The NRA is gonna bring all its knowledge, all its dedication and all its resources to develop a model national schools shield emergency response program for every single school in America that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control, to information technology, to student and teacher training, this multifaceted program will be developed by the very best experts in the field...
If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible. And that security is only available with properly trained, armed good guys.
२१ डिसेंबर, २०१२
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Says Wayne LaPierre, delivering the NRA's answer to the Newtown massacre:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४७ टिप्पण्या:
247 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Truer words were never spoken. It took the first responders 20 minutes to arrive.
I wasn't always a fan of La Pierre but he stares the haters down very well.
Nice to see the NRA going on offense on this. Get out in front and make the gun-grabbers not defend giving kids in school the same protections afforded Representatives and Senators.
What? We're going to pass the same laws already on the books in CT? The same restrictive laws that didn't do a goddamn thing to prevent this in the first place?
Good luck with that.
No democrat will admit to being a good man (or woman) with a gun.
This the the best graph I found in his remarks:
Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.
Those of us like La Pierre have been arguing these points for decades, often for most of our lives. There's nothing particlarly new, just better ways to get the points across.
Here's his full remarks unfiltered by a rag that used to be a lot better.
Didn't like the speech. It had some good lines like the one quoted, but overall, it was as over the top as the otherside of the debate.
I don't want armed guards at every school campus. I don't want to see even more censorship of movies and video games.
I don't want armed guards at every school campus.
There was a police officer whose squad car was parked by the door of my son's high school every morning. It doesn't seem to have warped my boy particularly.
And they never had any trouble at the school. Fancy that.
Didn't say having an armed guard would warp anyone. I just don't find it a good expense. The TSA is not likely to warp anyone's mind either, but it too is a waste.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [or school], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We need those who are willing to become citizen soldiers.
It's not that complicated.
The people and cooperatives who desire to leave American men, women, and children vulnerable to involuntary exploitation by minority interests should be marginalized and ignored. If they persist to infringe upon other people's Constitutionally recognized rights, then they should be held in contempt of the Constitution.
Incidentally, the Constitution proscribes elective abortions without due process. Upholding the right to life would alone save nearly one million lives annually. Both "Roe vs Wade" and reproductive rights practiced through elective abortions are both immoral and, in America, they are illegal.
When does a human life acquire dignity? Is it when it can walk, talk, and perhaps cry?
"I don't want armed guards at every school campus."
Therefore, at best, you'd prefer to that more mass murders like in Stockton, CA and Newtown.
We're no longer serious about treating the severely mentally ill; that has consequences, like these sorts of mass murders, which are a relatively new phenomena, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS; unfortunately a lot of states don't report involuntary commitments and adjudications to it, and e.g. Virginia messed up and didn't report the VT shooter, didn't even make sure he got the ordered treatment).
We don't have to like these consequences, but to ignore them is deadly.
Oh boy. So another post consisting of nothing more than an excerpt and a title. No criticism or analysis.
As for how accurate LaPierre is in what he demagogues, see this:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, bullshit. Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson was stopped when he had to pause to reload. Brave UNARMED citizens used that window of opportunity to pounce on him.
Another:
I remembered this from Columbine but had to go find it to verify. There was an armed officer on duty at Columbine. He wasn't able to stop anything.
Long live empiric reality.
Here's my comment from an earlier thread:
A classroom is loaded with potential weapons [that a teacher can use to defend her students]. Does the teacher have a sharp letter opener? Stand behind the door so when he kicks it in or shoots it open you can step up behind him and stab him in the eye? No letter opener? How about a ball point pen -- less likelihood of success but a 5% chance of success beats zero, does it not? How about a fire extinguisher? A shot of CO2 or foam into the face then brain him with it.
Is that a lot to think of on the spur of the moment? Yes. So the answer is to be prepared by thinking "the unthinkable" in advance.
As I've written in previous comments, the three options available are to (a) try to hide -- with hardly any decent hiding places -- and hope the shooter goes away or kills himself first; (b) try to hide, and hope the police get there to stop him before he finds you; or (c) fight back. Sometimes there's a (d) -- run! But not always, and not in the case of Newtown.
The principal chose (c), and failed, but the teachers chose (b), as they were probably trained to do (if they had any training at all). However it took the police 20 minutes to get there! They knew the call was shots fired in an elementary school, and perhaps some of the responders had children in that very school. They surely came as fast as possible! But it was 20 minutes.
People assume that "fight back" means "fight back with a gun." A gun gives you almost a 100% chance of success -- the shooter has the advantage of surprise and initiative, but he isn't expecting anyone to shoot back so you've got an element of surprise going for you, too. But if you don't have a gun then find something else!
Think about it, plan for it, and pray you'll never have to execute the plan.
This just in! The NRA has proposed re-wording the 2nd amendment to read as thus:
A mandatory Militia, being necessary to the esteem of a police State, the requirement of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall forever be compelled.
Society protects the things it values. They have armed guards at banks and no one bats an eye. Why not have the Principle and Assistant Principle be required to have weapons training as part of the job description?
Oh shut up Mike and leave your violent inability to deal with people in a civilized way to the closed-minded fanatics who don't mind seeing a few dozen kids murdered every now and then as necessary martyrs to a cause that never has a reachable goal.
Or maybe just stack boxes.
O Ritmo Segundo: For Loughner's rampage you're unable to conceive that it could have been stopped sooner with a gun? Why did the people around him wait until he stopped shooting to exchange magazines?
Columbine was also a failure of imagination, to the local police active shooters were Black Swans. So the Sheriff's Deputy, outside at the time watching a smoking hangout, didn't pursue the shooters; instead, following SOP the police established a perimeter before negotiating with the hostage takers. Who were of course long dead.
By comparison, there are plenty of what look to be mass murders that are stopped by "a good guy with a gun". Those don't fit the narrative, especially when he's a civilian, so people depending on the MSM never hear about them.
Oh boy. So another post consisting of nothing more than an excerpt and a title. No criticism or analysis.
As for how accurate LaPierre is in what he demagogues, see this:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, bullshit. Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson was stopped when he had to pause to reload. Brave UNARMED citizens used that window of opportunity to pounce on him.
Another:
I remembered this from Columbine but had to go find it to verify. There was an armed officer on duty at Columbine. He wasn't able to stop anything.
Long live empiric reality.
Thanks for the lesson in criminology, Ritmo. Have you informed the local police about your findings?
I'm sure they'd be chuffed to know that it's OK for them to ditch their firearms and just tackle the bad guys when they're reloading, just like in Tuscon.
Think of all the money spent on practice ammo that'll be saved once the cops turn in their pistols!
O Ritmo Segundo:
Reality is negotiated through risk management. This is required because the system is incompletely characterized and unwieldy. What you cite is called circumstantial evidence and is not a determinative factor. It has the same merit as describing a normative temperature with a constant value, or a global physical metric as either useful or meaningful.
Conceive all you want, hga. I quoted the reality.
Not that LaPierre or his thugs care for living in reality.
@Ritmo
(1) The fact that two armed policemen failed to stop the Columbine shooters doesn't invalidate what LaPierre said. You're offering up the sort of thing that initially looks like a refutation, but really is orthogonal. If Deputy Gardner had been a better shot then Harris would have been down and the Columbine massacre would have been stopped almost immediately.
Having a policeman present is not a guarantee of success and LaPierre didn't say that. Not having one is a guarantee of an easy time for the shooter.
(2) The people who rushed Loughner don't invalidate what I said above about fighting back. If you don't have a gun then fight some other way; don't just don't sit around waiting to die.
So Maguro, too, is a fan of a police state.
How are things in your bunker tonight? I guess that's what you do on a Friday night.
I remember when you brought your tech support skills to bear while advising on matters of sex and seduction. That was too fun.
True dat
BIg Mike: Surely your police state has room for the unarmed? I hear you might be the type who needs to know all things at all times about all people, and violent means of enforcing it, but others of us have a less North Korean understanding of freedom.
Oh shut up Mike and leave your violent inability to deal with people in a civilized way to the closed-minded fanatics who don't mind seeing a few dozen kids murdered every now and then as necessary martyrs ...
I see Ritmo's throwing feces again.
To me, the children in in Newtown are martyrs to the gun control nuts who taught the teachers not to fight back.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I hear you might be the type who needs to know all things at all times about all people, and violent means of enforcing it, but others of us have a less North Korean understanding of freedom.
Tell me, Ritmo, are you on a heart-lung machine? Because I cannot for the life of me figure out how a person with so few working neurons remembers to breathe.
Ah, Ritmo has arrived with his faux intellectualism dragging behind him, kicking and screaming.
Please, Ritmo. Enlighten us. Tell us what you would do to solve this "problem."
You live to slag on people who discuss the solving of a problem in earnest, without ever offering a solution of your own.
The very definition of a douchebag troll.
But, by all means, bathe us in the glow of your faux intellectualism. It's always amusing to see how clever you think you are.
