Sad news from the East Coast

[tallman]

Tim,

I am sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with you on many issues in your post.

 

That's fine.

"As far as the armed person on campus being a target.

WE ARE ONE NOW."

 

the children or students are not more of a target then anyone else. In this case the school was the place where the shooting has taken place because that is where or what the shooter had grief with.

I disagree. We're talking shootings on a campus. History shows that students are the target by a huge majority./

 

Looking back at recent mass shootings. Arizona- congress woman Gifford, Wisconsin- Sikh temple shooting, Colorado , movie theater shooting or close my home- Austin TX airplane into the IRS building... or someone goes Postal...

My point is shooters don't target children or schools exclusively. They go where they feel the need to vent their anger. Children are no more of a target then others.

The question is do young school age or college age deranged person go back to school and commit crimes because they have issues with the school system?

Again, once a shooter is on campus, the children are the main target. Why else go to a school?

 

IMHO 99.9% of the teachers would be against the arming argument.

Could very well be.

So?

We are overwhelmingly 100% against an armed intruder on campus.

100% beats 99.9%.

 

 

where to store weapons in school? I am playing out different scenarios in my head, and none plays out well.

Who said store?

I'm talking open carry.

Police do it.

Agents of many gov't agencies do also so it won't be the first time children see that.

 

Remember the cop (recently) that had to use the restroom during his court hearing and left the gun in the bathroom stall, accidentally? This was a trained person.

 

Again you are talking outliers.

A school shooting is an outlier to begin with.

I think if in your hypothetical a trained teacher did the same, left a weapon unattended in a restroom, it has very little likelihood of being used by an intruder.

 

 

The issue isn't should we want more armed individuals on campus, remember many schools already have one or more down here.

The issue is, given that there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country and that people who should not have them do, and have used them on school campuses to kill hundreds of people, should we; add a potential deterrent

barming some willing staff members to respond to such a horrible event as this one we are discussing?

 

I don't want to walk around with a Glock 22 strapped to my waist.

I want to do my job in a safe and secure facility.

But, I am willing to do whatever is required to add a layer of protection for myself, my co-workers, and the students.

 

I had an ancestor who taught in a small town.

She was given a key to the schoolhouse and the small living quarters in the back, an axe, and a .45 .

The axe was for wood, the .45 for problem solving.

 

What is more horrible?

Having trained people who care about children carrying a weapon while they work?

 

Or another massacre?

 

No brainer AFAIAC.

 

BTW. a Fl. State Senator has opened the discussion about allowing weapons on campus.

[Dave McReynolds]

Wouldn't bear spray or a tazer be better than nothing? I feel ambivalent about arming teachers with guns. If it becomes widespread, there are sure to be accidents and perhaps cases where a wayward student gets possession of a teacher's gun. i assume that's why the guards in prisons who are in direct contact with inmates aren't armed. Not that the vast majority of students should be equated with inmates, but for the few who would try to get possession of a teacher's gun it is probably a valid comparison. If someone were to get possession of a teacher's can of bear spray or tazer, it would more of an embarrasment than a tragedy. It could be that if one or more of the teachers who died trying to defend their students had bear spray or a tazer, they might have been able to incapacitate the shooter long enough to disarm him. Bear spray isn't perfect, but it is supposed to be able to deter a charging bear at 15-20 feet if used in the stream mode, and game wardens swear by it.

[upflying]

How about a Net Gun for school staff? Could be used on dangerous animals too.

[HeliMark]

Nets don't really work well. Great if one just stands still and no wind.

 

A number of years ago we had several iterations of nets and attempted to use them on live running/fighting suspects. Didn't work. Was more a comedy show.

[ratfink]

Tim,

I am sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with you on many issues in your post.

 

That's fine.

"As far as the armed person on campus being a target.

WE ARE ONE NOW."

 

the children or students are not more of a target then anyone else. In this case the school was the place where the shooting has taken place because that is where or what the shooter had grief with.

I disagree. We're talking shootings on a campus. History shows that students are the target by a huge majority./

 

Looking back at recent mass shootings. Arizona- congress woman Gifford, Wisconsin- Sikh temple shooting, Colorado , movie theater shooting or close my home- Austin TX airplane into the IRS building... or someone goes Postal...

My point is shooters don't target children or schools exclusively. They go where they feel the need to vent their anger. Children are no more of a target then others.

The question is do young school age or college age deranged person go back to school and commit crimes because they have issues with the school system?

Again, once a shooter is on campus, the children are the main target. Why else go to a school?

 

IMHO 99.9% of the teachers would be against the arming argument.

Could very well be.

So?

We are overwhelmingly 100% against an armed intruder on campus.

100% beats 99.9%.

 

 

where to store weapons in school? I am playing out different scenarios in my head, and none plays out well.

Who said store?

I'm talking open carry.

Police do it.

Agents of many gov't agencies do also so it won't be the first time children see that.

