereffects of a 1994 civil war.
We have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world by far. By the gunners logic, the US would be a peaceful crime -free Utopia. Guns aren’t making anyone any safer, and throwing more gasoline on the fire isn’t going to solve the problem.
Warren,
That’s actually a pretty funny video. I’ve watched it a hundred times over the years.
It’s silly that the guy who is supposedly the only one professional enough to carry that “Glock 40,” which is funny in and of itself because there is no such thing as a Glock 40.
What’s even sillier is that the guy is the only one professional enough to carry a “Glock 40″ and is not professional (or intelligent) enough to remember the four rules of gun safety.
What’s even sillier is that he does a buddy check and we learn that his buddy is also not professional (or intelligent) enough to remember the four rules of gun safety.
Silliest of all, though, is that this is the guy who most of the antis on this site consider to be the guy who *IS* professional enough and *IS* trained enough to carry that gun.
Thanks for making me laugh again, Warren. I do every time I watch that video.
I am not afraid of the firearms. The Glocks and the Bushmasters and the Colts are all well-designed machines that accomplish what they were designed for with a high degree of success. The gun expels a projectile at the target when the trigger is pulled. It does not see the target, sense its vulnerability or its rage. The gun does not care whether the target is a threat. The gun does not understand the devestation wrought by its projectile. A gun is a tool of death.
I do fear those who carry guns. They often do not understand or appreciate the finality of the tool they employ. The gun is an inanimate object without awareness. The tone of this debate concerns me because it seems that instead of the gun being an extension of the human being, the human has become an extension of the gun.
“I do fear those who carry guns. They often do not understand or appreciate the finality of the tool they employ. The gun is an inanimate object without awareness. The tone of this debate concerns me because it seems that instead of the gun being an extension of the human being, the human has become an extension of the gun.”
–Comment by Nosaj
What an idiotic, though otherwise law-abiding, concealed carrier. I hope he learns a lesson from this.
For anyone ill-informed:
When talking about CT and its “strictest gun laws in the country” it might be helpful to know that CT banned assault weapons in ’93 but exempted the AR-15′s to help the Hartford-based Colt Manufacturing.
It’s silly that the guy who is supposedly the only one professional enough to carry that “Glock 40,” which is funny in and of itself because there is no such thing as a Glock 40.
Comment by Jack @ 6:54 p.m.
C’mon, Jack. You know full well that the Glock 23 is a .40 caliber handgun popular with law enforcement agencies. That you find this serious incident funny is alarming. Even when conscientious people follow the cardinal rules of handgun safety, accidents happen. Such a cavalier attitude does not serve your side of the argument.
Sandi Saunders:
“And do I really need to mention that being called a “leftist hoplophobe” is not conducive to listening to whatever your point is?”
I tried to have a reasoned discussion with you on the scope of lawful carry once and you supported bans “anywhere and everywhere the people involved wanted guns banned”. That left nothing to discuss on your end.
Nosaj:
“A properly holstered gun is safe, but there is still significant risk associated with carrying that gun. Gun retention is difficult, and to suggest otherwise is misleading.”
Remember that police officers often have to move offensively against threats and confront threats many, many times over their careers. The teacher may only need to deal with such a threat one time in his or her career, but it will be in a purely defensive manner. Those huge differences make your comparison unintentionally misleading.
Warren:
“I can think of at least two reasons why John Wilburn would love this video”
I know what you’re implying. Tell the rest of us what they are, supposedly.
Nosaj:
“Even when conscientious people follow the cardinal rules of handgun safety, accidents happen.”
Not when the rules are followed. The cop was breaking ALL THREE of the basic rules for gun handling. Had he followed just ONE of the three, he would not have shot himself in the foot. For reference:
1. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
3. Always keep guns unloaded until ready to use.
He broke ALL three.
“I can think of at least two reasons why John Wilburn would love this video”…Tell the rest of us what they are
request by John Wilburn
1) Guns in the classroom, of which John Wilburn sees no downside
2) No acknowledgement that someone getting shot has any downside
What were you thinking, John?