There is almost always a police presence at my kid's high school during the mornings. They slow down speeders in front of the school. I've even seen speed traps on school grounds. The assistant principal's wife is a major in the police force. During football and basketball games you expect to see a half dozen officers. They keep the peace quite well.
To me, the children in in Newtown are martyrs to the gun control nuts who taught the teachers not to fight back.
Um, teachers have other jobs to do, you lunatic. This is not Little House on the Prairie. I'm sure your understanding of education might suffer from a strange worldview, but where I come from, telling prospective teachers that their job will require providing armed security at a moment's notice sort of dilutes the pool of applicants for those who are good and dedicated to, you know, the actual job.
You want violence to intrude on every realm of life in America and can't comprehend why your North Korean vision of a police state and Road Warrior-style mandatory arms is being vomitously rejected by the sane electorate.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State . . .
As someone smarter than me correctly pointed out elsewhere, that is probably the most unnecessary and useless phrase in the Bill of Rights. It has no effect on the second (money) clause.
It could just as easily have said:
It being the better part of wisdom to keep your friends close but your enemies closer, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Ritmo:
You're a member of the Militia (sic) by law if you're a male between the ages of 17 and 45 (with certain exceptions), police state notwithstanding.
It would be expensive to have police or armed guards at every school, but how about this: Each school could act as a sattelite police station. Officers don't all need to have office space at HQ. divide them up and put in offices in the schools.
Other than in The Terminator, has there ever been a mass shooting at a police station?
Geez Chefie. The rhetorical, er, assaults of your last comment is not at all what I'd expect from an aficionado of the police-state/mandatory weaponry for everyone mentality. Not at all.
Surely your police state has room for the unarmed?
Just in case someone has fewer than two digits in their IQ and think Ritmo is making sense, I have no problem with people making the conscious decision not to own or use guns for their own defense. But I will not let them make that decision for me.
Crimso, you might want to try actually learning some law before pontificating on it.
A survival, not prevention, thought I had earlier today is more doors in the classrooms. Alarmed escape doors to the outside or other area eventually leading to the outside. Make to where the students don't have to go into the hallways to escape the buildings. A fire escape type approach.
Taking a similar approach to that of fire prevention/fire escape could be a life saver. For the most part when people got out of the building during attacks like this, they were safe or much safer.
Every proposal to restrict gun rights should be applied firstly and most stringently to the armed protectos of the ruling class from the president on down. These uber-parasites are not in the least motivated to protect the prole whelps they wring their hands over. Their careers consist of a continual grasping after power exclusively. The sight of BO playing up the anguish of the sheeple in yet another opportunistic ratcheting up of the police state while a compliant press never even whispers about the drone killed children in his endless war is sickening.
Ritmo is the troll reserved for the most select leftist talking points.
Ritmo seems to feel that the moral high ground is natural to him, without realizing that not having morals to begin with negates having a high ground to occupy.
He twists, turns and obfuscates to turn a reasonable discussion into shit flinging distraction, while passing himself off as an intellectual. The transparency of Ritmo's lying is laughable.
But I will not let them make that decision for me.
Worried about the mental health exclusion supported even by Tony Scalia?
Look, you're someone who has a history of going onto other people's blogs (which some would call their "property", and threatening violence. You are not someone who has any credibility when it comes to the sort of self-control that the unarmed take for granted. So yes, I'm not surprised that you support a police-state argument without even realizing it.
Warrior, suppress your own violence first.
You want violence to intrude on every realm of life in America ...
Very strange. Have you suffered from the delusion that people willing to defend themselves are necessarily violent people? Are you seeing a psychiatrist for help with your delusions?
Crimso: the way Federal law is interpreted (and I hope our host will correct me if I'm wrong), he is taken to be gender neutral.
SomeoneHasToSayIt: Well, it expresses a preference for militias over standing armies. A concept which didn't get much respect from e.g. Washington after his Revolutionary War experiences; on the other hand, the unregulated militia does serve as a check on the much, much smaller US military.
It might be nice if we did something like the Swiss system, but we just don't have the disciple, in part because we just don't have the need.
Chef, just because your idea of morals makes logic optional, doesn't mean it is a superior one.
In fact, it is inferior. It is a fantasy system for a fantasy world. Solving real-life ethical dilemmas requires reasoning.
Why should one expect the NRA to have even felt compelled...Jesus H. Christ, look at that string of words. What case was I even in?! I should hold a press conference for massacring the English language. No, actually, Webster's Dictionary should hold a press conference. As an authority on English, they are ultimately responsible for my carnage. Just as the NRA is responsible for school shootings. And the American Farm Bureau is responsible for all those cantaloupe-listeria poisonings. Did they hold a press conference? Is it too late to demand one? They have been suspiciously silent on Twitter. As a journalist, I demand they explain themselves!
That's the point I was trying to make before digressing. A school shooting happens, and the media collectively turns its head toward the NRA and demands answers. Which is sort of indicting them for something they have nothing to do with. Like the AFB and listeria poisonings. And the NRA was stupid enough to buy into it. Thank God they get paid to lobby and not hold press conferences.
Damn straight. Waiting for the cops in such a situation is a lousy option.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
This just in! The NRA has proposed re-wording the 2nd amendment to read as thus:
A mandatory Militia, being necessary to the esteem of a police State, the requirement of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall forever be compelled.
Sounds more like Choom and his Civilian Defense Corpse.
If only Ritmo had been around in the age of home movies - what projection!
"Um, teachers have other jobs to do, you lunatic. This is not Little House on the Prairie. I'm sure your understanding of education might suffer from a strange worldview, but where I come from, telling prospective teachers that their job will require providing armed security at a moment's notice sort of dilutes the pool of applicants for those who are good and dedicated to, you know, the actual job."
This is one of the most uniformed statements I have ever seen in print.
The US Military could be just one of many sources for teaching candidates. I would suspect that a high percentage of teachers currently employed have had weapons training. Requiring just a few to have weapons on site is hardly burdensome.
Poor Ritmo. Poor, poor Ritmo.
If I were to look at all of the commentators on this blog and guess which one would be most likely to go beserk and stage a mass killing, it would be you.
Hands down.
Ritmo:
Am I in error? Or are the explanations of the composition of the militia in the various Militia Acts not clear?
Very strange. Have you suffered from the delusion that people willing to defend themselves are necessarily violent people?
No, but I'm pretty sure that you are.
Are you seeing a psychiatrist for help with your delusions?
Making insults when you've been called out as someone who has proved himself given to violent threats is not the wisest of moves, Mike.
If I were to look at all of the commentators on this blog and guess which one would be most likely to go beserk and stage a mass killing, it would be you.
You are an asshole who doesn't realize why making jokes that take lightly the deaths of dozens of kids is inappropriate.
In what ways do you think this might make you like Lanza?
O Ritmo! Always with the logic, without the slightest concept that logic is not an absolute.
You wouldn't recognize deductive logic if it crawled up your ass and died.
Dance some more, logic boy! Dance some more!
I love it when I get to see you flail around like this.
Leland wrote:
Didn't like the speech. It had some good lines like the one quoted, but overall, it was as over the top as the otherside of the debate.
I don't want armed guards at every school campus. I don't want to see even more censorship of movies and video games.
I don't want censorship of movies either. But, les be honest. They have been pushing sex and violence and tarnishing the culture for decades. They shouldn't get to, like Jaime Fox get to then push the moral high ground and blame the NRA for violence. How many people does django kill with a gun? Is there not a glorification of violence in that movie. Suddenly, though, Hollywood is all about vilifying legal gun owners. Fuck you Natural born KIllers producing Hollywood.
Today on Polliwood they were talking about how Hollywood pushes the gay agenda, pushes an anti smoking agenda. Yet somehow they can't push an anti violence agenda?
Violence and sex are their bread and butter. Fine. I even like some of the movies. But shut up about law abiding citizens who aren't shooting up schools defending their homes as if they are the problem. How about put your money where our mouth is and stop producing Grand Theft Autos over and over.
I hear that Adam actually spent all his time playing violent video games in his basement. How much was he influenced by those video games. Why not ban thhem for promoting killing?
LaPierre asserts that violent video games and films are to blame for gun violence. Why do other countries such as Japan, Germany, Canada , etc not have the level of gun violence we here in the US do? Far less murder on a daily basis and the every 6 month mass murder variety.
Could it be the ease of access to guns? Nah.
Chai Chai: In all my K-12 classes, exactly one set actually taught me how to teach: JROTC. As they pointed out, the military is constantly teaching: new recruits who start out with little or nothing, helping people to move up, etc. It was definitely one of the 10 most useful things I learned in school.
Troll Season!
A mandatory Militia, being necessary to the esteem of a police State, the requirement of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall forever be compelled.
Actually, you could be describing Switzerland. And the Swiss who complete their mandatory training must keep genuine assault rifles at home.
But that's those violent Swiss, you know. I suppose you think the reason why we do not read of daily mall massacres and school massacres in the Cantons of Helvetia is due to a press blackout?
Ritmo would have us believe that he's Spock incarnate. As if that's a good thing.