 

Remember the cop (recently) that had to use the restroom during his court hearing and left the gun in the bathroom stall, accidentally? This was a trained person.

 

Again you are talking outliers.

A school shooting is an outlier to begin with.

I think if in your hypothetical a trained teacher did the same, left a weapon unattended in a restroom, it has very little likelihood of being used by an intruder.

 

 

The issue isn't should we want more armed individuals on campus, remember many schools already have one or more down here.

The issue is, given that there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country and that people who should not have them do, and have used them on school campuses to kill hundreds of people, should we; add a potential deterrent

barming some willing staff members to respond to such a horrible event as this one we are discussing?

 

I don't want to walk around with a Glock 22 strapped to my waist.

I want to do my job in a safe and secure facility.

But, I am willing to do whatever is required to add a layer of protection for myself, my co-workers, and the students.

 

I had an ancestor who taught in a small town.

She was given a key to the schoolhouse and the small living quarters in the back, an axe, and a .45 .

The axe was for wood, the .45 for problem solving.

 

What is more horrible?

Having trained people who care about children carrying a weapon while they work?

 

Or another massacre?

 

No brainer AFAIAC.

 

BTW. a Fl. State Senator has opened the discussion about allowing weapons on campus.

 

I shudder at the thought of being back in High School knowing Sister Marie Adelle had Colt Python tucked in her robes, The ballistic blackboard erasers

hurt plenty enough and she had good aim.

 

Seriously though if some teachers were armed, would open carry be better or concealed carry?

[upflying]

Seriously though if some teachers were armed, would open carry be better or concealed carry?

Open or concealed carry be compared to card playing.

Never reveal your hand to your opponent.

[Rocer]

Tim, I think some teacher's unions have some answering to do before their members are considered part of the solution. The depravity of the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), the 2nd largest pension fund in the U.S., with over $741.4 million invested with fund management company Cerberus Capital Management who bought firearms maker Bushmaster in 2006. How many school shootings has there been since 2006? How will these teachers collect their pension cheques with a clear conscience?

 

link to article

[longjohn]

The NRA has been quiet as a church mouse for the last few days, no twittering or facebooking. Seems the cat got their tongue. Then today they released this: ... “The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

 

Haha, I wonder if they're gonna cave.

[AdventurePoser]

CalSTRS is widely considered to be one of the best run, most professional retirement funds in the world. Hundreds of thousands of hard working professional educators, both teachers and administrators depend on the business acumen of CalSTRS and its fund managers to help guarantee their pensions. STRS invested in a gun company and they'll drop that relationship, which is good. Hindsight is a marvelous thing, isn't it. It's always 20/20.

 

Depraved? Pick another word.

[AdventurePoser]

Love, nurture, teach and how about the option of defending themselves???

 

I get this...but turning teachers into security guards is not the answer. I do not know a single teacher who would carry. They don't go into the business to carry guns.

 

I just don't get this Philby. School is the safest place for kids to be in the daytime. The answers are not in arming teachers. And frankly, I don't think I'd want teachers on my staff carrying guns. Why? In the one in 2 million chance a gunman comes on campus? I just don't get it. Words truly fail me.

[ratfink]

Teachers in Texas will pack... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57559912/texas-school-district-encourages-armed-teachers-for-protection/

[AdventurePoser]

I am backing out of this thread. As a former LEO, a teacher, counselor, assistant principal and principal of both a HS and an elementary school, my heart is broken for these kids and parents. I cannot comprehend the suffering they have all endured and will continue to suffer.

 

But before this last tragedy, where was the concern of our schools' safety? Where was the debate about gun control, mental health or arming teachers? Exactly.

 

Two months from now, it'll be some other hot news story and this will all be on the back burner.

 

Will our schools be safer? Will it be harder for criminals to acquire weapons? Will we move away from our romance with guns? Will students and their parents have unfettered access to top quality counseling and mental health services?

 

Not likely. So, I am going to do something instead. I'll go to school and work with kids we target as having problems. I will try to enlist parental support and engage them with the few community resources that are still available. In short, I'll use my professional skills to influence and serve.

 

I challenge all of you. Go volunteer in a classroom for a few hours a month. The kids and principal will love you for it. The teachers will be most appreciative, too. Leave your guns and preconceived notions about teachers and schools at home. I challenge you to make a difference in the only way that will really work.

 

No more talk about guns, concealed weapons, and what should have been done. It is time to do.

 

Debate away, gentlemen. With some luck, I'll see you at the UN.

[Rocer]

CalSTRS is widely considered to be one of the best run, most professional retirement funds in the world. Hundreds of thousands of hard working professional educators, both teachers and administrators depend on the business acumen of CalSTRS and its fund managers to help guarantee their pensions. STRS invested in a gun company and they'll drop that relationship, which is good. Hindsight is a marvelous thing, isn't it. It's always 20/20.

 

Depraved? Pick another word.