When talking about CT and its “strictest gun laws in the country” it might be helpful to know that CT banned assault weapons in ’93 but exempted the AR-15′s to help the Hartford-based Colt Manufacturing.
Comment by Shrillary — December 20, 2012 @ 7:21 pm
As they should, seeing as how the AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
JW, the only thing misleading is your willfully intentional efforts to minimize the risks of carrying a firearm in a school setting. If concealed carry should come to pass, every employee who chooses to do so should be fully apprised of the risks and responsibilities. Doing so is fair and rational.
“Connecticut: Strictest gun laws in the country. Didn’t stop the killings. We tried it the liberals’ way, and it didn’t work.”
Explain why it worked in Australia. Gun worshippers avoid that one.
Warren:
“What were you thinking, John?”
I think that, for you, I am an expendable video game bad guy whom you would like to harm for your own amusement. Soulless anonymous bloggers can do that.
“JW, the only thing misleading is your willfully intentional efforts to minimize the risks of carrying a firearm in a school setting.”
I’m not. You and a lot of other people have over-active imaginations on this. A firearm carried concealed is not readily accessible to someone not practiced in drawing it. The holster makes it very safe and, depending on its design, can have redundant retention mechanisms designed specifically to preventanyone but the carrier from from being able to draw the gun. Did you know that a Glock has three safeties that prevent accidental discharge? A crescent-shaped piece on the trigger has to to be moved to allow the trigger to be depressed, the sear has to disengage, and a steel cylinder in the slide must be lifted to unblock the firing pin. All of those things must happen for a Glock to fire and all are accomplished by squeezing the trigger. Any modern carry holster will securely cover the trigger guard and prevent this. What the safeties do is prevent the gun from firing if dropped or if some kind of mechanical damage were present.
So, both accidental discharge and unauthorized access can be well managed.
“If concealed carry should come to pass, every employee who chooses to do so should be fully apprised of the risks and responsibilities. Doing so is fair and rational.”
I agree, but those who have greater concern over this than need be, should listen to those who carry everyday to really understand the risks. As far a responsibilities, teachers, by and large, are some of the most responsible people I know.
gdad:
“Explain why it worked in Australia. Gun worshippers avoid that one.”
It didn’t exactly work. It emboldened the criminal and overall crime went up at least until the time this was made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc
Citizens in Australia never had a right to own firearms, for starters.
Jack@123. Try and tell those kids the AR-15 was not an assault weapon. There is no more room for debate on inaction. It is time for common sense gun laws. If the pro-gun folks think otherwise, (if they think this is about taking their guns away) then it only exposes their warped sense of reality, and makes me question whether they are stable or grounded enough to even own weapons. It may not make a measurable difference, but some things have got to be changed. For those that feel likewise, forgot this blog and communicate with your elected representatives. (And yes, I am a responsible gun owner).
Yes, John Wilburn it is true that there is “nothing to discuss” between us, but you did not single me out for your “leftist hoplophobe” epithet now did you?
John Wilburn, just for clarity, would you explain how a libertarian refuses the right of others to ban guns anywhere and everywhere the people involved wanted guns banned? Are gun rights the only right that trumps private property and societal rights and decisions?
Jack, in your expert opinion, what is an assault weapon?
JW, My FIL demonstrated that with his Glock 19. He has the hard plastic holster that completely covers the trigger to prevent accidental discharge. He even dropped it a couple times to show its durability and reliability. It’s why I bought a Glock 17.
“Jack@123. Try and tell those kids the AR-15 was not an assault weapon.”
That would be like telling them there is no Easter bunny, as both are made up.
@Sandi Saunders: “Jack, in your expert opinion, what is an assault weapon?”
The term was made up, there is no such thing.
@Matt: “For those that feel likewise, forgot this blog and communicate with your elected representatives.”
Maybe we’ll see you there.
@Other John: “JW, My FIL demonstrated that with his Glock 19.”
Most modern firearms are the same way. Both my CZ and my Springfield XD, like the Glock, have no active safety devices. However, they do have passive safeties that you both see and don’t see.