There's a reason Spock only gets so far on logic, Ritmo. Can you guess why?
No. Don't bother. Seeing your brain matter ooze through your nose in frustration would be too painful a thing to subject us to.
Go back to poo flinging. It becomes you.
So logic is not an absolute, therefore be illogical (in one's prescription for a police state), sayeth the chef.
Keep insulting, man. It's really the right tone to take on an issue of how to prevent the violence visited upon dozens of now-dead kindergartners.
Yep, I see a lot of, er, sympathy, for what you're saying - not. But then, if you had the capacity for any sympathy, you might come to understand why you are taking not only the losing political position, but the wrong one.
America is, socially speaking, nothing like Switzerland. We cannot compare their society to ours, ours will never become anything like theirs.
For one, when was the last time we endorsed neutrality on anything?
We don't. We fight about everything. And enforce it abroad with the threat and action of massively superior firepower at a hair-trigger's notice whenever we feel we don't get whatever we're somehow entitled to.
Now, remind me again what you have come to conclude in this regard by way of your capacity for social reasoning.
Ritmo
If it is demonstrated that I am wrong (and hga above pointed out part of my statement may be in error; I openly admit "he" may be correct), I will be happy to admit it. If you're wrong, will you? (Have to go for a bit; bbl)
When true state-sponsored public education began in old Prussia (the Prussian model was copied everywhere) the primary school teachers were usually retired corporals or sergeants of the Prussian army, who were expected to be literate and good tutors, seeing as one of their army jobs was teaching literacy. It was the normal career track. It seems to have worked very well.
I suspect that adopting this model would massively improve US public education, besides adding a significant degree of physical protection.
O Ritmo wrote:
I remembered this from Columbine but had to go find it to verify. There was an armed officer on duty at Columbine. He wasn't able to stop anything.
Long live empiric reality.
< Ronald Reagan had secret service agents and still got shot. JFK had a security detail and still was shot in the face.
I suppose then that we should have presidents do away with the secret service. Tell me, do you think the secret service having guns or not having guns would be better
When it comes to threats for the president? Tell me. What do they protect the president with, Batons?
maybe we should tell Obama to get over himself and stop relying on people with guns to protect him.
If its good enough for the president and if we recognize the security aspect of security details with guns, and if we further recognize the idea of security guards when it come to protecting money in a bank, why would the same not apply to a school protecting kids in it or family members protecting themselves?
Based on the Supreme Court decision that the Federal Government can compel a citizen to buy health insurance, why can't the government compel all teachers to purchase a firearm and recieve training? Not saying it should do so, but it could, could it not?
Crimso:
You are wrong because militias are not required, nor are they assumed, and they haven't been thought to be important for any state function, (let alone that of keeping it "free") for as long as any historian can remember. The U.S. now has a standing army - perhaps you heard?
Those who interpret the laws must be in command of such relevant facts as these.
Leland wrote:
Didn't say having an armed guard would warp anyone. I just don't find it a good expense. The TSA is not likely to warp anyone's mind either, but it too is a waste.
is security for the president a good expense? is a security guard at a bank a good expense? Is an Air Marshal on a plane a good expense?
ambienisevil: The NRA is a single issue organization, but to the extent they might be worried about "A massive influx of newly minted government employees with guns and security authority..." as a "government intrusion", they are no doubt comfortable in the knowledge that these and all the other armed organs of the state are swamped by more than an order of magnitude of armed citizens.
Well, we can wait for the shooter to run out of ammo, or get bored, or thirsty.
Much as we can let the house burn to the foundation, and say "Well, see, it burned out eventually."
But is that a serious suggestion ? The only practical and immediate response to a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. If you deny that, why have police armed ?
I prefer that we eschew such placid, bovine acceptance of our fates, and plan ahead to prevent, and where necessary, to stop bad things when they begin.
I'm not a cow. I wear a seatbelt. I have several fire-extinguishers. And I believe that having some fraction of civilians armed increases the chance of stopping rampages.
I would not compel, nor did the NRA seek to compel, folks to be armed. But placing nonsensical impediments to their being armed makes schools hunting grounds for whackos seeking notoriety and/or catharsis.
First empiric reality: You can't stop everyone, instantly. Just as some fires can't be put out by a 10A40BC fire extinguisher. Does the fact that it's not a panacea invalidate the premise ? Hardly.
Contrast that theater shooting with the 2007 Trolley Square shooting. The big difference was that in Utah, after shooting about 9 people, the whacko encountered a man with a gun. The SWAT team took down the whacko, but it was the first man with a gun that stopped the rampage and turned a massacre into a gun battle.
At the Pearl High School shooting in MS, the assistant principal "stopped the rampage" (sadly, whacko had already killed several and wounded others)
Less reported, he "stopped the rampage" by virtue of getting his .45 pistol from his vehicle and facing down the whacko.
So it depends on whether or not you can tolerate "only" as a rhetorical device to mean "the only practical way."
I asked this question yesterday, IF public school teachers should be armed, will they recieve more respect from the right? Will they now "earn" their pay, or will they still be considered "hogs a the public trough"? I can't tell you how many times that slur was used during the Wisconsin protests. Teachers were demonized, now they will be the heros to keep the children safe?
Also one guard could easily be overcome by a shooter with those high capacity magazines, how many armed guards per school, per student? Who will pay for such services?
The Swiss fight about plenty.
They have had plenty of civil wars as well, the last one in 1847. Quite an achievement for such a little country.
In fact they have a degree of federalism way beyond ours in order to limit the scope of conflicts by keeping different sections of the populace out of each others faces.
You are an asshole who doesn't realize why making jokes that take lightly the deaths of dozens of kids is inappropriate.
No one takes lightly the deaths of the children at Newtown. Even the few lefties that have attempted to look at the situation dispassionately recognize that with between 250 and 300 million guns in the US confiscation has not ever been a reasonable option.
Meanwhile regarding you, personally, as an idiot and a maggot so loathsome that no self-respecting stone would let you slither underneath it. That, I think is different.
O Ritmo wrote:
Um, teachers have other jobs to do, you lunatic. This is not Little House on the Prairie. I'm sure your understanding of education might suffer from a strange worldview, but where I come from, telling prospective teachers that their job will require providing armed security at a moment's notice sort of dilutes the pool of applicants for those who are good and dedicated to, you know, the actual job.
bullshit. Te teachers took it upon themselves to get the students into a classroom, and then cower in the corner with them. Te principal took it upon herself to try to wrestle the gun from Lanza, and paid with her life.
If it comes to the point where someone is shooting up a school, it sounds like the teachers job becomes tring to rescue the kids and get them to safety. They're not going to be conducting classes while shootings are going on.
As such, why not give them tools to help defend themselves and the kids in their charge?
Meanwhile regarding you, personally, as an idiot and a maggot so loathsome that no self-respecting stone would let you slither underneath it. That, I think is different.
What is "different", is that this opinion, comes from someone who is not only losing an argument here, but who violates other people's property to threaten violence against them.
You over-estimate your own capacity for not only self-control, but sane reasoning.
I am done with you. Until you can apologize for your inappropriate violations (let alone understand why they are wrong), then everyone knows that your credibility on anything having to do with violence and self-control is zilch. You even use the same language above as when you perpetuated your violent, violative language before.
O Ritmo!
Being laughably predictable, as usual.
Flinging poo, and then acting shocked! SHOCKED! when people call you on it? Check!
Tying together strawmen? Check!
Abusing logic like a Penn State athletic director abuses boys? Check!
Hauling around your weeping faux intellectualism and your oh-so-precious caring in your little red wagon, jumping around for attention? Check! And double-check!
Dance, logic boy, dance!
This is more fun that Carnival in Rio, isn't it, Ritmo?
But putting forth a working solution is a little difficult, isn't it, Ritmo? Just a wee bit beyond your ken, right?
That's ok! You've got plenty of poo to wallow in! Go for it!
Making armed and unarmed combat part of the required curriculum in colleges of education would probably improve the quality of education as well.
If it took 20 min for the fire department to get to a burning school with all the kids still in it what would people say? Ops?
I prefer Rick Perry's suggestion.Volunteer teachers who train up to LEO standards and pack guns in schools. Yes School Marshals.
And yes, Hollywood just LOVES VIOLENCE. If we cannot stop their glorifying violence then I say repeal their tax breaks (they get HUGE tax breaks since WWII!)
And third, change or laws on psychiatric care. Troubled people who are a danger to others should be committed to a hospital and kept there till cured. If it means more tax money, so be it.
Inga wrote:
Also one guard could easily be overcome by a shooter with those high capacity magazines, how many armed guards per school, per student? Who will pay for such services?
it would be a priority of the states, and they can determine the number of security guards per school.
As to how to pay for the services, hire one less administrator for every security guard hired. You probably will save money.
Schools already hire security by the way, so its not said the expense is unprecedented. Giving them guns would not be that big of an additional expense. Ad by the way, some states do have armed guards in schools.
Inga, go piss up a rope.
As you state, you made your tedious, obvious point yesterday.
Wow.