 

HIndsight? Think again. The Washington Sniper dates back to 2002 where again a Bushmaster was the weapon of choice. Cerberus bought Bushmaster in 2006. Now it's your turn to choose, try due diligence.

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Rocer

I think it is a biiiiiiiiit of a stretch to assume that every, or any, California teacher who earns their retirement will hang their head in shame. CALSTRS is charged with securing their retirement and they do a good job. Where was the cause celebre before anyone did a some research, searching for something to glom onto BTW, and discovered Freedom Group includes Bushmaster....plus a lions share of the firearm and ammunition companies in the U.S.?

What about the mines where the lead and copper came from to make the bullets, cases and primer mix? Trees or cotton for power constituents? The clothes he wore.

 

Good line from Dirty Mary and Crazy Larry...."it ain't the car, it's the driver".

[Gregori]

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

[pbbeck]

When I retire and receive my pension from CalSTRS, I'll sleep just fine. I had nothing to do with the investment decisions of the fund manager. I have no problem with CalSTRS decision to divest from Cerberus Capital Management, but I also have no problem with their decision to invest in a company that's been doing well for the past few years. Cerberus did not perpetrate this crime.

[pbbeck]

I taught for eight years in the ghetto in LA. I survived, overcame, succeeded, and moved on to greener pastures. For the last 11 years, I have taught in a relatively mellow, high-achieving k-8 public school in Long Beach. While I don't deal with the behavior set that I used to see in LA, I have often thought about self-defense and my right (or lack thereof) to defend myself or a student should the need arise. I have practiced krav maga for years and have a well developed fighting skill set. Even though I probably would wind up losing my job, I have made peace with my decision that if I am attacked at work by a student or by an adult, I will defend myself and it will be the worst decision that attacker made.

 

Even though I've trained in handgun self defense and I am a highly proficient shooter, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I WOULD WANT TO CARRY CONCEALED at work. It is not a responsibility I wish to bear. What kind of relationship would I have with my students if they knew I was armed? Respect through fear? This is precisely the wrong atmosphere to have in a classroom. Respect through trust is most important. Would I now be a target if a would-be attacker knew I was the armed teacher?

 

I am devastated by what happened on Friday. I've cried every day since. I've run through all kinds of scenarios in my head. Since my classroom is parking-lot adjacent, and my car is parked right outside my room, I considered (for a moment) keeping my Remington 870 locked in my trunk. If something went down, maybe I could get to my trunk. But that's not a viable option because it is illegal/irresponsible on many levels.

 

Guns have no place in schools. I'd guess that 99.9% of all teachers feel this way.

[philbytx]

Hey! I said DEFENDING THEMSELVES (and their charges).........not turning themselves into security guards.

 

Ok. So they already lock up schools and teach lockdown and safety drills and in certain cities even have an armed presence in more troubled neighbourhoods.

 

Schools are as safe as anywhere in the daytime.......

 

 

 

[tallman]

Well, not around here.

 

BTW, I too am a former elementary/middle/high school principal.

I also have nearly 40 years of classroom experience.

I have nearly 40 years of coaching experience.

I have worked as a counselor.

I work with the county youth coalition, department of juvenile justice, and I am a SWAT advisor.

 

I gave up a more lucrative situation to work with at risk children (although in my mind all are at risk).

 

So every day I go to work and get the chance to try and help a student, many of whom have multiple felonies. I think 38 felonies is the most for one student that I recall.

 

Around here hunting is very, very, very big.

Almost every student I work with hunts.

They have their own rifle/shotgun (s).

They would not blink at having me carry a gun.

We have only 22 staff in our setting and at least 7 would carry,

including some women.

 

The mere sight or presence of a weapon should not send students

into apoplexy.

Florida began using School Resource Officers nearly 50 years ago, most likely the first programs in the country.

Multiple roles for an SRO, law enforcement officer, law-related counselor/advisor, and law-related education teacher.

Our students are accustomed to seeing a uniformed officer, with weapons, on campus.

One of our POV's is that violence on campus is a community problem, not just a school problem.

Please note that the "No Child Left Behind Law" requires identifying "persistently dangerous" schools. As a result crime on school campuses is under reported.

link

The link above can take you to multiple years of surveys done by SRO's.

"Over 78% of school-based police officers reported they had taken a weapon from a student on school property in the past year."

 

My position about arming staff is based on an overall detailed look

at crime on campus, not just a mass shooting incident.

 

The real world data shows that student deaths have fallen since the 90's but every school presents a unique challenge to make it "safe". Much of what we do is to assuage fear and provide a form of psychological support.

 

Some campuses have a single point of entry, ID/background check capability/fenced w/videosurv. Easier than some to monitor.

Ours has 7 buildings, no fence, limited video. Difficult to monitor and we have a street running through the middle.

Ours is more of a problem than a newer building w/single POE and complete monitoring.

 

So perhaps your school is easy to secure. Great.