You could place either of them into an appropriate holster and drop them off the building as many times as you want, and they will not discharge.
The only way that I can imagine the things going off on their own would be if there were some type of defect in the ammunition and somehow there was some kind of spark inside the casing.
As far as the firing pin hitting the primer? Won’t happen… too many things in the way.
Mike O, unless you have some sort of media blackout going on, you know that several conservative politicians and gun “enthusiasts” have tried to use the tragedy to further their gun advocacy. By screaming about the “gun free = target rich” zones and how much better things would have been if the teachers had been armed and isn’t it just a swell idea to arm teachers now and really shouldn’t we just let people with guns carry everywhere they want now that we see what can happen. Not to mention that our own Governor got in on the act. Who are you trying to kid?
This is ridiculous. First this yahoo GOP congressman Tim Huelskamp, R-Kans says he will not budge I iota on tax increases, then when ask about what happen in Conneticut, claims that video games, not guns caused the killings.
I’m sick of the GOP refusing to govern. These useless (I can’t say) need to be put out of government and fast.
Check out this out of world sick crazy nut Kansas elected:
http://tv.msnbc.com/shows/morning-joe/
I thought it was bad we our VA GOPPERs. Sheesh. Folks, our taxes are going up on Jan. 1 and full responsibility rests with the GOP.
What are we gonna do about it?
Sorry about the Easter bunny comment, I don’t mean to sound callous, but the term “assault weapon,” was made up for the purposes of writing the original AWB legislation.
How silly was that legislation? Take a look at this picture…
http://i.imgur.com/F4zyb.png
The gun on top is an “assault weapon,” according to the ban. The gun below it is not.
Functionally, they are identical. They shoot the same ammunition, at the same rate of fire (semi-automatic) at the same FPS and can accommodate the same standard size 30rd magazines.
Here’s another one… Take a look at this picture: http://i.imgur.com/LY2U6.jpg
Which one(s) do you think is/are an “assault weapon?” Some of them were classified as “assault weapons” under the first AWB, others were not. About half. But here’s a spoiler alert for you: every gun in the picture is the exact same gun.
Cold, as a nation, we are going to do the same damned thing we do on this blog. Live with it, get around it as best we can and work hard to overcome it. These folks, no matter how destructive they are, are not going anywhere, worse, they are determined to take us with them.
Sandi Saunders:
“John Wilburn, just for clarity, would you explain how a libertarian refuses the right of others to ban guns anywhere and everywhere the people involved wanted guns banned? Are gun rights the only right that trumps private property and societal rights and decisions?”
I’m not talking about “private property”, I’m talking about “everywhere”.
Jack:
“The only way that I can imagine the things going off on their own would be if there were some type of defect in the ammunition and somehow there was some kind of spark inside the casing.”
Which is an outlandish scenario – the point of the post. Cartridge casings are made of non-sparking brass to boot. It is very safe to carry a properly holstered, loaded gun.
Other John:
“It’s why I bought a Glock 17″
If you ever decide to trade-up and want to sell it, please let me know. I need a 17 for classes.
JW, I’ll keep that in mind. I’m really happy with it though, and I’ve got the .22 conversion kit for it…one of the better conversions I’ve used. My FIL had a .22 conversion for his Kimber 1911 .45 ACP. Not bad, but every so often it fails to fully eject the spent cartridge…especially after going through a few magazines at the range.
*has, he still uses it. The .45 is his regular carry weapon as well.
I’m not talking about “private property”, I’m talking about “everywhere”.
Comment by John Wilburn
So, guns are a subset of “arms” without any additional specificity needed, but private property is not a subset of everywhere? One would have to share Dave Hicks’ blind spot for logic when it comes to guns to buy that, although on the other hand, it does offer a middleman more to sell. Newly Listed! The New River Bridge on I-81! Owner financing!
Sandi, I can see that you are 100% correct. We live in a me,me,me,me world and aw shucks ain’t it a damn shame when somebody goes crazy and kills little kids. Oh well, let me shine my weapon up so when the zombies come, They ain’t gonna eat me. I’m ready for ‘em.