Got anything fresher than two week old cat litter to offer?
I see that Mojo is fixated on hyperbole and excrement.
I guess that's what his mind reverts to when rendered impotent of verbal assaults.
Arm the Union Thugs!
I asked this question yesterday, IF public school teachers should be armed, will they recieve more respect from the right? Will they now "earn" their pay, or will they still be considered "hogs a the public trough"? I can't tell you how many times that slur was used during the Wisconsin protests.
What it would take to get respect is straightforward -- have a union that works with the people the schools serve, i.e., the parents, and cooperating to get rid of bad teachers and reward good teachers. That would go a long way. I'm accountable to my manager and to my firm's customers. I don't know what happens to nurses who screw up and accidentally kill patients, but I'd like to think that the doctors and hospital administrators would not tolerate it. Yet we had a teacher at my sons' elementary school so bad that parents had to pay to get their children psychiatric therapy after a year with her, and the local union fought dirty to try to keep her. I'm not exaggerating in the slightest. This really happened.
My sisters and most of my female cousins are teachers or school administrators, some of them have accumulated numerous honors over the years. They were talking together at one Christmas gathering and I happened to overhear. Turns out that everyone in any school knows who the bad teachers are. But no one can force them out. Talk about a sick society.
I say this as a gun owner...
The NRA is just one more example of what you get when you have a lobby and to please no-compromise extremists in the ranks - puts leadership in the hands of those whose half-million to ten million plus salary is predicated on continuing only if you kow-tow to the no compromise extremists within.
NRA, Teachers Union Heads, AIPAC, Club For Growth Norquistians...
Same old fucking deal...or should we say they all scream MORE!!
In this fucking idiot LaPierre, no compromise, just a call for more Hero gun owners to save us!
This fucking fool has doubled down...instead of compromise...more guns!! And opened his fucking mouth totally clueless of the costs of redesigning schools as a variant of high security prisons where access and egress can be controlled by a few Armed Heroes. Plus the cost of paying for all the security scanners, salary of Heroes With Guns, and all the Armed Hero training and attendent liability costs.
Stupid asshole. Once the full expense of his proposal for high security, guarded fortresses is known the natural thing will be for people to demand law abiding gun owners pay for it. Maybe a Federal 1000 per firearm tax, a 10 dollar a round tax. Then on the local level, a town of 30,000 with 2700 gun owners that wants 20 Armed Heroes!! defending it's 7 schools might think it a good idea to require state registration and assess each gunowner a 200 dollar a year fee per gun to pay for all the Armed Heroes Who Guard the Children's costs.
I am done with you...
[Is he gone yet?]
Turns out that everyone in any school knows who the bad teachers are. But no one can force them out. Talk about a sick society.
But give them all weapons and the charge of having to use them! That's healthy!
[Is he gone yet?]
Um, this is the internet, Mike. People can't tell where the other commenters actually are, let alone assess their physical proximity in relation to the comments section.
Chef, you don't have an answer to my question? You have nothing more to offer than the monkey feces you are so fond of?
Pathetic.
I'd think twice about eating anything chef Mojo cooks, he serves up crap.
O Ritmo! I'm simply, and easily, diverting you from your usual diversion!
I'm speaking in a language that you so readily understand, which does get your attention.
I just like to occasionally enjoy pointing out the pointlessness of your simplistic exercises in faux intellectual head-fakery.
It's a public service on my part. Much in the same way as shaming the snake oil salesman as he passes through town.
Not that you have shame. Or the inherent ability to make the sale on snake oil.
Oh, well!
Not a mass shooting, but I know a police officer was killed in I believe Fairfax at a police station. And just google shooting at a police station, and they are there.
Today in northeast dc, shots were fired at people waiting in line for the new shoes. Three people were shot in Pennsylvania. Where are their officers protecting them? What about at the malls? We need armed officers there too. Always, not just sometimes, and on every floor at every end. In parks too, wherever there are large gatherings of people, we need armed officers. At rallies, we will need the armed officers, interspersed in the crowd, please. We will need the armed officers at all elementary, jr high and high school sporting events, even the girls. Of course, every single sporting event at the college level will need armed guards. One on each end of the field. Just like the pros have.
Large grocery stores must have armed officers. It's just too easy to pick people off.
All stores on Black Friday and increasingly Thanksgiving Day need to have an armed officer.
To get serious about the cops at schools - we will need at least two per school - in order to be effective.
Any time there are large gatherings of children, an armed officer will need to be present because nothing shuts down a bad guy with a gun like a good guy with one.
Police are also "union thugs" and they are well armed.
And traditionally most unionized workers, particularly in the more activist industries, like coal miners, were well armed. Hunting and personal violence were norms in those places.
I think most conservatives would be happy to see a requirement for military or paramilitary service or training for school teachers. It would probably improve the quality of the intake in schools of education, and add an element of self confidence in managing discipline. It will also probably help fix the gender problems.
Yes, Chef. That was quite the load of many layers of diversion from anything having to do with mandatorily arming anyone near a kid everywhere in America.
I bet you lard up your culinary creations with similar loads of un-filling, fatty fluff.
Filo dough springs to mind.
@C4, ten dollars a round! Good thing Kim Rhode married a rock guitarist or she'd never be able to afford to practice enough to try for her 6th Olympic medal in the 2016 games!
I used to feel the way you do about LaPierre and the NRA, but I've come to see that there is not compromise with the left wing lunatic fringe.
The governing Left owns the public school system, so the the NRA's proposal is simply deflection.
Yes, some school districts in some states will permit school personnel to carry concealed (as some do now) and, chances are, those schools will be somewhat safer than schools that will not permit concealed carry.
At the end of the day, nothing "meaningful" (defined as, "making Americans and school children safer") will happen.
An "assault weapon" is basically a semi-automatic hunting rifle with plastic fascia. Strip away the black plastic fascia, and one still has a weapon that can kill.
"High capacity" magazines is an undefined joke. What is "high capacity"? 10 rounds? 15 rounds? 20 rounds? 100 round drum magazine for a Thompson sub-machinegun (which is already illegal)? Does "high capacity" vary by weapon, i.e., is "high capacity" lower for a pistol than for a rifle? If so, why?
And, of course, the Left exploits this tragedy to ride the rails off it's gun-control hobby horse; what about a more responsive, more prudential standard for involuntary, civil commitment for the dangerously mentally ill?
...crickets...
Did you say something, Inga?
Why, yes. Yes you did.
Why would I answer such an idiotic question? A question that has absolutely no bearing on what is being discussed? A question that is the intellectual equivalent to a baby's burp, signifying only a desire to spew up a senseless statement to show us all how clever you are before we go back to justifiably ignoring you?
You might think twice before eating my food. You would be wrong to do so, as I've proven time and time again over the last 26 years of fine dining excellence.
Not that you would understand such things.
[He's still lurking. Damn!]
Good idea Cedarford, a gun tax to keep our society safe from guns. Well if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Yep, armed guards at schools and all public venues, all so we can be a society that has more than half of the world's guns in our one little country.
Something we should be so proud of.
Cedarford,
You don't like heroes ?
I don't understand your sarcasm.
In every serious emergency there usually are several heroes.
Heroism isn't rare, it is commonplace, unless there is something seriously wrong in the social milieu.
There are also whole professions where a degree of heroism (a tacit understanding that ones life is, properly, at at risk) is assumed. Armed guards of all kinds are ubiquitous and are expected to use violence when it is required.
You might think twice before eating my food.
I think Mojo meant this in a positive way, which is funny.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, bullshit. Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson was stopped when he had to pause to reload. Brave UNARMED citizens used that window of opportunity to pounce on him.
so force was required to take down Loughner. Do you think that it would have been easier to take down Loughner iif for example someone were able to fire from a distance say and not wait till he's killed fifteen people and ran out of bullets?
You're the guy on the floor cowering with Loughner standing over you with bullets left in his gun. Would you prefer that someone take him out now, or wait till he has to reload? It's not a guarantee, mind you, that you will be saved, but surely you'd prefer that someone could take him out before he had a chance to pump a few bullets in your chest, right? It's a lot easier to take down a gunman firing in a murder theater if you have a weapon of your own. No?
Bruce Lee was a great fighter, but even he would hae trouble taking out a Loughner who was standing fifteen feet away and leveling a gun at him.
If there are volunteer guards, the left will call them "George Zimmerman wannabees". And anyone coming in to harm the kids, etc., as "innocent as Trayvon Martin". I can see/hear it now.
We train to protect our students from fires. Many thoughtful decisions have been implemented in our schools, from choices in building materials and battery powered exit signs to regularly practiced drills and awareness campaigns for fire safety.
Why don’t we put that much effort towards protecting our children from violence? Thanks to our good efforts our children are more likely to encounter violence in their schools than a fire. We wouldn’t permit a school to be without a useful firefighting tool such as a fire extinguisher. A gun is a useful tool in the hands of someone trained to use it; it’s designed to make violent people immediately stop what they’re doing.