But students walk/drive/ride buses etc. They come and go from campus at lunch.

Crime on campus that is the result of activity by student or staff

is harder to monitor.

 

This

was the last thing Barry Grunow saw standing outside his classroom

May 26, 2000 in West Palm Beach.

 

A 13 yo disruptive student was sent home and returned to campus with a gun.

 

Guns/violence on campus is not just from outside entities coming on campus.

 

So, like Steve said, get involved.

 

Food for thought.

"School-based police officers continue to report that glaring gaps remain in their schools’ emergency preparedness planning.

 

Over half of the officers reported that their school crisis/emergency plans are not adequate. Over two-thirds reported that their school emergency plans are not exercised (tabletop drills, full scale drills, etc.) on a regular basis. A significant percentage (over 43%) of the SROs indicated that school officials do not formally meet at least once a year with police, fire, emergency medical services, emergency management agencies, and other public safety officials to review and revise school plans.

 

More than half of the respondents indicated that teachers, administrators, and support staff do not receive ongoing professional development training on school security and emergency preparedness issues. Almost two-thirds of the officers stated that school bus drivers and transportation personnel have not had any training in the past three years related to security measures, emergency planning and response, terrorism, and associated topics"

 

 

 

[Ken H.]

Two months from now, it'll be some other hot news story and this will all be on the back burner.

 

Will our schools be safer? Will it be harder for criminals to acquire weapons? Will we move away from our romance with guns? Will students and their parents have unfettered access to top quality counseling and mental health services?

 

Not likely.

Exactly. That’s why the NRA has been so quiet. Their pettily too little too late statement yesterday aside. They know darn well in this AADD society all they need to do is lay low for short while and then smoothly go back to pushing their death-based agenda.

 

In the meantime the cry to cut spending and ‘get government out of our lives’ will continue its chorus; assuring less and less will go to education, mental health and other areas of focus that have the potential to actually improve the situation.

 

I’ll bet someone a $100 donation to this board’s support fund that a year from now there has not been one single piece of US federal regulation passed that restricts any type of firearm in any way. Do I have a taker?

 

[Mike]

I came across an interesting study done by a law enforcement training firm named Hard Tactics. Their study emphasizes that rampage killers often disengage as soon as they're confronted, and that the instances where a killer was engaged by am armed civilian resulted in dramatically fewer fatalities.

 

The part of their study that caught my eye, however, was this: an intended victim is 43 times more likely to survive an incident if he/she confronts the killer.

 

Davi Barker, another fellow who did a study of rampage killings found that these incidents resulted in an average of 14.3 deaths when the first armed response was by the police, and only 2.3 deaths when the killer was engaged by an armed civilian. It's not that police are necessarily ineffective in their tactics, it's that the killers generally abandon their attack once they come under attack themselves, very often committing suicide. In the minutes that it takes police to respond, a killer who isn't confronted can inflict a number of fatalities.

 

Clearly, you have to factor in a wide range of considerations in determining whether it's best to carry a firearm, but doing so significantly increases the potential for the intended victims to survive. I didn't always understand this, but now I am firmly convinced that gun-free zones are the ideal setting for mass murder.

[tallman]

Mike,

 

My research has shown that too.

 

Perhaps if the media did due diligence and reported some facts instead of playing the emotional card...

 

Too many people react emotionally if a gun is involved.

 

No one wants to face a situation like a school massacre.

 

But if in the one in 2,000,000 chance (citing Steve, a person I greatly respect) (although w/100,000 public schools and the number of incidents I would drop those odds considerably becasue as of now it is 1 in 100,000) happened at your child's school, wouldn't you want someone like me to try and stop it?

 

I don't want my airplane to stop working while in the air.

If it does, I'd like a parachute please.

[Ken H.]

Ken, the one theme in your writing that I've never comprehended is the idea of a society that's "turned on itself." That's simply not the experience I've had in living in the USA, traveling from shore to shore. No advocate of Second Amendment rights with whom I'm familiar has ever suggested the type of warfare you allude to. Quite to the contrary, virtually everything I hear and read among that group is focused on the the protection of others.

 

I see how one could come to a conclusion such as yours by focusing on what you see and hear in some sectors of broadcast media, but it sure doesn't seem to be the reality that the overwhelming majority of us experience.

While this is a bit of a hijack, and maybe deserves its own thread, why I think this is so does warrant answering you Mike.

 

Why I think the USA is tuning on/against itself goes far beyond just the whole guns issue. However in that context, although I’ve not seen any statistics, I suspect far more gun deaths in the USA are a result of aggression not defensiveness.

 

But the subject is beyond that. It’s about the decline of living and working together. Just some of the symptoms:

 

Increasing calls to arm more and more groups of people against each other. Teachers against students being just the latest.

 

Increasing gap between the rich and the poor. A celebration of it among the ‘haves’ for their success, a growing resentment and anger among the ‘have nots,’ and neither side caring in the least about the other.