Congratulations.
John Wilburn, we’re still waiting for you to explain what you thought I was implying that you’d like about that video. Your first instinct was…?
The .45 is (FIL’s) his regular carry weapon as well.
comment by Other John
OJ, I’m just guessing, but might that be a preference shaped during military service? The .45 was standard issue for so long, until the 90′s when the Baretta M9 9mm replaced it, and it’s so typical to see people continue with the weapon they first had as their primary one, even when other alternatives become common.
2.Another potential issue: cops may mistake armed teachers/staff for the perp and shoot *them*.
Comment by Mark — December 19, 2012 @ 5:01 pm
Not likely; action will be over by the times cops are on the scene. Ten minutes is a long time with such situations.
John Wilburn, you seriously might consider a reading comprehension course. When I type “everywhere” it means something different than if I type “everywhere the people involved wanted”. Think about it if you need to.
Jack, you do mean to be callous, you and John Wilburn often believe your flip, caustic rebuttals are the pithy comments we deserve. Please do not pretend otherwise now. We know you take our concern as the gnats at a picnic.
You claim that assault weapon “was made up for the purposes of writing the original AWB legislation” which is very disingenuous and you know it.
The name originally derived from the military assault rifle used by the military. When gun manufacturer’s started making very similar looking weapons for sale to the public they began to be called assault weapons and since that term had no definite parameters beyond the “look” and capability of it, when they decided to ban them, they used descriptions of the many guns that could fall under that “label”. It was codified by the AWB but that is not how they came into being and they are most assuredly a class of gun. Oddly they are much in demand from those who commit assault and aspire to look like they might. We do not miss the intimidation factor of a military looking gun. Neither do you.
That legislation, partly due to the constraint of defining something so ambiguous was not the solution expected but it was a long way from being “silly”.
Any new legislation will have to address the differences you note and a better definition of the guns that fall under the class of “assault weapon”.
The Constitution does guarantee your right to be armed, it does not and never will define your right to ANY specific arm. You know that too. NOTHING in the Constitution says you can keep a gun favored by para-military thugs, drug lords and cartel members, gangs and the psychotic mass killers. Get used to it.
Such a ban will be absolutely as “effective” as a police type guard at every school, movie theater, church, mall, and bank…oh wait armed security doesn’t always stop bank robbers either.
Aw come on Cold, we will be far ahead of the game when the zombies arrive, we have had practice!
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 5:55 pm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear
Definition of BEAR
transitive verb
1
a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b : to be equipped or furnished with (something)
Are you under the impression I do not know the meanings of “bear”?
The Constitution does guarantee a right to bear arms, it does not and never will guarantee a right to bear ANY specific gun.
“it’s so typical to see people continue with the weapon they first had as their primary one, even when other alternatives become common.”
After losing a gunfight to drug dealers in 1986, the FBI decided to upgrade from 9mm to 10mm, which was purposefully made for that reason. Police departments followed suit, but after complaining about recoil, the cartridge was shortened and, the .40 S&W was born. The .45 has better stopping power than the 9, .40, or 10, but holds fewer rounds.
It is a matter of preference. I would much rather carry a .45 than a 9. 9mm is underpowered. The military likely uses it because it saves a lot of money for ammunition over the 9.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 6:36 pm
Take it up with Dan. He is the one who alleges that 2A covers all arms and that one version of arms differs from another by a continuum of such insignificant changes that reasonable folk cannot not draw any non-arbitrary line between any two — or at least that has been the core of his criticism of NRA, VCDL, etc for only promoting firearms, on a number of occasions. Others here have insisted on echoing that mantra.
So, if reasonable folk cannot distinguish between a Glock and cruise missile (as Dan & company alleges) how can they possibly fairly differentiate between the firearms various in that smaller class of small arms?
I think we will manage.
“if reasonable folk cannot distinguish between a Glock and cruise missile (as Dan & company alleges)…” claimed by Dave Hicks
That’s a 180 degree misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of what it actually is: Dan calling the bluff of those who purposely want the spectrum of guns-as-arms left as vague as possible. And that’s a truth that take a huge gun-centric blind spot to miss.
Because there’s no denying the lack of the word “guns” in the 2A, there are only two possiblities: either absolutely all arms are legal for individuals, or there’s ongoing necessity to calibrate the status of every arms type. Even most VCDL gun worshippers like Phil van Cleave acknowledge it’s not the former. So the inherent process of arms classification is an ongoing necessity, and the brighter the lines the better the clarity.
The strategy of deliberately leaving guns as vaguely defined a subset of arms as possible does not serve the gun lobby in the long run, but, in fealty to gun manufacturers, the radical post-1977 NRA and its’ allies like the VCDL allow themselves to do nothing else. In which case, and possibly for the best, others are now happy to shoulder the necessary taxonomy, and recognize that .50 caliber sniper rifles, bb guns, Bushmaster semi-automatic rifles, antique muskets and .22 target pistols each have different characteristics that we’re constitutionally required to define and assign for regulation.
So that’s the constitutional duty we’re undertaking anew in 2013, as we’ll be reassigning 2A arms types in the subset “guns” to better reflect contemporary realities. The NRA and VCDL gun worshippers are allowed to demonstrate their acknowledgement that the 2A is not absolute the same way as everyone else, by delineating with as great a degree of specificity where each gun lies in the regulation spectrum. But many others encourage them to continue ignoring the process, and pretending that any 2A ruling, including Heller, gives them some constitutional foundation for treating all guns the same.
“Take it up with Dan. He is the one who alleges that 2A covers all arms and that one version of arms differs from another by a continuum of such insignificant changes that reasonable folk cannot not draw any non-arbitrary line between any two — or at least that has been the core of his criticism of NRA, VCDL, etc for only promoting firearms, on a number of occasions. Others here have insisted on echoing that mantra.
So, if reasonable folk cannot distinguish between a Glock and cruise missile (as Dan & company alleges) how can they possibly fairly differentiate between the firearms various in that smaller class of small arms?”
–Comment by Dave Hicks
Dave, I like AND respect you, but I believe I can state my own views on the 2nd Amendment better than you can. Here they are:
1. The 2nd Amendment refers to not to the right to bear guns, but the right to bear “arms.”
2. The founding fathers deliberately did NOT limit this to “sidearms,” aka guns. They meant all arms, otherwise they would have limited it to sidearms or whatever.
3. In their day, that included muskets, cannons, bayonets, swords and whatever else.
4. Today, the definition is much broader. It includes computer-controlled howitzers, cruise missiles, Abram tanks, rail guns, nuclear bombs and all sorts of other fearsome stuff.
5. The gun-rights crowd draws an arbitrary line over what THEY believe our forefathers meant by “arms.” They believe it was limited to sidearms.
6. Yet, it is very possible to believe, in the day of single-shot muskets and cannons of our forefathers, that they meant the arms commonly available when they enacted the 2nd Amendment.
7. If I say, “they did not mean machine guns, or cruise missiles,” I am drawing an arbitrary line, too, in what they meant. Just like the gun-rights crowd does when they claim the forefathers didn’t meant it to say that you could possess a hydrogen bomb.
8. We a BOTH drawing arbitrary lines as to what the forefathers meant. So neither of us is necessarily in stronger position in terms of the argument.
9. Ergo, my line (if I want to limit 2A rights to revolvers and bolt action rifles) is not in a weaker position than yours.
10. That’s my argument. Now poke holes in it!
Jack, you do mean to be callous, you and John Wilburn often believe your flip, caustic rebuttals are the pithy comments we deserve. Please do not pretend otherwise now. We know you take our concern as the gnats at a picnic.
Comment by Sandi – December 21, 2012 5:55 p.m.
Right on target, Sandi. Such sarcasm is in stark contrast to the reasoned, unemotional countenance JW and Jack like to portray.
Dan, the teachers would hear the all-call that the office makes. There-fore the teachers could get their guns ready.