More training, please. More taking this seriously, please. At least one armed police officer in every school, please. Allow teachers who can conceal carry and who wish to, to do so, please.
We give away funds to companies like Solyndra and A123 and GM, surely we can find a place in the budget for that.
"Something we should be so proud of."
Indeed so.
I'm proud of my firearms collection.
I've never killed anyone, most very likely never will unless my home is, again, unlikely, under armed assault, and my guns haven't been party to any crimes (that I can attest to - one is an old infantry rifle from WWII - war booty - so who know?) as long as I've owned them.
I'm a pretty good shot, and I've taught my daughters how to shoot - the youngest at eight. She's quite proficient, and pretty proud of her shooting skills.
As am I.
I take it Mojo wouldn't mind keeping his pseudonymity protected, which is fine. So I won't ask which restaurant is his. But I am at least curious to know what the style is or the sorts of dishes offered. Perhaps his cooking really is that good. Lord knows his opinions are horrible, but perhaps there's a creative and nurturing soul stirring yet in that otherwise abysmal cavern of compassionlessness.
Just arrived at this party. I started reading a few posts and see Ritmo has assumed control.
Oh well, on to something else.
Inga wrote:
Good idea Cedarford, a gun tax to keep our society safe from guns. Well if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Yep, armed guards at schools and all public venues, all so we can be a society that has more than half of the world's guns in our one little country.
are you ok with people,with guns protecting the president? protecting money in a bank? but not little kids?
They should have to cower in a room til a shooter puts a bullet in their brain?
A simple solution, though it would take some significant process of socialization, would be to teach people - men, women and children - not to run and hide, but to reflexively attack the aggressor, whether or not arms are available. This will almost certainly reduce the average losses in any similar incident but would also serve as a significant deterrent to all sorts of violent crime.
Just arrived at this party. I started reading a few posts and see Ritmo has assumed control.
Well, Humperdink - it's a forum where manufactured arms are useless, so my advantage was natural and inevitable.
But glad you enjoyed the show while you could.
Lauderdale Vet said...
"We train to protect our students from fires. Many thoughtful decisions have been implemented in our schools, from choices in building materials and battery powered exit signs to regularly practiced drills and awareness campaigns for fire safety."
Lol.
I'm old enough to have done the "duck and cover" drill to save myself against a Soviet nuclear attack.
As if that was going to save my life.
We lived, oh, within ten miles or so of a major Air Force radar missile tracking station on the West Coast - kids whose fathers who worked for the missile program at Lockheed repeated bragged/taunted we all lived within "ground zero" of a Soviet missile strike - and I was able to confirm it later, after the Soviet Union failed.
Anyway, that didn't stop the annual duck and cover drill. Year after year...
O Ritmo!
Still waiting for you to enlighten us with your solutions!
Fun facts:
Larding is an old, time honored method of making difficult cuts of meat tender! It's a way of manipulating a raw ingredient in such a way as to make the best of it. Let's just say it's way of diverting from the fact that it's an inferior cut of meat. Sound familiar?
Also: Fat is flavor! It's a wonderful thing.
Having made phyllo from scratch, I can see you don't have the slightest clue as to what it is or means.
Perhaps you meant to refer to puff pastry? When poorly executed, I imagine it resembles your thought processes.
Flat, doughy and dull.
"You are wrong because militias are not required, nor are they assumed, and they haven't been thought to be important for any state function, (let alone that of keeping it "free") for as long as any historian can remember."
So you take me to task for pontificating on the law while not being a lawyer, and then your response to my response is to appeal to historians? Here's some history and law: Militia Act of 1903. From there you can work your way backwards and read the pertinent Acts that precede and are modified by it. Perhaps there are relevant laws and/or court decisions that refute my position. Please cite them as I have cited the support for mine. Otherwise, get your shine box.
are you ok with people,with guns protecting the president? protecting money in a bank? but not little kids?
They should have to cower in a room til a shooter puts a bullet in their brain?
They should not be made to believe that they live in a police state, lest they one day grow up to think that they do.
Sanctuaries free from arms of any sort have been natural and with us since not only our founding, (as SCOTUS acknowledges) but probably long before. The fact that the right-wing now believes that no gun-free zones should be encouraged anywhere, shows you how natural idiocy and violence have become to them as a first resort for anything.
Cedarford is a ridiculous conspiracy theorist and anti-semite, but even he is right on this. The NRA just showcased their lunacy and will now go down (politically) in flames.
The victories for Obama and the left just never end.
No Jr, as I said if ya can't beat em, join em. I can see the necessity for at least two armed guards a schools, more for larger schools such as high schools. Hire veterans, tax the hell out of guns and ammo to pay for this.
It's a sick way to have to create jobs, but in our gun obsessed society, it appears that this is what we've come to.
And my grandchildren may be a bit safer. May be.
O ritmo wrote:
Sanctuaries free from arms of any sort have been natural and with us since not only our founding, (as SCOTUS acknowledges) but probably long before. The fact that the right-wing now believes that no gun-free zones should be encouraged anywhere, shows you how natural idiocy and violence have become to them as a first resort for anything.
I guess Adam didn't see the gun free sanctuary sign when he brought his gun to school.
Or maybe he did and that's why he brought his gun to school.
You idiot.
A gun free sanctuary only works for people who decide to obey that law. For those that don't though, those become the target zones. Why? Because that's where the shooter knows no one is armed.
By the way, are you ok with the president being protected by armed guards? You never answered the question. Bt instead went on about a police state. Is it a police stae when the president has a security detail using guns to protect him?
Well jr, if you're so immune to reason you are hell-bent on believing that the mentally ill are afforded 2nd amendment rights that can never be curtailed, then you are as fatuous in your mission as Adam Lanza.
jr:
Even the Wild West had gun sanctuaries. Churches always have. Some places are considered always off-limits to violence traditionally and always will be. That is the way sane people like it and understand the concept of a viable society.
The fact that you rail against this makes you look even more ridiculous than usual. In fact, whenever I read your immature ramblings, I think of a little kid. Old enough to question, bratty and ignorant enough to be easily reduced to tantrums for not answering them the way he wants. In fact, when I read the "jr", I always think, this is his way of calling himself "junior". You really do come across as a little kid and if you are older than twelve years of age, you seem to have a horrible time showing it.
Of course Jr. presidents have had security for quite sometime now. Our kids should no HAVE to be under the same level of threat as a president. That is sick.
O Ritmo wrote:
Well jr, if you're so immune to reason you are hell-bent on believing that the mentally ill are afforded 2nd amendment rights that can never be curtailed, then you are as fatuous in your mission as Adam Lanza.
stop dodging you retard. I never said any such thing. And at any rte, they weren't his guns. So the question of his 2nd amendment rights are not even at issue.
We do have things like background checks on the books now, right?
adam Lanza actually went to buy a gun but stopped when he was faced with the background check. So, they did prevent him from purchasing a gun. How is that an example of his 2nd amendment right never being curtailed?
Try punctuating your rambling run-on sentences every now and then, "jr" (Junior), and I might consider answering one of your many, very ignorant little outbursts.
Inga wrote:
Of course Jr. presidents have had security for quite sometime now. Our kids should no HAVE to be under the same level of threat as a president. That is sick.
the president shouldn't be under the same level of thrat as the president. What is our point though. This is the world we live in, and have lived in for some time.
Women shouldn't have to ace the threat of rape, people shouldn't have to be faced with the threat of murder, yet they have been for ages. And our prisons are filled with enough people to attest to that fact.
It would be great if we could live in a world of unicorns, but that doesn't make it so. If people are going to shoot up a school, or blow up an airplane, or fly it I to a building, there should be protocols,in place to deal with said thread. No?
Are there background checks at the gun shows? Are there background checks for online ammo sales?
Why didn't La Pierre address those two issues?
LaPierre is a joke. Finished. Even the gun-lovers (not the same, I guess, as the gun-nuts) know him as a sloppy shot.
Today he opened his mouth and gave a broad and lousy verbal scattershot that announced to all his need for the projectile and political equivalent of training wheels.
LaPierre's remarks are disgraceful. They'll probably go down well with the Althouse lemmings, though.
"How Many Lives Would a Baker Batshield Have Saved at Sandy Hook?"
"In 2000 Bill Clinton Wanted Cops in Schools Because of Columbine"
More food for thought
O Ritmo wrote:
Even the Wild West had gun sanctuaries. Churches always have. Some places are considered always off-limits to violence traditionally and always will be. That is the way sane people like it and understand the concept of a viable society.
those are only valid for people who follow the law. What is your major malfunction? Of someone wants to shoot up a sanctuary place witha gun, what is your response?
Adam Lanza brought a gun to a gun free zone and then murdered children there. Clearly, he didn't really see your point about sanctuary zones, or more accurately, didn't care.
If someone is going to shoot his mother in the face, then drive to a school and murder 26 people, do you really think he's going to care, if there is a rule against guns in a school?
Why don't you address that point?
Why would you expect there to be a background check for ammo sales? You can go to Wal-Mart and buy ammo over the counter. Just do it before 9pm.