 

Rapidly Increasing racial tension (in particular three way Hispanics/Blacks/aging Whites) and no one of the three making even the slightest effort to understand the other. Coupled with increasing xenophobia and anti-immigration stances.

 

Not only a decline in the quality of education but a growing distain for those who have achieved it, e.g. being referred to as “the elite” who are to be held in suspicion.

 

Extreme political polarization where the stated goal is not to accomplish something, but rather to defeat the other side, regardless of subject, issue or gravity.

 

A heath care system and resistance to change that can be simply summed up as - ‘if they can’t afford it let ‘em die.’

 

A growing level of near clinical paranoia amongst groupings of people that everyone else is out to get them and an obsessive need to prepare for that time ‘when they will come.’

 

Rapidly increasing vilification of various religions and hostility toward them.

 

A 24x7 news media whose MO seems to be to constantly 95% fabricate information under the guise of “news” for the sole purpose of creating division between people.

 

Growing fascination with violence against each other in particular in the entertainment industry, in particular in particular American movies and the gaming industry.

 

An increasing distrust in, and suspicion of, science and the scientific principle as a way to discover truth.

 

Near 100% enamored by sports in particular violence-based sports, e.g. American type football, boxing, new extreme sports that glorifying the success of an exceeding few at the defeat, no - near annulation, of others.

 

And above all, absolute worship of the almighty dollar and possessions at the expense of all and everyone else.

 

 

A society that cannot work together, that is based on suspicion and mistrust cannot succeed. Cannot progress. And there is no such thing as the status quo. It is either as a whole progressing and improving or it is regressing and collapsing in on itself. I put the USA in the latter catagory.

[MT Wallet]

You're on! I'll take that action(if it's legal here) wink wink.

[upflying]

The city next to Antioch just built a brand new high school campus.http://www.pittsburg.k12.ca.us/phs/

One way in, one way out with a walled in inner quad. Extremely secure and safe environment. I compare it to prison architecture without the bars.

It replaced a '50's open architecture campus with multiple separate buildings connected by exposed outdoor "hallways". This was impossible to secure from intruders.

Since gun control, nut control and criminal control doesn't work, how about making schools a fortress?

[MT Wallet]

I think you're right this response deserves it's own thread.

 

One of the things we haven't explored is the irresponsibility of a parent who has a dangerouly out of control kid like this little monster Adam Lanza but does not secure her dangerous weapons.

Why didn't she have these guns under lock and key and completely out of the control of her psycho kid. Why didn't extra ammunition in the house trigger a little flag in her head saying at the least "something's not right here" She was supposedly afraid of her out of control kid right? In the article Greg posted that particular parent was taking action and had a plan. Lay blame at the mother's doorstep. She bought the guns, she didn't secure them and the danger was foreseeable. There was no excuse for sitting on her hands.

[tallman]

Ken,

 

By far, the geatest number of deaths from guns in our country

are suicides.

Approximately 19,000 suicide and 11,000 homicide using guns.

 

That sorta undermines your point I think wrt aggessive/defensive use.

 

 

[philbytx]

Ken,

 

Your points are well made but most can be applied to many other places on our planet .

[philbytx]

I agree....she was the primary idiot here.

 

 

[Mike]

Ken, the one theme in your writing that I've never comprehended is the idea of a society that's "turned on itself." That's simply not the experience I've had in living in the USA, traveling from shore to shore. No advocate of Second Amendment rights with whom I'm familiar has ever suggested the type of warfare you allude to. Quite to the contrary, virtually everything I hear and read among that group is focused on the the protection of others.

 

I see how one could come to a conclusion such as yours by focusing on what you see and hear in some sectors of broadcast media, but it sure doesn't seem to be the reality that the overwhelming majority of us experience.

While this is a bit of a hijack, and maybe deserves its own thread, why I think this is so does warrant answering you Mike.

 

Thanks for your reply, Ken. I agree with you on some of these points and disagree on others. Probably, like you suggest, better in another thread.

[Ken H.]

Ken,

 

By far, the geatest number of deaths from guns in our country

are suicides.

Approximately 19,000 suicide and 11,000 homicide using guns.

 

That sorta undermines your point I think wrt aggessive/defensive use.

 

Good point. So if we back out suicides what's the split between aggressive/defensive deaths?

[Ken H.]

Ken,

 

Your points are well made but most can be applied to many other places on our planet .

Didn’t say the US has the market cornered on ways to self-destruct!

[Ken H.]

You're on! I'll take that action(if it's legal here) wink wink.

OK, Richard was the first to respond... If by, let’s say Dec. 31, 2013 to make it easy, new federal legislation has passed to put new restrictions on firearms in any way in the USA; I’ll donate US$100 to this board’s support fund. If not Richard does. Deal?

 

(Someone mark the calendar so I don’t forget in my ol'timer's disease!)

[MT Wallet]

You're on! I'll take that action(if it's legal here) wink wink.

OK, Richard was the first to respond... If by, let’s say Dec. 31, 2013 to make it easy, new federal legislation has passed to put new restrictions on firearms in any way in the USA; I’ll donate US$100 to this board’s support fund. If not Richard does. Deal?

 

(Someone mark the calendar so I don’t forget in my ol'timer's disease!)

 

Deal!You contribute Canadian and I'll give U.S . From what I'm seeing the U.S. Politicians are stepping all over each other to be the first to offer new regs and legislation. The stampede is on. It will all be feel good stuff that doesn't do diddly. Side bet on that? LOL. Just kidding.

[Mike]

Okay . . . I get the humor. Really. But, we're tip-toeing up to the line regarding politics.

 

Step away from the . . . .

 

[SuperG]

The intention was 100% humor, 0% politics.

 

 

the Canadians (or other nationals that not familiar with US constitutional and election laws) may not pick up on the jo0ke part of it. ( <-- this line was also meant as joke.

 

[upflying]

I agree....she was the primary idiot here.

 

And predicatively so. What parent views their children objectively?

As I mentioned many pages ago, she looked at Adam through rose colored glasses.

Reports said she hung out at a local pub a lot. Not working, prepper, living on her ex's $250,000 annual alimony..she sounds like she had her own demons.

[Ken H.]

So what would the armed principal/teacher in this case be expected to do, just, ‘take him down’?

 

Only to discover later that the gun wasn’t loaded and the kid didn’t even have the right bullets with him.

 

Or is this another “mental health problem” albeit one with good intentions.

 

Utah Armed Student

[Mike]

So what would the armed principal/teacher in this case be expected to do, just, ‘take him down’?

 

Only to discover later that the gun wasn’t loaded and the kid didn’t even have the right bullets with him.

 

Or is this another “mental health problem” albeit one with good intentions.

 

Utah Armed Student

 

Teachers in Utah already can carry weapons in schools, though there's no indication whether the teachers who intervened here were doing so.

 

Added:

 

I'm probably a little too pragmatic about some situations like this since I've been part of the criminal justice system for so long, but the laws on situations such as this are fairly clear. In most states, except those with an affirmative duty to retreat, deadly force is permissible in a situation where a person reasonably fears that another is committing a forcible felony (and a situation where a individual is threatening others with a gun probably is well within that definition). In a situation like this, it would have been very sad had the kid died, but I'd speculate that most prosecutors would not bring charges in a case where a child was waving around a pistol.

 

Again, though . . . the reality is that none of what you hypothesize actually happened.

 

It's important to note most situations where a person could legally use deadly--whether it's a police officer or a non-LEO who's making the decision--do not result in the use of that force. In fact, the hesitation to do so occasionally results in the loss of life.

 

I think that the belief of many who oppose concealed carry is that there's a yearning among those who carry guns to actually use them, and that the first response to the slightest concern is to whip out that pistol and start blazing away indiscriminately. In truth, that very seldom happens. I've never known a person who carries who has that perspective, and a huge percentage of situations where a gun is employed defensively end without a shot being fired. A person who's legally carrying a concealed weapon does not cease to become a member of the human race when he slips that pistol in his pocket.

[philbytx]

Ken,

 

Put a police officer/school security officer in the same situation. Talk him into APPROPRIATELY handing over his weapon....but then the youth pointed the weapon at the officer.

 

So, what would you have done??

 

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

So what would the armed principal/teacher in this case be expected to do, just, "take him down"?

I would expect a teacher who carries in school to have taken courses in firearms safety and also a course that provides a solid understanding of the rules of engagement WRT lethal force, similar to what the police take. (Maybe this is standard for CCW permit training?)

 

I would expect any school employee to follow the same rules of engagement as any civilian dealing with an armed intruder in his home: use of deadly force is permissible if a reasonable person feels they or anyone else are under imminent threat of bodily harm. Kid's got a gun in his backpack? Don't even get your gun out, just talk him into putting his backpack down. Kid's got a gun in his hand? You'd best have your gun in hand too. Kid's pointing his gun at you or someone else? You are within your rights and authority to shoot him to protect yourself and others. Your life is going to be very difficult for a while - you'll probably need a good lawyer and good therapist - but at least your life and the lives of all the other kids in the school will go on.

 

Only to discover later that the gun wasn’t loaded and the kid didn’t even have the right bullets with him.

If the kid's gun is unloaded, nobody knows that but him. When a random civilian points a gun at a cop, the cop doesn't ask or check whether it's loaded or not; he shoots to defend himself. It's no different than if the gun is loaded but the bearer has no intention of pulling the trigger: either way, you (the teacher) aren't going to get shot, but from your end it absolutely looks like a deadly threat.

 

I wouldn't expect a teacher or anyone else to be held to a different standard.

 

 

[upflying]

It doesn't even have to be a real, unloaded gun.