But does Ritmo have a license to carry his debate skills. He probably bought them at an early age before mandatory background checks for young debaters were passed.
I still cannot get into a Courthouse or an Airport Terminal without a metal detector screen and armed guards watching me.
So why not do that at schools?????
Schools shouldn't be prisons with guards. Living in a city with moderate crime rates, I want the police officers dealing with the bad guys not babysitting children.
But again, living in a city the police are always just paroling the neighborhood in a friendly routine manner.
School faculty should have mace. No need for a gun.
Lauderdale Vet, perhaps there should be background checks for all ammo sales, online and off. Or perhaps on those high capacity magazines at least. Too much to ask?
Let's get back to the basic problem we're looking at. Can we stop crazy people like the Newtown shooter by confiscating everyone's guns?
No.
Why not?
If the 250 to 300 million estimate for the number of guns in private hands in America is anywhere close to being right then there are simply too many of them. And given that we couldn't figure out how to confiscate the inner city gang-bangers' guns back pre-Heller (not to mention the Gestapo's inability to figure it out in the occupied countries such as France and Norway during WWII despite employing tactics that would not be tolerated in 21st century America) it's simply a non-starter.
How about if we declare schools and malls as gun-free zones?
Worked real well in Aurora, CO, Columbine, and Newtown, didn't it? If you think a piece of paper will stop a person bent on murder, then there's not much more to say.
What about outlawing assault rifles?
Define the term. If you mean long guns that continue to fire as long as the trigger is held down, then they've been outlawed since 1934. And that's not what the Newtown shooter used. He used a rifle that fired once per pull of the trigger, and he had handguns that did the same. That's sort of how they've worked since the start of the 20th century.
If you're defining "assault rifle" to mean anything that looks sort of military (e.g., the Bushmaster that the Newtown shooter used, not to mention the DC snipers), then can I ask if it's okay simply to take the same rifle and put a wooden stock on it. Will that make you feel better?
So what about banning high capacity magazines?
Do you have any idea (1) how many are in circulation and (2) how easy they are to make? Not to mention (3) how fast a person who practices in front of a mirror can learn to swap out an empty magazine for another? The time difference between firing 30 aimed shots from a magazine-fed rifle with a 30 round magazine and 30 aimed shots from a magazine-fed rifle with a 10 round magazine varies from individual to individual, but is measured in single digit seconds. For a person who's practices that digit is something like a 3 or a 4, maybe lower yet.
So we need to arm all the teachers?
Who said "all"? Some teachers will never be able to bring themselves to shoot a gun and that's all right, as long as there are others who can and will. And those who do have guns need to be trained in how to rapidly assess the situation and take cover while making their shots count. I understand that some firearms instructors offer discounts to teachers and school personnel -- and some even do it for free.
And the police?
A police presence will be good, too. The police are armed and trained and able to communicate with their fellow officers so that arriving officers know how many shooters and what they're armed with. But the police alone are no panacea. A policeman would not have stopped Lee Malvo, the shooter member of the "DC sniper" team, from shooting Iran Brown at the Benjamin Tasker Middle School.
Final question, Big Mike. Is this special pleading? Do you personally own a magazine-fed rifle or semi-automatic pistol?
No to both.
The supposedly small government conservatives want every public space and every school in America to have armed officers from the government. They also want to crack down on movies, music, and video games. Good luck with that agenda. No surprise Althouse has no comment.
Renee, there were two armed guards at Colombine, what do you think mace would do?
And Renee, I hate to break it to you, but the bad guys are targeting our children at school.
Jake Diamond said...
LaPierre's remarks are disgraceful.
Your continued idiocy here is disgraceful.
I wrote: "I don't want armed guards at every school campus."
hga wrote: "Therefore, at best, you'd prefer to that more mass murders like in Stockton, CA and Newtown.
We're no longer serious about treating the severely mentally ill; that has consequences"
Wow. Because not wanting armed guards at every school is exactly like wanting more mass shootings. And yet, hga immediately goes onto the problem, which isn't solved by armed guards.
There was an armed guard at Littleton, Colorado. How did that work out?
Personally, I rather teachers be allowed to arm themselves, just like I rather pilots be allowed to arm themselves. That way, individuals can protect themselves.
What say you, hga? Do you want more taxpayer dollars going to schools for something other than education? This seems to be your thought process.
It's a bit long, so I imagine will be too tough for Ritmo, but this basically counters every single argument made by people,(smarter than Ritmo) advocating gun control positions.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
Renee said...
Schools shouldn't be prisons with guards. Living in a city with moderate crime rates, I want the police officers dealing with the bad guys not babysitting children.
But again, living in a city the police are always just paroling the neighborhood in a friendly routine manner. School faculty should have mace. No need for a gun.
The funniest was that blogger Megan McArdle, who proposed that we teach school children to rush shooters like the "Let's Roll" passengers on United 93 on 9/11. Lots of crazy shit on the right wing blogosphere, so freaked out are they that someone will make it more difficult for mentally sick people to have access to military style weapons. The National Review suggested the problem was that the Newtown school was run by women.
Mace would work, fewer deaths. Not all.
The gangs are out for my children. The ones not in school, truant, those are the ones who are violent in my city.
My kids go through a real lock down at least once a year, whenever the bank gets robbed and the police need to secure the area. They're not worried about someone is intending to kill them, just if the alleged robber is hiding in the school.
City issues are different the affluent suburban issues.
We have school resource officers not to guard them, but more as outreach.
Renee wrote:
Mace would work, fewer deaths. Not all.
The gangs are out for my children. The ones not in school, truant, those are the ones who are violent in my city.
My kids go through a real lock down at least once a year, whenever the bank gets robbed and the police need to secure the area. They're not worried about someone is intending to kill them, just if the alleged robber is hiding in the school.
City issues are different the affluent suburban issues.
We have school resource officers not to guard them, but more as outreach.
so why are cops coming to the schools to deal with the robbers allegedly hiding ins cool. Shouldn't security in school e able to deal with the armed robbers with their mace.
Also, what is the range of mace? what is the range of a rifle? If the security guard is standing more than 15 feet away from the gunman, my money is on the gunman. Wouldn't yours be too?
jr565: I don't want censorship of movies either. But, les be honest. They have been pushing sex and violence and tarnishing the culture for decades.
Indeed, they have. And so far, the censorship (Tipper Stickers, et al) have simply made it easier for the consumer to purchase the more violent and sexiest stuff. None of it stopped Hollywood. Personally, I do my part to purchase less of the stuff Hollywood puts out. I do buy a number of violent video games, since apparently turn based strategy games are as violent as zombie FPS. None of it makes me want to harm others.
But yeah, I wish people would be discriminate with their money and not support the violence peddled by various California corporations.
At the school shooting in Chardon, Ohio, that happened early this year, the shooter only had a .22 caliber pistol, and thus a teacher was able to chase him out of the school to prevent further death. Thank God he didn't have access to a military style assault rifle.
Renee, pepper spray is an effective tool at short range, I agree. They make a fog dispersal variant as well that might be handy, but it would better compliment a range of choices instead of being the only choice. I’ll add it to my list of requests, though:
More training, please. More taking this seriously, please. At least one armed police officer in every school, please. Allow teachers who can conceal carry and who wish to, to do so, please. Perhaps some mace on hand? We use fire retardant materials when building schools. Would it be too much trouble to use ballistic retardant materials in doors and walls? Many shooting ranges keep that in mind when separating stalls.
You’d think the Unions would get behind it. It’s like a lifeline in trouble times. They could eat this stuff up.
I would disagree, Inga. To me that’s like requiring background checks for purchasing alcohol to prevent past DUI offenders from buying beer on the premise that you would save even more lives than are lost to gun violence. Buying beer or bullets are not a crime, nor do they tell you who the criminals are. I thought profiling was a bad thing?
Thanks for the link, jr565!
Again, The idea that the people calling for "common sense gun control" are in any manner, shape, or form concerned about dead children is silly and obscene.
Thanks to all who seem to believe that we should reconfigure schools into either one-room dwellings or concrete compounds of a single, connected building and few entries and exits.
Again, I believe that being educated in facility with the look and feel of a Supermax prison (which unsurprisingly, was scarily close to the architecture at Columbine, so I'm told), might be comforting to some.
The Unfree. And The Mentally Unfree.
LoafingOaf said...
Lots of crazy shit on the right wing blogosphere, so freaked out are they that someone will make it more difficult for mentally sick people to have access to military style weapons.
You can't post a singular quote from anyone "on the right" expressing concern that the mentally ill can't get access to firearms.
You silly, lying piece of shit.
Renee wrote:
The gangs are out for my children. The ones not in school, truant, those are the ones who are violent in my city.
My kids go through a real lock down at least once a year, whenever the bank gets robbed and the police need to secure the area. They're not worried about someone is intending to kill them, just if the alleged robber is hiding in the school.
no one had shot up any schools in Adam Lanza's community until Adam Lanza did.
The parents in that community probably had the exact same position about their children's school that you do about yours. If the next Adam Lanza comes to your kids school, will that mace be enough? You better hope so!
I don't want censorship of movies either. But, les be honest. They have been pushing sex and violence and tarnishing the culture for decades.
I think a movie theater is an appropriate and safe place to vicariously experience some dark aspects of human nature and the world. I reject the notion that the American entertainment industry is causing these problems because America popular culture is consumed around the whole world, not just in America.
The funniest was that blogger Megan McArdle, who proposed that we teach school children to rush shooters like the "Let's Roll" passengers on United 93 on 9/11.
She didn't do anything of the sort, Loafing, and if you had even a modicum of honesty you'd admit that. She was listing POSSIBLE reactions to the situation, and admitted that for this particular situation, it wouldn't have been helpful in any way. Virginia Tech? Might have made a difference.
You lefties just read somewhere about a meme, and ran with it. Completely dishonest, but the entire lefty narrative on this subject is dishonest.
Thank God he didn't have access to a military style assault rifle.
You realize that the Bushmaster used by Lanza was the same caliber (22)? Narrative fail. Again.
The funniest was that blogger Megan McArdle, who proposed that we teach school children to rush shooters like the "Let's Roll" passengers on United 93 on 9/11
Why don't you link us to it and provide a quote proving that?
Oh, you're lying.
Never mind.
LoafingOaf said...
"The supposedly small government conservatives want every public space and every school in America to have armed officers from the government. They also want to crack down on movies, music, and video games. Good luck with that agenda. No surprise Althouse has no comment."
Says you.
This "small government conservative" would be satisfied with allowing personnel on school grounds, with proper training and knowledge of senior school officials, to carry concealed.
If only to increase the potential shooter's awareness of risk due to uncertainty.
Might that reduce some shootings?
Possibly.
Would it stop all such school shootings?
No.
But nothing else will, either.
O Ritmo wrote:
Again, I believe that being educated in facility with the look and feel of a Supermax prison (which unsurprisingly, was scarily close to the architecture at Columbine, so I'm told), might be comforting to some.
right, because when you go to a bank and there's a security guard there with a gun, its the equivalent of being in a supermax prison.
Schools have security guards in them now, even ones without guns, what would the difference be?
also, didn't the school that Adam Lanza shoot up just implement a brand new security system? Isn't that kind of like a Supermax prison? Why are you ok with that? why are none of people who survived the shooting talking about the school being like a supermax prison because of the enhanced security?
I think they instead are saying, we implemented this new security system, how did it fail so?
But if you want to talk about police states, then you'd have a similar problem with the schools actions even prior to Adam Lanza bringing a gun onto the school. Since they were treating their kids like prisoners.
Oh just shut up, Junior.
With that many rambling run-on sentences, it's a miracle that you would even deign to comment on matters involving education. You haven't any of your own.
Ritmo - do you always have to be an asshole?
LoafingOaf said...
"Lots of crazy shit on the right wing blogosphere, so freaked out are they that someone will make it more difficult for mentally sick people to have access to military style weapons."
LoafingOaf, it's bad form for the stupid to call out others for crazy shit.
Functionally, "military style weapons" are illegal, and have been since 1934.
The funniest was that blogger Megan McArdle, who proposed that we teach school children to rush shooters like the "Let's Roll" passengers on United 93 on 9/11
I don't know if Meghan said it or not. But isn't that exactly what O Ritmo is saying should happen? that, when Adam Lanza pauses to reload after killing 20 kids that someone should jump up and tackle him?
Wouldn't that possibly be the student themselves?
If you don't have security in place to deal with the threat, then why WOULD it be crazy to assume that the students would be responsible for their own lives and wold need to know how to deal with sipuch a threat. That's pretty much their only option.
Tat, or hope that the shooter gets killed before he gets to them, or decides to kill himself first.
I Callahan said...
"Ritmo - do you always have to be an asshole?"
Yes.
Trolls are gonna troll.
No one ever had a useful discussion with a troll.
Ritmo - do you always have to be an asshole?
I just can't read a damn thing the kid says. I never could. I can't tell where one thought ends and the next begins.
He is like the Jack Kerouac of argumentation. It just doesn't work, his persistent and fixating stream-of-consciousness. Meditation exists for a reason; it's not to bring up contentious thoughts.
O Ritmo wrote:
Oh just shut up, Junior.
With that many rambling run-on sentences, it's a miracle that you would even deign to comment on matters involving education. You haven't any of your own.
you have yet to say one thing that even approaches an intelligent though on the subject Ritmo. If I were you I'd crawl back under your rock.
You could, also address any issues presented to you with attempted rebuttals. But you don't have any, so your only recourse is to act like the ultimate douche.
Inga's commentary seems profound in comparison.
"Thank God he didn't have access to a military style assault rifle."
Explain for us, please, the qualitative difference in caliber between the .22 pistol you cited and the .223 used in Newtown.
Also, if you can, please explain the military features of the "assault rifle" (as you say) used in Newton. Please include a list of any of the militaries in the world that buy the weapon used in Newtown because of it's "military style."
Tim -
Dear sweet and thoughtful Tim.
Do you wear that helmet to keep your head from being rammed up your own ass?
I imagine you as the kid from "special education" classes, wearing excess protective gear to keep him from damaging himself.
Yes, Callahan. People like Tim also invite no productive response other than the asshole instinct. It arose long ago in our history, on the savannas...
jr565,
It may happen. A lot of things may happen. We weigh the risks. My child could get hit by a stray bullet from a drive-by while at church. At what point to we stop bring our children grocery shopping or playing in the backyard in fear of the gunman?
Lol.
Trolls gonna troll.
Tim:
Define "substance".
You can't.
I'll refrain from adding a snarky comment here on the relationship between headgear and obviousness.
Renee, I know you're addressing Jr. but I'm surprised and dismayed by your lack of concern. My own daughter, the mom of my three grandchildren said something similar to me, I was shocked. She lives in a commnity and school district not unlike Newtown, I guess it's easier to believe it won't happen to you or your child.
Or are we older generation more protective, too protective? It's hard to wrap one's head around the fact that we are forced to live with such threats to our kids as being commonplace.
@jr, thanks for the link. Correia's books are one of my guilty pleasures. I am also pleased at the existence proof that there exists at least one firearms instructor who offers free training to educators.
LoafingOaf, the supposed "libertarian". LOL.
O Ritmo wrote:
O Ritmo wrote:
I just can't read a damn thing the kid says. I never could. I can't tell where one thought ends and the next begins.
let me make it easier for you, since you seem to have trouble following sentences longer than three words, or paragraphs of detail. (It sounds like you have ADD, if so, my condolences).
Here goes. Ritmo. Are you ready?
I Don't Know if Meghan said it or not, but isn't that exactly what Ritmo said should happen?
That was the end of one sentence, and it has a question mark at the end because i'm asking a question. I added space between the words, because I'm assuming that having all those words together makes your mind get befuddled, and you can't otherwise grasp the intricacies of basic sentences. I doesn't sound like a hard question to grasp, but I can see that with someone with learning disabilities it might be tough. And again, my condolences.
When it comes to responses to Ritmo, I'll keep in mind going forward that I'm dealing with a functional illiterate going forward and tailor my answers in accordance.
Building design and access control doesn't have to seem prison-like. Schools now do "lock down" and that could be made to work better, or alternate escape routes or a lot of things. There are certainly people who do this for a living. My husband's employer does "vulnerability assessment" simulations for facilities... that's what they *do*. The professional expertise is available.
School campuses are already built so that young kids can't wander off and older ones can't leave campus and taking a good look at building design with a focus on access control and emergency response... and there's lots of different sorts of emergencies... this is a GOOD idea.
Oh, and the cop station is already right next to my girl's high school... one of those mega-urban schools... and they already are required to wear displayed IDs all day every day or get fined.
So that particular horse is already out the barn door.
Palladian said...
"LoafingOaf, the supposed "libertarian". LOL."
There is that.
I just wished he knew what he was writing about.
I remember reading during the insurgency in Iraq of a suicide bomber who pulled the cord at an ice cream truck. Armed guards at the school can perhaps reduce school shootings, but evil is fungible. Should school bus drivers be armed in case someone targets the buses. How about school crossing guards?....It doesn't take any great tactical skill to murder children. What's freakish and abnormal is the wish to murder first graders. I like to think that even among the criminally insane such people are rare. But now that this genie is out of the bottle who even knows....If you think Prohibition and the war on drugs were failures, you should see what war on guns will look like.
Renee wrote:
It may happen. A lot of things may happen. We weigh the risks. My child could get hit by a stray bullet from a drive-by while at church. At what point to we stop bring our children grocery shopping or playing in the backyard in fear of the gunman?
having a guard with a gun at school would not necessitate you stop bringing your kid to school. Absent a school shooting your child probably wouldn't even notice that the guard was armed. The extent of your child's involvement might be to pass the security guard on the way to class.
When you go to the bank and get money out and you pass the security guard, is your life impacted in any way? (Unless of course you walk into the bank during a robbery).