Cops shoot and kill people brandishing toy guns frequently.

Let's not forget to include toy guns in the upcoming "assault" weapons ban.

[Ken H.]

I think that the belief of many who oppose concealed carry is that there's a yearning among those who carry guns to actually use them, and that the first response to the slightest concern is to whip out that pistol and start blazing away indiscriminately.

I DO think that’s true for some % of armed people. Not LEO’s or other similar professionals. Or those that take the seriousness of what they’re carrying very, very seriously.

 

But there’s also the people who are indeed looking for an opportunity to whip out that pistol and start blazing away. They’re just itching for an chance to play out that video game in real life. And more and more all they have to do is a) fill out form, b) get gun. And that’s the growing group that I’m worried about. There’s nothing rational about for example people who the week after a presidential election go out and buy another 1000 rounds.

[Ken H.]

So now we’ve progressed, progressed is DEFINITELY not the right word, to where it’s acceptable for adults to kill children who they feel are a threat. The child has a real gun --> shoot him, child has a play gun --> shoot him, child has a knife --> shoot him, child pushes someone down the stairs --> shoot him. Child is fist fighting with someone --> shoot him? Child is verbally assaulting/threatening an adult in authority or another child --> shoot him too?

 

So is there to be any age restrictions? Do we shoot 11 year olds? 8? 7? 4?

 

Children are not suppose to be held fully culpable for their actions. Their emotional cognate functions are not fully developed. But no more – on the spot judge, juror and executioner in every play ground in American.

 

Yeah that’s the answer to the problem... Ri-i-i-i-ght...

 

 

And then people wonder why I say the USA is a country turning on itself. This week marks the beginning of when you’ve/we’ve now turned on our children too by arming ourselves against them.

 

[tallman]

So what would the armed principal/teacher in this case be expected to do, just, ‘take him down’?

I know of at least one teacher murdered by a student not much older than this 11 yo.

 

Only to discover later that the gun wasn’t loaded and the kid didn’t even have the right bullets with him.

Doesn't matter. Just asking that question shows you do not comprehend the situation when an armed individual is pointing a gun at someone. It reflects what many here want to believe, that bad things and bad people won't hurt them and won't go looking for victims. That if it does happen it will be someone else and we can read all about it and armchair QB it. Wishing and hoping for good things works in Never Never Land, not the real world. I've dealt with 4 weapons this semester.

And just for legal clarity, here, loaded or not, it doesn't matter.

Ironically, ammunition can be on campus, but not a non-antique gun (before 1923 I believe is OK) loaded, or not

 

Or is this another “mental health problem” albeit one with good intentions.

 

Utah Armed Student

 

I never want to be in a situation like that principal, but if I were I would surely like to be able to defend myself and others.

Anyone taking a weapon into public setting with the intention of using it has crossed a line.

They no longer value human life, especially others.

They are ready and willing to kill you.

How can being prepared for that situation, even if it is unlikely, be a problem?

 

Let's talk fire.

 

Every year approx 6,200 fires occur at educational facilities.

Over half are intentionally set.

Do those two facts concern anyone?

They should and do so we practice fire drills. (The Collinwood School Fire of 1902(?) had over 170 deaths and led to massive changes in construction/fire doors/etc.)

It is the administration and staff's responsibility to practice so that in the event a fire occurs we can safely egress and save lives.

No one seems to have a problem with that.

How about bombs?

We practice that.

Making a bomb threat is extremely serious and can result in federal terrorism charges.

No one has a problem with that, right?

 

Children are warned about dangers at school all the time.

They are taught that responsible adults have a plan and will implement it to protect them.

 

Why should protection against armed intrusion, murder, massacre, be any different?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The child has a real gun --> shoot him,

 

If he's pointing it at somebody, yes.

 

child has a play gun --> shoot him,

 

If it's visually indistinguishable from a real gun, and he's pointing it at someone, then yes. If it's orange and water comes out of the barrel when he pulls the trigger, then no.

 

child has a knife --> shoot him

 

Judgment is called for. If it's a six-year-old stumbling around with a paring knife in his hand, probably not. If it's an angry sixteen-year-old with a 7" hunting knife chasing someone down the hall, then yes. Do you think a cop would do anything different?

 

child pushes someone down the stairs --> shoot him. Child is fist fighting with someone --> shoot him? Child is verbally assaulting/threatening an adult in authority or another child --> shoot him too?

 

In most of these situations an unarmed child can be overcome by an adult's bare hands without threat of death to an adult.

 

Children are not suppose to be held fully culpable for their actions. Their emotional cognate functions are not fully developed. But no more on the spot judge, juror and executioner in every play ground in American.

 

The use of lethal force in the field does not constitute punishment, so the age and culpability of any individual who is shot while threatening someone with same are not relevant.

 

 

[tallman]

"In most of these situations an unarmed child can be overcome by an adult's bare hands without threat of death to an adult.

"

 

Mitch, actually, here, you have to be trained and certified to put hand on a student.

Or, SRO, w/limits.

Could result in legal action against the staff member.

 

This is why you read about the 6 yo who tears up a school office etc.

[MT Wallet]

So now we’ve progressed, progressed is DEFINITELY not the right word, to where it’s acceptable for adults to kill children who they feel are a threat. The child has a real gun --> shoot him, child has a play gun --> shoot him, child has a knife --> shoot him, child pushes someone down the stairs --> shoot him. Child is fist fighting with someone --> shoot him? Child is verbally assaulting/threatening an adult in authority or another child --> shoot him too?

 

So is there to be any age restrictions? Do we shoot 11 year olds? 8? 7? 4?

 

Children are not suppose to be held fully culpable for their actions. Their emotional cognate functions are not fully developed. But no more – on the spot judge, juror and executioner in every play ground in American.

 

Yeah that’s the answer to the problem... Ri-i-i-i-ght...

 

 

And then people wonder why I say the USA is a country turning on itself. This week marks the beginning of when you’ve/we’ve now turned on our children too by arming ourselves against them.

 

Now this thread is deteriorating with your usual gratuituous, provative irrational bating. Get a grip, show age has given you some wisdom. Children couch arguements in these terms. If a child pulls the trigger you can be just as dead as if an adult shot you. This is reality period.

[Mike]

So now we’ve progressed, progressed is DEFINITELY not the right word, to where it’s acceptable for adults to kill children who they feel are a threat. The child has a real gun --> shoot him, child has a play gun --> shoot him, child has a knife --> shoot him, child pushes someone down the stairs --> shoot him. Child is fist fighting with someone --> shoot him? Child is verbally assaulting/threatening an adult in authority or another child --> shoot him too?

 

So is there to be any age restrictions? Do we shoot 11 year olds? 8? 7? 4?

 

Children are not suppose to be held fully culpable for their actions. Their emotional cognate functions are not fully developed. But no more – on the spot judge, juror and executioner in every play ground in American.

 

Yeah that’s the answer to the problem... Ri-i-i-i-ght...

 

 

And then people wonder why I say the USA is a country turning on itself. This week marks the beginning of when you’ve/we’ve now turned on our children too by arming ourselves against them.

 

I'd argue that you're confusing the concept of legal accountability as an adult--in other words, whether a child of a given age can be convicted of a crime--with the legal concept of self-defense. And, you're also extrapolating to a degree that you know is ridiculous, suggesting that there are those among us who think that mere misbehavior is a grounds for killing. That is utterly untrue (a viewpoint that no one here has come close to advocating, so a little disingenuous), has no connection to reality, and it truly does not advance your argument in any logical way.

 

In doing so, you also seem to be projecting on others an attitude--that of judge, jury and executioner--that exists pretty much solely in the imagination of those who continue to make the anti-civil rights argument in the face of overwhelming experience to the contrary.

 

I'm telling you truthfully, Ken, I've just never seen the cavalier attitude toward life and death that you suggest exists among those who carry weapons legally. And I've dealt with a pretty broad range of badasses and angels. I'm a prosecutor. Before that I was a cop. I've been in and around the criminal justice system since . . . well, since you were in diapers. And, I also know a heck of a lot of people who lawfully carry concealed weapons. Admittedly, some of them are law enforcement types. But, also a great many of them are ordinary Joes and Janes who simply want to have the option to defend themselves or others if confronted with a life or death situation.

 

Quite simply, I know of no one who legally carries a weapon who has the cavalier, "I'm the executioner," no-respect-for-life attitude that you imagine.

 

There are people who don't have any concern for life, who carry illegally, who pose a threat to others. But, they're not us. We call them criminals . . . and they are an element of society. But, they're not us.

 

Your perceptions and fears are so completely disconnected from everything I've experienced in my life, being around a wide range of people who own and carry guns legally, that it's hard for me to even comprehend that someone could believe what you espouse to be true.

 

Here's what I've come to know as the real "profile" of the lawful concealed carrier: Some are former military or have some law enforcement background, but many do not. Most of them have a record that's pretty squeaky clean, particularly seeing as how any serious criminal history will disqualify you in most states. Most are pretty connected, in a positive way, to their families and their communities. And, none whom I have ever known, has any real desire to ever have to use their gun against another human being . . . except a person who's threatening the life or safety of another person.

 

No itchy trigger fingers. No "avenging angels." No wanna-be executioners. No one who really wants to harm another, much less a child. Those stereotypes pretty much exist in the imaginations of those who cannot wrap their heads around the concept of how one can carry a weapon, yet not be inherently homicidal.

 

I don't suppose I'll ever convince you otherwise, but I can tell you, without any doubt, that my actual experiences are diametrically opposed to your fears. Your construct of the segment of society that legally carries guns is pretty much disconnected from reality.

[Marty Hill]

+1 to what MT said! Mike, thank you!