Gun control is basically an exercise in trying to put toothpaste back into the tube. Utterly futile.
Inga wrote:
Renee, I know you're addressing Jr. but I'm surprised and dismayed by your lack of concern. My own daughter, the mom of my three grandchildren said something similar to me, I was shocked. She lives in a commnity and school district not unlike Newtown, I guess it's easier to believe it won't happen to you or your child.
Or are we older generation more protective, too protective? It's hard to wrap one's head around the fact that we are forced to live with such threats to our kids as being commonplace.
I think the issue is that you are not protective enough. Having a security guard is not some far out notion dreamed up by the NRA. Hospitals have guards, banks have guards, bars have guards, stadiums have guards, airports have guards. Famous people have guards. The president has guards. Diplomats have guards.
Schools have been shot up enough times to know that there is a threat that schools will e shot up. So live iin that world, as this the world we've lived in.
Columbine happened a long time. No one got the memo yet?
I like the idea of teachers volunteering to carry. In fact, to foster some esprit de corp we should come up with a name for volunteers protecting people from armed attackers.
Wait a minute, we already have a word for that: militia. Let's just use that one.
"If you think Prohibition and the war on drugs were failures, you should see what war on guns will look like."
Yes, because right now we are way down on the roster of deaths by guns. It's just a walk in the park right now.
You need to make your arguments now. Now you have things the way you want. I want to hear about all the gun deaths prevented. Because right now, we have the highest rate of gun ownership, and the second highest rate of gun deaths.
And, let's keep in mind that DC is effectively in Virginia, regarding access. You can't have one city with (formerly) strict laws located within a huge state with among the laxest in the nation. That just won't fly.
"Why not?" asks Big Mike (who then proceeds to offer a number of good answers). Permit me to note that if I wanted to kill a bunch of people, I surely wouldn't use something as inefficient and unreliable as firearms. And no, it wouldn't be a samurai sword or any other such nonsense. And no, it wouldn't be an explosive.
And no, I won't tell you. And no, the government couldn't possibly stop some idiot bent on killing people from doing the same things I've thought of right off the top of my head (it's really not like I've ever plotted such insanity, but it's incredibly easy to come up with all sorts of nasty and horrific techniques that a person with the necessary knowledge could employ).
"Because right now, we have the highest rate of gun ownership, and the second highest rate of gun deaths."
And to continue to beat the dead horse I've whacked for a few days now, there are severalfold more people who die in this country every year from alcohol than firearms. If you really think banning firearms is the answer, let's prioritize and repeal the 21st Amendment.
Tim - Functionally, "military style weapons" are illegal, and have been since 1934.
==================
Except WWI, WWII, Korea were al fought with the standard issue weapon each soldier had in th "military style" of a bolt action or semi-automatic (US M-1, etc.) What you MEAN is that in 1934, US laws started regulating access to high velocity machine guns and other auto weapons like greaseguns and machine pistols.
I Callihan - You realize that the Bushmaster used by Lanza was the same caliber 22 (as the pistol)? Narrative fail. Again.
====
Coming from you, who usually has good comments, this is unusually stupid.
Yes, and a 50 cal machine gun round has the same caliber as a 50 cal black powder round.
.22 long rifle cartridge fired from pistol - 117 ft-lbs force.
.223 NATO cartridge fired from Bushmaster - 1301 ft-lbs force.
.50 cal ball from muzzleloader average - 1707 ft-lbs force.
.50 cal NATO M2 fired round - 12,036 ft-lbs force.
Yes, you can kill with a .22 LR even from a pistol, but a .223 round kills and maims far better..
And an 8 round pistol will make less kills and grievously serious woundings than a guy firing off 30 rounds of a .223. (To say nothing if said psycho has 4 more 30 round magazines he can switch to in seconds - over a single 8-shot pistol magazine.)
Too many people make the argument that implementing any sort of security measure leads to the end of all freedoms. Having armed guards protecting valuables or important people is common sense so much so, that any time a person has to protect themselves, that's what they do- hire security.
But functionally, what impact does this have on anyone's lives?
When I went to the emergency room a few years ago, standing in the lobby was a security guard - with a gun. When I went to Penn Station there were people dressed in army fatigues carrying assault rifles. Though, how did it impact my life? Not at all. They were people I passed on the way to my destination.
If there is no incident requiring a guard or teacher to use his gun, then odds are you wouldn't even know they had one.
There are real questions here. Lefties don't like them. Would students be safer if teachers had guns? Is Newtown a good example from which to derive policy? How about Connecticut gun laws-- how'd those work out?
The stupid is all on the anti-gun side.
O Ritmo wrote:
Thanks to all who seem to believe that we should reconfigure schools into either one-room dwellings or concrete compounds of a single, connected building and few entries and exits.
Who argued that those were our only options when it comes to school design? (Was that sentence too tough for you? I can dumb it down further if you like.) I'd like to thank them, but don't know anyone who actually made such a proposal so.... I guess I won't.
Again, I believe that being educated in facility with the look and feel of a Supermax prison (which unsurprisingly, was scarily close to the architecture at Columbine, so I'm told), might be comforting to some.
so its either a school or a Supermax prison. Nothing in between?
And, let's keep in mind that DC is effectively in Virginia, regarding access. You can't have one city with (formerly) strict laws located within a huge state with among the laxest in the nation. That just won't fly.
Even when DC had the "strict laws" that you favor, DC's murder rate was many times that of Virginia. If Virginia's lax gun laws were really the cause of all those murders is DC, would you not expect Virginia to have a similarly high murder rate? Kinda hard to understand how lax Virginia gun laws could cause murders in DC but not in Virginia...
Oh, and do you know what a semiautomatic weapon is? Are you aware that almost all guns are semiautomatic? Because the news folks don't know that. I wonder how many do.
"Kinda hard to understand how lax Virginia gun laws could cause murders in DC but not in Virginia... "
Ask Richmond. Their gun violence rate is higher than DC's.
Ask them, k?
Too many people make the argument that implementing any sort of security measure leads to the end of all freedoms. Having armed guards protecting valuables or important people is common sense so much so, that any time a person has to protect themselves, that's what they do- hire security.
Implementing any sort of security measures does not result in armed guards. Common sense says that for over 50 years, Sandy Hill Elementary did just fine without armed guards. How many of those years was it a declared gun free zone?
As I mentioned earlier, one of the coincidental things that occured is just before this incident occured the school had implemented new security measures.
Here is a portion of the letter that went out describing the security measures:
"Dear Members of our Sandy Hook Family,
Our district will be implementing a security system in all elementary schools as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure student safety. as usual, exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification.
Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m. Any student arriving after that time must be walked into the building and signed in at the office. Before that time our regular drop-off procedures will be in place. I encourage all parents to have their children come to school and return home on the bus and to remain in school for the entire school day. The beginning and ending of our school day are also important instructional times and therefore we want all our students to reap the benefits of full participation in our program."
Sounds an awful lot like a supermax prison to me. And this is before Adam Lanza ever set foot on school with a gun.
And these proposals sound like common sense. Would people like Renee argue that somehow these went too far, or were the equivalent of implementing a police state. Most parents I'd imagine would find such safeguards to be the LEAST that the school should be doing to protect their kids.
And yet, these safeguards weren't enough. Because Adam bypassed them and killed 26 people. Shouldn't the safety measure that any school implements have,as part of its plan a way to deal with someone who gets past the security measures? No thought of the consequence of the security failing? To me, that means having security in place potentially with guns.
Otherwise, what was the purpose of implementing enhanced security measures to begin with? The schools recognize that they have to enhance security to deal with threats, yet somehow having an armed guard is some crazy idea.
The school could have saved a lot of money if it never implemented that security system in the first place. no? But if we're going to accept the notion that such a defensive measure and the cost of said measure was required, wouldn't it logically hold that security guards might also be necessary? Especially considering the security measure was proven not to work?
We see the need for enhanced security, yet when it's pointed out that a guard with a gun in school would probably be the best way to deal with threats from a predator with a gun, then implementing those security measures is implementing a police state?
If this were a discussion about putting an armed guard in a bank to protect against robberies, would this even e a discussion. Why would you treat people's children with less of a priority than people's money?
Ask Richmond. Their gun violence rate is higher than DC's.
Ask them, k?
Yeah, and yet the rest of Virginia lives under the same laws as Richmond and doesn't have the same gun violence problem.
It's almost like criminals don't pay any attention to gun laws or something.
Hard to believe, I know!
Yeah. Or something. So much for all that access.
Thanks to all who seem to believe that we should reconfigure schools into either one-room dwellings or concrete compounds of a single, connected building and few entries and exits.
LOL. I said just the opposite about two hours earlier. Selective attention or just the usual generalized bullshit. You should check out how many modern schools have limited access points though. A lot. They don't consider that getting out can be more important than getting in.
School buses provide a good example. Usually one door for entering and exiting. But, there's always an emergency exit door and kick-out windows to maximize the ability to exit quickly in an emergency.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा