February 25, 2018

"At the White House on Wednesday, President Trump suggested that if a football coach at the high school, Aaron Feis, had been armed, he would have saved even more lives than he did..."

"... perhaps even his own, because rather than simply shielding students from gunfire, he could have drawn his weapon, fired and killed the assailant — putting a tidy end to the rampage. This is absurd. More likely, had Mr. Feis been armed, he would not have been able to draw his weapon (a side arm, presumably) quickly enough to stop the shooter, who with an AR-15 would have had the coach outgunned. Even if the coach had been able to draw his weapon — from where? his athletic shorts? — any shots he managed to fire would have risked being errant, possibly injuring or killing additional students. As some studies have shown, even police officers have missed their targets more than 50 percent of the time. In firing a weapon, Mr. Feis would have only added to the carnage and confusion...."

From "I Was a Marine. I Don’t Want a Gun in My Classroom" by Anthony Swofford (NYT).

546 comments:

1 – 200 of 546   Newer›   Newest»
James K said...

So by Swofford's logic, even police should be disarmed. They miss half the time, after all. Ridiculous. Some defense is better than none.

J2 said...

No logic from Swofford, NYT.

Lexington Green said...

Trump's proposal for qualified and trained volunteer adults in schools to be armed is an obvious and overdue idea.

tcrosse said...

So presumably the shooter with the AR-15 never misses. No wonder those things are so popular.

rhhardin said...

You've got to subtract out the students the coach kills by accident who would have been killed by the bad guy anyway.

glenn said...

Actually if the cowardly Cruz had thought he might meet armed opposition he might not have gone to the school to do murder in the first place. But he knew local law enforcement and campus cops were exactly what they turned out to be. Toothless tigers.

Sal said...

I wonder how many former Marines the NYT interviewed?

Since the shooter quit of his own accord, I doubt the football coach would have "only added to the carnage".

BUMBLE BEE said...

Ben Shapiro has the clear take here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH_2yWNns9s

chickelit said...

This is all so subjective. Many people are lousy with guns and shouldn't carry them. Others should be allowed to do so. The all or none thinking of certain gun nuts and the gun grabbers is what's defective here.

Christopher said...

I guess the solution is to just lie down and die.

Michael K said...

These former Marines and military veterans are turning up all over.

I wonder how many have PTSD ?

Peter said...

My son is a cop. He told me that, as terrifying as the prospect of having to enter a school to stop a killer is, he and his colleagues all agree it would be much worse and more dangerous if numerous uncoordinated people in the school were trying to do the same thing.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

It's not a situation where both of the armed individuals stand in the middle of the gymnasium like a duel. There is an excellent chance that someone armed could sneak up on the shooter from behind or fire from behind cover. The same with the deputy who cowered outside. He could have looked through the door before entering and advanced room by room or something. The handgun vs. rifle debate is being waged with completely faulty premises. It's moronic. Also, the idea that you are not supposed to engage a person who is killing and wounding scores of people because someone might get harmed by a stray bullet is about as stupid as the argument that we shouldn't anger terrorists who want to kill us because it might make terrorists who want to kill us, want to kill us.

Virgil Hilts said...

Same logic:
Small women with handguns should not try to go up against shotgun wielded by huge man.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/24/mom-daughter-oklahoma-liquor-store-robbery/

David Bailey and Crystal Griner should not have tried to engage with puny handguns the asshole with much more accurate/powerful rifle on baseball field. Rifles like one Hodgkinson used fire longer bullets at more than 2x the speed of a handgun, striking flesh and bone with a ferocity — measured in kinetic energy — several times greater. They should have waited for the swat team. That's what the Broward county cops would have done. I mean how many bullets could the guy really have. He would have run out of ammo eventually.

Eagle Ears said...

I'm a retired Marine Infantry officer, former school teacher, and would have volunteered to carry a weapon.

Henry said...

Aaron Feis was an assistant football coach and a security guard who often patrolled the school grounds in a golf cart. Even if he wasn't carrying, if his gun was in a locked case in the school office, he would have had the option to run there to retrieve it. He would have had the option.

I do agree some of the logistics are challenging. You don't want any staff member carrying a weapon unless they have had extensive training. If there are semi-automatic guns in the building for use in the attack, they need to be locked. Just as with ideas for more/better police presence, where the protectors are in relation to the shooter is pretty crucial. This, to me, makes the idea of armed teachers far more problematic than the made-up hysteria about teachers being unable to properly handle firearms.

Take citizen volunteers, perform the background checks, deputize them and train them. How hard is that to understand?

Quaestor said...

It's pretty obvious why Anthony Swofford is a former Marine.

Henry said...

@Peter -- the important thing is training. The staff will be trained for active shooting incidents anyway. If a staff member trains to carry a weapon, that person will train with the police. They will know who he is. The hypothetical situation you describe is as flawed as Swofford's.

Wince said...

Part of the threat perceived by the left is the ideological diversity that would be injected into public school faculty if gun skills were to ever become a plus factor in teacher hiring.

In most instances, it would probably make more sense to have visually distinctive weapons stored in biometric security boxes keyed to a central alarm system.

I suspect the primary strategy for armed teachers would be more in terms of defensive sheltering and corridor blocking than actively taking out the shooter.

Quaestor said...

There was a time when terrorist gunmen targeted Israeli schools, now they use rockets. Care to guess why?

Quaestor said...

It's revealing that Swofford has to concoct an unrealistic scenario to support his thesis. Straw men are so easily toppled.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Peter said...
My son is a cop. He told me that, as terrifying as the prospect of having to enter a school to stop a killer is, he and his colleagues all agree it would be much worse and more dangerous if numerous uncoordinated people in the school were trying to do the same thing.

2/25/18, 9:44 AM


Peter, with all due respect, it is ALWAYS and on ALL OCCASIONS more comfortable and convenient for the police if they are the only ones armed. It is even safer for them if they wait outside until the shooter gets tired of killing, shoots himself, or runs out of ammunition. But the same police have no trouble shooting unarmed or naked black kids when they have the drop on them. Perhaps the police should be disarmed. Then they would be justified in staying out of active shooting situations and they wouldn't shoot anyone either.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I agree with Mr. Swofford that being able to do burpees without crying should be a prerequisite.

Quaestor said...

Peter, your son is an idiot.

Rusty said...

Blogger Peter said...
"My son is a cop. He told me that, as terrifying as the prospect of having to enter a school to stop a killer is, he and his colleagues all agree it would be much worse and more dangerous if numerous uncoordinated people in the school were trying to do the same thing."
Except, Peter, the cops are never there when the carnage begins and when they are they don't endanger themselves. Much better to have someone armed on the scene.

Wince said...

Oso Negro said...
But the same police have no trouble shooting unarmed or naked black kids when they have the drop on them.

Watch the body-cam video at the link below to see how absurdly risk-averse cops are trained to be.

Arizona Cop Acquitted for Killing Man Crawling Down Hotel Hallway While Begging for His Life

wwww said...


Adam Lanza and this recent shooter used the same gun.

An effective guard needs to be trained to stand ground under fire in combat situations. Ideally military who has seen action and experienced combat situations.

The equivalent of a mall cop isn't good enough.

A guard should have 1 job. I don't want someone to carry & multi-task with children running about.


Left Bank of the Charles said...

If we arm 5% of our nation’s 3.6 million schoolteachers, that is 180,000 guns in the school. How many misadventures per year might that produce? Accidental discharge, a student getting his hands on the gun, the armed teacher going on a shooting spree ... those need to go into rhhardin’s calculus too.

Jersey Fled said...

School shooters do not fire from concealed positions. The boldly walk through the halls knowing that they are the only ones armed. A policeman, coach, or anyone firing from a concealed position has a substantial advantage.

Tom said...

I’ll take my chances with a handgun.

Mark said...

Sure, lets replicate Israel. Where there is no constitutional right to own guns. Where most of the guns liberals object to are not legal to be owned. Where most people can only own one firearm and 40% of people who apply for gun licenses are rejected.

"Gun licensing to private citizens is limited largely to people who are deemed to need a firearm because they work or live in dangerous areas, Amit said. West Bank settlers, for instance, can apply for weapons licenses, as can residents of communities on the borders with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Licensing requires multiple levels of screening, and permits must be renewed every three years. Renewal is not automatic."

No wonder there have only been two schools shot up in the last 4 decades. No AR15s in private hands, and many people who might want to own guns are denied that right.

This false equivalence comparison witb Israel always seems to ignore Israeli gun laws.

Ray - SoCal said...

Interesting no analysis of what has happened in potential mass shooter situations with armed civilians.

Peter said...

@Henry

We're all dealing in hypotheticals. Most of the ones I'm seeing here seem to assume everyone will know how many shooters there are, what he/they is armed with, will have quick access to weapons no one else can access and presumably will have some means of communicating. I can see how it would work in certain circumstances, but also how chaos and disaster could ensue. And what kind of training are we talking about, a weekend course? If you think of the training that cops and the military go through, this has to be more than add-on the teacher training. It's one thing to have a highly trained and equipped specialist patrolling the school, quite another to generally propose "arming teachers".

Big Mike said...

Swofford’s a Marine — was a Marine! — and he thinks cowardice is peachy keen. That’s not how Marines used to be, but after eight years of Barack Obama, who knows these days?

From a factual perspective Swofford is simply wrong. A Remora holster can be held up by the waistband of athletic shorts — I’ve seen a demo of one held up by the bottom part of a skimpy bikini. There’s also a holster that is fundamentally a modified, spandex T-shirt worn under a regular shirt. Shorts with a pocket are obviously suitable for pocket carry using a thin lightweight handgun like an NAA Guardian or almost any Kahr. Kahrs tend to have very stiff slides but s gym teacher should have no trouble.

How many mass shooters continue a gunfight after someone with another gun engages them, versus how many surrender, try to flee, or shoot themselves? I believe the score is roughly zero to everyone.

Narayanan said...

What subject does he teach ?

William said...

Scott Peterson is taking a lot of flak, but he had the moral courage to stay outside the school and not rush in like a hothead and add to the carnage. Perhaps in 2020, Hillary can honor his restraint and nuanced response by honoring him with a Rose Garden ceremony and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Bergdahl and Manning can also be invited to witness the ceremony.

Mark said...

Questor, its because owning a gun in Israel is fairly uncommon, especially those well suited to mass killings.

Occams razor is a bitch.

Also, they weren't kids who went to the school shooting them up the two times it happened.

Funny, you never bring up the contradictory evidence, just facile claims.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Show me evidence to support the claim, "more dangerous if numerous uncoordinated people in the school were trying to do the same thing.". In a quick internet search I haven't found one single case where this has been documented, not one. This seems to be a belief unsupported by facts, a supposition.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

The whole gun control debate is fact free. It's so much easier to argue you points when they are unrestricted by facts and data.

n.n said...

I think that the military has a similar policy of distrust, which enabled a licensed psycho to run amuck and open an abortion field.

holdfast said...

Anyone who has ever read his book or seen the movie adaptation knows that Swofford was a lousy Marine - a bad discipline case with a problem with alcohol and suicidal tendencies.

I respect the Marine Corps as an institution, and I respect many Marine vets that I know. But that doesn't make being a Marine vet an automatic marker of rectitude.

Basically Swofford served in garrison for some time - then spent a bunch of months living in the Saudi Desert and being a general f*ckup. Then when the actual war kicked off he mostly wandered around lost and confused.

Mark said...

Well, if a quick internet search doesnt find it then it can't be true!

I just searched for cases where armed civilians stopped mass school shootings ... funny, i found nothing either. Guess that cannot be true either.

Quaestor said...

When the police manage to stop a school shooter before he kills his second victim, then I'll consider the reservations voiced by Peter's son, the cop, perhaps worth my while. Until then, I'm calling his "uncoordinated people" admonition MAJOR BULLSHIT.

Michael K said...

Most of this is irrelevant since the corruption in Broward County is the most significant factor.

The cops were trained to ignore criminal behavior by black and brown students.

The SRO is a political position, more concerned with hiding student behavior to keep the federal grants coming in.

This is analogous to the Atlanta teachers who were remarking tests to keep grades up. More deadly, of course.

wholelottasplainin said...

United and Delta have cravenly surrendered to the hysteria about the NRA, both withdrawing certain perks offered NRA members.

Yet they both would howl if the feds stopped putting armed air marshals on their flights!

Apparently, "Armed-defense for us in our planes but not for you in your homes" is their new mantra.

If they were really consistent they would take the air marshals off, and proudly advertise that "Our planes are Gun-Free Zones!".

Yeah, that'll work!







holdfast said...

In an open field, a shooter with an AR - or any sort of rifle, even a bolt, pump or lever action - has a huge advantage over a person with a pistol (unless that pistoleer is Jerry Miculek) - but in a crowded building most of that advantage disappears. Yes the rifle bullets will still hit faster (3x speed of sound vs 1.5x), but they hit with between 1/4 and 1/2 of the mass of a typical handgun bullet. But the main point is that a handgun is easier and faster to maneuver in tight spaces than is a rifle - so our defender has a good chance to shoot first, using surprise, ambush and knowledge of the terrain.

Most teachers I know care enough about their students to at least try to defend them. Unlike say the Broward County Sherriff's Department.

iowan2 said...

Mark said...
Well, if a quick internet search doesnt find it then it can't be true!

I just searched for cases where armed civilians stopped mass school shootings ... funny, i found nothing either. Guess that cannot be true either.


Schools are gun free zones. civilian good guys with guns are good guys because they obey the law. Other than facts and logic, you're spot on.
OTOH. Good guys with guns shutting down mass killings, those cases are so numerous as to not warrant much attention.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

BTW are we to believe that ex-Marines are experts about mass murders? Why? What makes this particular Marine an expert? Hey I was in the Navy, so maybe I'm the expert? Really?

rcocean said...

During WW2 the Marines would fire 50 mortar/artillery rounds to kill one Japanese.

Wow, those WW2 Marines were so stupid. We should have got rid of the artillery.

Obviously, the coach with a gun instead of dying to protect a few of his students, MIGHT have killed the Shooter and saved everyone.

Its also quite possible, that is if the Shooter knew that 6 armed men, identities unknown, were in the building, he wouldn't have done anything.

rcocean said...

The NYT knows the Marines argument is crap.

But they're engaged in a a propaganda war, and they need to "pushback" against the NRA and Trump.

So, they give their supporters a little script to parrot: "Trump is wrong, a Combat vet - a Marine - said so".

That's the whole purpose of the article. It doesn't matter if the Marines arguments are nonsensical.

holdfast said...

Of course armed civilians never stop mass shooters in a school - there are no armed civilians in schools because they are all Gun Fee Zones.

They do stop them in other places - like Clackmas Mall (also a gun free zone, but fortunately a citizen ignored the sign). Of course, if you carry a gun into a mall and you get caught you'll probably be asked to leave, and maybe cited for trespassing. Do it at a school and you've committed a Federal crime.

Narayanan said...

Newton's law of Mass states: shooting has less mass when counter Mass from another gun is applied ASAP.

William said...

If you get the chance, check out Jake Tapper's interview this morning with Scott Israel, the Broward County Sheriff. Israel looks like a total fool.

rcocean said...

I wonder if the New York Times building/offices have armed security guards.

I bet they do.

Quaestor said...

Also, they weren't kids who went to the school shooting them up the two times it happened.

Irrelevant.

Questor, it's because owning a gun in Israel is fairly uncommon, especially those well suited to mass killings.

Guns are very common in Israel. Most Israelis who carry guns don't own them because their government issues them. Every public school has one or more armed teachers on premises.

I just searched for cases where armed civilians stopped mass school shootings ... funny, i found nothing either. Guess that cannot be true either.

Obvious and irrelevant. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Mark if you can produce corroborated evidence to support the claim, that it is "more dangerous if numerous uncoordinated people in the school were trying to do the same thing." I would love to see it.

MaxedOutMama said...

Nobody wants a gun in his/her classroom or school. The problem is - what if one shows up at the school? What's best in that situation?

Anonymous said...

What does it take to stop an active shooter? Generally speaking, it takes a gun in some fashion - either shooting the shooter unawares, or confronting the shooter with either the threat of return fire or actual return fire. How long the spree goes depends on how long it takes to get people on the scene with a gun who can engage the shooter.

Using the police as the first response will always involve a delay while they get there, and then the victims have to hope the police will actually man up and engage instead of hiding behind their squad cars waiting for it to be safe. That is why, logically, it makes more sense to have someone already on scene who can do the job, preferably multiple somebodies since in this case relying on a cop at the school turned out to be a plan with a single failure point that failed when needed.

Unknown said...

And so, by the logic that armed defenders might cause collateral damage, only the initial criminal shooter should be allowed to possess and shoot a gun. That's absurd.

On the plus side, that would help justify the police waiting outside the building while the criminal continued his spree.

Jersey Fled said...

Mark may have written the single dumbest post I've ever read here re: Israeli school shootings. He seems to think school shootings only are perpetrated by local citizens bearing AR-15's.

Does he forget that Israel is surrounded by millions of people dedicated to its destruction armed with AK-47's?

Yet strangely, no school shootings since 2008.

Wonder why.

FIDO said...

Left Bank Charles,

There are from 265 to 345 million guns in the US.

In 2013, we had 33,000 firearm deaths. Sixty one percent of them are suicides. Can't help them. So call it 13,000. There were more shootings, around 100,000.

So basic math: you have a 1 in 2,650 (worst case) of getting shot.

So a .000377 % chance.

Let's quadruple that. Still not even in one in one ten thousand.

Please note: this is about YOUR grievance, not mine. I know you can't cure crazy. My son goes to college. His campus experienced a jackass Somali who ran over a bunch of kids with a truck and started swinging a machete.

Are you going to outlaw trucks?

Are you going to outlaw machetes?

You SAY you want to do something about school shootings. So to fix SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, something needs to happen in school, not generic 'well, let's round up ALL military grade firearms we can get our hands on.' That does nothing to stop school shootings. It just changes the means of killing people

Your side would be a lot more trustworthy if you didn't want to turn every single mishaps into a gun confiscation marathon. But you do. Which makes anyone sensible think your side are acting in bad faith.

Every time your side starts flapping your gums, it makes me, a person who owns zero guns, want to start burying rifles and ammo in my back yard.

So fix the SPECIFIC problem, not showing off random hatred toward guns. Because you are in the minority on that front.

James K said...

Swofford:
People attack heavily armed institutions all too often, as with the mass shootings in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas and in 2013 at the Washington Navy Yard.

This is completely dishonest. The soldiers are not allowed to carry their weapons around in these facilities. They are as defenseless as students.

holdfast said...

By his own admissions, Swofford is [borderline] psychotic, so he may have some unique insights into the shooter.

William said...

When did alienated high school students hit upon the idea of murdering their fellow classmates? This isn't some kind of instinctual response. What is it about our culture or zeitgeist that inspires such an insane response. It's a recent phenomenon. Guns have been around forever, but not mass shootings. That Texas Tower shooting didn't inspire a lot of copycats in the way the Columbine shooters did. As I recall, the Texas Tower shooting didn't inspire a lot of rhetoric against the 2nd Amendment. Are we responding to these shootings in such a way as to inspire other such crimes?

Michael K said...

Poor Mark was unable to find any cases of mass shooters being stopped by armed citizens.

I found quite a few cases with a quick search.

Better luck next time, Mark.

rhhardin said...

If you make the job of the police when they arrive to rush in a shoot the rest of the students, the students might engage the shooter manually lest he still be active when the police get there.

Incentive rules.

holdfast said...

Fort Hood might have hundreds of tanks, attack helicopters, tactical rockets and the like, but the day it was attacked the only people armed were a few MPs - spread out over a huge base (I think that Hood is the largest Army base by troops, though places like Irwin are physically larger, though mostly unoccupied)).

Peter said...

@Quaestor:

OK, let's assume you got your way and the teachers are armed, trained and equipped (maybe with Remora holsters tucked into their gym shorts--the last word in firearm safety and highly recommended for inner city schools). What would be the responsibility of the police if there was an incident? Who takes the lead? Cops and the military have a duty to risk their lives to save citizens, but teachers don't. Would they under your scheme or are you relying on across-the-board Clint Eastwood-style heroism?

Narayanan said...

Why can't the police ram into the building with their cars? They would then have good barricade and cover to shoot from. Don't nobody watch movies no more?

FIDO said...

I think I would rather have well intentioned people trying to defend themselves who MAY cause additional casualties rather than just allowing the Murderous Shooter given free range to shoot as many people as he wants out of malice and the limits of his ammunition supply.

I do know this. Someone who is the only bastard armed in a room acts a lot more differently than someone who knows someone, somewhere MAY have a gun...and has given them ample reason to use it on them. Makes them a bit jittery. A bit nervous. Looking over one's shoulder.

But I am sure that would have ZERO impact on how many 16 year old girls he can shoot. And who cares about a few extra dead students because we have principles dammit and those principles are guns are NEVER the answer.

There is a reason your side keeps losing elections.

bagoh20 said...

So I guess the kids are lucky the cops didn't try to stop the shooter. Maybe a call went out to nearby officers to disarm or run away, you know, to reduce the carnage.
What has happened to us where people feel no reservations about saying the most ridiculous, counterfactual, and illogical things, and in public on the record?

Anonymous said...

If the obvious and sensible steps to prevent someone like Cruz from being in that place -- such as him being identified as mentally ill and dealt with by the authorities-- well before he actually acted, and if the trained and in place people who could have done something.. did something, then the crazy idea of armed teachers would be less sensible for all the obvious reasons.

But that failed, spectacularly.

Paco Wové said...

"Cops and the military have a duty to risk their lives to save citizens"

I don't think this is true.

MaxedOutMama said...

The best argument against carrying teachers is that the armed person may be overcome and then their weapon used for a crime.

You could have the weapons locked in safes, but then you'd have the problem of the safes being a target for robberies, which would, IMO, happen.

stevew said...

They searched high and low for a supposedly credentialed individual, a former Marine in this case, to argue that arming school officials is a foolish idea that would accomplish nothing. And this is the best they found, a guy who makes disingenuous arguments laced with snide and insulting commentary? He's not helping advance the Left's position on this. Hey, wait a sec, I wonder if finding a solution to the school killer with a gun problem isn't the objective?

-sw

buwaya said...

Armed school security guards are not a bad idea, but this will be expensive. They already exist in many places, this school had one in fact, seconded from the Sheriffs department. Elsewhere they are quite common in urban school districts, there are a few assigned to public schools even in San Francisco.

This precaution failed in this case, but its not always going to fail.

I don't anticipate too many problems in truth, but this is America, a huge place and a single politico-media market. Its so big that even low-probability events are certain to happen, and be hyped to the heavens. Because of the politics of this thing, the next time a policeman assigned to a school makes an error on the aggressive side, he and his leadership will be fried by the media.

Armed teachers are riskier. Again, low probability events will occur, I anticipate kids getting hold of guns, etc. Each case will be made to seem like an existential crisis.

All of this, the killings, the absurd degree of public armament, the panic, the hate, and the madness of the media, are just symptoms of social breakdown. You really, badly need a politico-cultural divorce. You are eventually going to kill each other wholesale, over irreconcilable differences.

Quaestor said...

What would be the responsibility of the police if there was an incident?

Depends on the "incident", doesn't it? Please clarify.

Would they under your scheme or are you relying on across-the-board Clint Eastwood-style heroism?

Miserable sentence. Peter, you believe you have a cogent point, but I can't see it. Please reorganize your thoughts and try again.

Kevin said...

I think it's clear from the testimony of this Marine - teachers might shoot other students - and the police officer above - many armed people make the officer's job more difficult - what the optimal solution is:

Everyone should just stay outside until the shooter runs out of ammunition, and then the police can safely enter the building to arrest him.

Gahrie said...

It's one thing to have a highly trained and equipped specialist patrolling the school, quite another to generally propose "arming teachers".

As a teacher, I think I deserve the right to defend myself and my students rather than simply huddling and hoping the shooter kills someone else while law enforcement waits outside for him to stop shooting.

James K said...

The best argument against carrying teachers is that the armed person may be overcome and then their weapon used for a crime.

That happens to police on occasion. Another argument for disarming police?

People act like any alternative that would in all likelihood prevent deaths of innocents has to be perfect. The point is teachers would be trained, guns could be secured. Is it absolutely fool-proof? No. Is it a huge improvement over the status quo? No question.

Narayanan said...

What is politico-cultural divorce?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Difference is the mass murderer is trying to kill me; the good guy with a gun is trying not to kill me.

Gahrie said...

"Cops and the military have a duty to risk their lives to save citizens"

The courts have ruled they have no legal responsibility to risk their lives to save citizens.

That doesn't mean that they don't have a moral one.

Kevin said...

Everyone should just stay outside until the shooter runs out of ammunition, and then the police can safely enter the building to arrest him.

Is it clear at this point that the serious arguments about school shootings are over, if they ever started?

They want your guns and they're not going to stop until they get them.

They don't want fewer kids dying. If more kids have to die for them to get the guns, in their minds that's on the gun owners.

If you gave them a choice between (a) armed teachers and no kids dying, and (b) unarmed teachers and 1 million kids dying, they want (b). (b) moves the agenda forward.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"...police officers have missed their targets more than 50 percent of the time."

Probably more correct to say "...normally miss..."

Responsible firearm owners know not to fire until they are certain of the target *and* the area beyond and around. Thank a local NRA member.





Peter said...

@ FIDO

I think I would rather have well intentioned people trying to defend themselves who MAY cause additional casualties rather than just allowing the Murderous Shooter given free range to shoot as many people as he wants out of malice and the limits of his ammunition supply.

So would I. But it's one thing to honor and celebrate the spontaneous heroism of individuals, quite another to think that heroic impulse can be converted into a systematic, planned response mechanism by an entire profession trained to teach children, which would presumably make the police second responders.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Peter wrote:
"Cops and the military have a duty to risk their lives to save citizens" but teachers don't."

Cops do? The cops who waited outside the school until the shooting stopped clearly did not feel they had any such duty.

" Would they under your scheme or are you relying on across-the-board Clint Eastwood-style heroism?"

No, what I think we're relying on is a teacher's own sense of self-preservation. They may or many not want to risk their lives for their students, but if you are already in the damned school and there is a maniac shooting the place up, saving your own skin might just figure into your immediate plans.

I carry and I'm a good shot. Does that mean that in a situation where I needed to defend myself with a gun that there is no possibility that things would go wrong? Of course not! My pistol could jam or my hands could shake and I'd miss or my attacker could shoot me first or get the gun away from me. But having a gun at least gives me a fighting chance.

I note that in all the scenarios the left dreams up, the attackera are always cool-headed assassins who fire with deadly accuracy while defenders are always presumed to be doofuses who will bumble around like Barney Fife and shoot innocent people or themselves.

Kevin said...

My son is a cop. He told me that...

I'm going to say this in the nicest way possible. The day four cops stood outside a school and let someone safely and methodically kill kids was the day the American public stopped caring what the police had to say.

None of us care what's safer for the police, or will ever again.

Narayanan said...

Are Democrats saying shooters are just kids with guns havingtrum, let's just wait it out?

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

EDH @9:55

Well said.

Kevin said...

People act like any alternative that would in all likelihood prevent deaths of innocents has to be perfect.

These same people care not a whit that if guns were confiscated people would enter schools with knives and pipe bombs, and the killing would continue.

As long as it's not a gun, they shrug their shoulders and move on.

bagoh20 said...

" Who takes the lead? Cops and the military have a duty to risk their lives to save citizens, but teachers don't. "

Whoever can. Waiting for the gun with right uniform is not what you, I, or any child should have to accept if we were being stalked by a killer. Why would you want engaging and ending the death count to be impossible for half an hour or longer? Do you think every armed teacher would hide and never engage, and just wait for themselves and their students to die? Kids and teachers deserve the right to become part of the alternative result called survival via self-defense without others telling them to trust us, we'll get there eventually.

Narayanan said...

And Germany stood by and let fellow citizens be herded.

Gahrie said...

OK, let's assume you got your way and the teachers are armed, trained and equipped (maybe with Remora holsters tucked into their gym shorts--the last word in firearm safety and highly recommended for inner city schools).

I've been a teacher for twenty years, and have never once worn shorts to school.


What would be the responsibility of the police if there was an incident?

The same as it is now...apparently none.

Who takes the lead?

Apparently whoever is part of the second law enforcement department to show up on the scene.

Cops and the military have a duty to risk their lives to save citizens, but teachers don't.

There is no legal responsibility for cops to risk their lives...the courts have spoken. We teachers have the same duty to protect our students, a moral one.

Would they under your scheme or are you relying on across-the-board Clint Eastwood-style heroism?

We already know that some people will show such heroism...the unarmed CSO who died trying to save kids, the 15 year old JROTC kid who died trying to save students, the off duty, unarmed Coral Gables police officer who ran to the sound of gunfire even though he was unarmed. Their "Clint Eastwood style heroism" was all those students had to rely on, since the armed officers of the Broward County Sheriff they were supposed to be able to rely on failed them.

Quaestor said...

I note that in all the scenarios the left dreams up, the attackers are always cool-headed assassins who fire with deadly accuracy while defenders are always presumed to be doofuses who will bumble around like Barney Fife and shoot innocent people or themselves.

The majority of armed response incidents end in the bad guy either fleeing the scene or being taken, dead or alive, into custody until the police arrive. I say majority because I don't know of a single "Barney Fife" case of the armed civilian shooting innocent bystanders or himself, but I'm by no means sure.

FIDO said...

As I noted in another board: when there is a 'dispute' between the government and the 'people with grievances', the first thing that the government asks for is that the 'people' disarm 'as a good faith gesture' and 'no retaliation will be engaged in'.

About the time that last sword/gun/spear gets turned in is about the time that the bloodbath begins on the 'traitors'. I refer you to the Pilgrimage of Grace during Henry VIII, the various French uprisings during the Hundred Years War and the Outlaw Josey Wales as a non-historical example.

It is VERY RARE that disarming a population goes as smoothly as Australia...and they only took 20% of their guns at the end of the day. This is based on a lot of trust and good will between the various social and voting groups.

This 'trust' and 'good will' does not exist in the U.S. at this moment.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Cops are second responders for many incidents. In so many emergencies private citizens step up and save lives. It happens all the time, everyday.

Rusty said...

Narayanan Subramanian said...
"Why can't the police ram into the building with their cars? They would then have good barricade and cover to shoot from. Don't nobody watch movies no more?"

The police, any police officer, is under no legal obligation to risk their life in order to save someone else. Got that? Now you know why the officer cowered under a stairwell rather than confront the shooter.
I would rather see a trained armed parent or parents on guard duty. They have skin in the game. They are going to be super vigilant. Not some public employee watching the clock to see if it's donut time.
This is not a dig at those peace officer who actually do risk their lives. Those people are priceless.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Just the other day, a mother and daughter shot a man who was robbing their liquor store in Tulsa:

http://abc30.com/mom-daughter-duo-shoot-would-be-robber-in-their-liquor-store/3135689/

When it comes to female empowerment, a Sig Sauer works better than a pussy hat.

bagoh20 said...

I though the standard was: "Even if it saves one life..." Except of course if it could save dozens and involves anything other than gun control. It seems as though many people are willing to accept more shootings rather than try solutions other than the very ones that cost so many lives. There is a reason that gun-free zones are almost exclusively where such shootings take place, so lets put one around our kids. Now, lets make it even bigger.

Ralph L said...

What is politico-cultural divorce?

The former Yugoslavia. If we were divided more geographically than we are, we could Czechosloslicia.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

We have actual incidents of armed teachers and admin taking action. Empirical evidence. In no case did they interfere in the cops work. Why does the NYT always choose opinion over evidence when guns are being discussed?

Narayanan said...

Now now, let's be careful heah, gun-skills =>>> toxic masculinity don'tcha know.

bagoh20 said...

The problem with the cop not responding is not that he was a cop, but that he was a man with gun who cowered when needed. The part about being a cop that's repulsive is that now he will get his pension, paid for by citizens including the parents of the victims.

jacksonjay said...

As most of the Althouse sages know, "Those who can, do, those who can't teach."

Gahrie said...

There are three more deputies and a sheriff that also need to resign.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

The bottom line is that the Left refuses to consider any solution that does not involve gun bans and confiscation.

Gahrie said...

Given my past behavior, I am likely to be one of those who resort to "Clint Eastwood style" heroics, and I would really prefer a fighting chance when I do so.

Big Mike said...

When it comes to female empowerment, a Sig Sauer works better than a pussy hat.

What is it with women and Sig Sauers?

Narayanan said...

I meant cop with guts not hanging out over belt.

What would be psychology / response of lady cops?

buwaya said...

Under such circumstances (by no means limited to armed attack, but thats high on the list of emergencies where this applies) by ancient tradition, every man available is required to take mortal risks.

Narayanan said...

https://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp

Yancey Ward said...

What do you suppose was going through the minds of the people waiting to get shot by Cruz as he approached? What would be going through your mind? I know what would be thinking- "I wish I had a way to defend myself effectively."

I am not a psychopath, but if I were interested in shooting a lot of people before getting shot myself, I can think of no easier target than an American school in a middle class suburb. In those you are practically guaranteed to find the targets completely unarmed- you are unlikely to even encounter a really sharp stick in such an environment. That has to change, one way or another.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

People overlook the word volunteer in Trump’s plan. Teachers who are already armed citizens and willing to undergo more specific training are most likely to volunteer, and like our volunteer army be more suited to the task we are discussing. I was armed for ten years in every school I taught or subbed at and no one else knew. I knew. I was ready. I never needed it on campus. I knew I’d have to answer for ignoring the law if I ever did need to use it but lived by the motto “better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.”

Narayanan said...

Brave and responsible lady cop.

Etienne said...

The argument as to whether teachers and students should be armed, is like living under the threat of nuclear attack. You can worry about it, or you can just go with the decision that you hope to be killed instantly with the first blast.

The decision to arm yourself, is to change from being a peaceful productive citizen, to just another killing tool.

Certainly, in many places in America, the peaceful society is nowhere to be found, and people have to arm themselves in order to kill each other efficiently.

School shooting are not a police problem. They are not a gun problem. School shootings exist because society allows the insane to free-range.

The only thing the police can do is document the deaths. They can arrest and courts can imprison people, but when society lets these killers off the hook, by not executing them, and letting them have day trips back into society after 20 years, then we should all just drink the kool-aid.

FIDO said...

So just a quick question. When that Bernie Bro was attempting to assassinate Republican Congressmen, and he was armed with a rifle in a FIELD, what firearm type did the police take him down with?

(Whiiiifft PAK!) Another stupid talking point dies.

Narayanan said...

Is this likely to politico-divorce Florida from Democrat-culture?

chuck said...

Sure, you might be a speed bump, then again, you might be more. Swofford makes much of one hypothetical scenario, there are many others. Gotta love the Times for searching out a liberal marine to give the column special gravitas for the many readers who have never served.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Big Mike said...

When it comes to female empowerment, a Sig Sauer works better than a pussy hat.

What is it with women and Sig Sauers?

2/25/18, 11:17 AM

I have no idea what pistols those ladies in Tulsa used.

I love my P938.

Etienne said...

As General Patton once said: "Death may be more exciting than life."

But this only gives you peace if you are Buddhist or Catholic. Everyone else is destined to run around in circles with their pussy hats.

FIDO said...

The decision to arm yourself, is to change from being a peaceful productive citizen, to an ARMED peaceful productive citizen.

FIFY.

FIDO said...

I wonder how many Marines the NYT had to talk to before they found one liberal idiot? I think they keep the one they found on speed dial for whenever they need a quote.

Wasn't it a couple of Marines who fell into a 'honey trap' (i.e. seduced by a Russian agent) a few decades back.

I always wondered what happened to those disgraced turn coats. I shouldn't have worried. It seems they found lucrative work being quote shills for the Times.

gspencer said...

When caught in an ambush my training was to charge the ambushers, the thought being you at least have a chance regardless of how small. If you turn and run away the likelihood of being killed is quite high. In other words, light a candle, don't curse the darkness.

Peter said...

@Gahrie

I'm not the NYT or even a prog. Sorry if my Eastwood reference sounded smartassy, I'm a big fan of Clint's. My point was to question the idea that spontaneous individual heroism, which does indeed save lives, can be converted into a nation-wide defense policy for schools without serious downsides. If some of the teachers at Parkland had been armed, then lives would probably have been saved, and the cops dropped the ball outrageously. But as horrendous and enraging as Parkland was, it's not by itself the best basis for arming tens of thousands of teachers or declaring a general lack of confidence in cops. If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, isn't it naive to imagine teachers can?

James K said...

School shooting are not a police problem. They are not a gun problem. School shootings exist because society allows the insane to free-range.


I agree with this, but until the insane are not allowed to "free-range," we must be allowed to protect ourselves and our children from them.

We also must be allowed to protect ourselves from the sane criminals, and from the tyrants who would like to rule over us and take our freedoms.

Big Mike said...

@Peter, what Kevin wrote at 10:58 is perfectly true. If your son would not be willing to go into a school and try to save defenseless children under any and all circumstances, then you raised a coward and you should be ashamed.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

How soon we have forgotten Stephen Willeford, the man who ran to get his AR15 and stop the Texas church shooter:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052815/Hero-tackled-armed-shooter-left-church.html

Willeford and Johnnie Langendorff were deplorable hicks engaging in Clint Eastwood heroics. It would have been much better for them to leave it to the professionals.

I also remember a story from the early 2000's about an Israeli woman who spotted a would-be Palestinian suicide bomber in a grocery store. She shot him before he was able to detonate his vest and blow the place to kingdom come.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...

I don't blame the police for not going inside and taking down the shooter.

These cops arrest people every day, and judges let the criminals walk free. Why put your life in danger for a judge who doesn't care about your purpose in society.

They know that society will fill sacks with cash to defend the insane.

Why fight it. Wait for the carnage to end, and then you can deal with the judges and society later.

Cops don't get excited about free-ranging insane. Let society run its course. We deserve the society we create.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, isn't it naive to imagine teachers can?

2/25/18, 11:35 AM

If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, then it's our responsibility to protect ourselves. And - what exactly is the use of those cops? To draw chalk lines around the bodies and hold press conferences after the carnage has occurred?

Peter said...

Ah, thanks Big Mike, ad hominems like yours add so much to the discussion. Actually, he would be willing, which makes me very proud of him. Think about it, if he were looking for a reason to avoid having to, he'd be all in favor of armed teachers, no?

bolivar di griz said...

Heinrich and crawford, the latter an ex marine knew better from the daily mail piece.

holdfast said...

NYPD cops are notoriously poor shots - made worse by the idiotic super-heavy triggers with which they are saddled - and routinely hit innocent bystanders. Yet they have not been disbanded.

I do concede that weapon retention will be a challenge for teachers who are routinely surrounded by kids all day. To me custodial staff, counselors, administrators, etc. would seem to be better candidates.

Quaestor said...

The argument as to whether teachers and students should be armed, is like living under the threat of nuclear attack. You can worry about it, or you can just go with the decision that you hope to be killed instantly with the first blast.

Wrong and stupid. The reason we have lived only under the threat of a nuclear attack rather than the fact of one these 69 years and 180 days is deterrence, not "worry" or hoping "to be killed instantly with the first blast."

The decision to arm yourself, is to change from being a peaceful productive citizen to just another killing tool.

Absurd. (Etienne is batting 1000 in the Mind Rot World Series.) The vast majority, the hundreds of millions of guns in this country are owned by productive peaceful citizens who have never fired their weapons at anything but an inanimate target.

Certainly, in many places in America, the peaceful society is nowhere to be found, and people have to arm themselves in order to kill each other efficiently.

I beginning to suspect Etienne's problem runs deeper than the merely the intellect.

School shooting are [sic] not a police problem. They are not a gun problem. School shootings exist because society allows the insane to free-range.

Etienne being a case in point it appears.

The only thing the police can do is document the deaths. They can arrest and courts can imprison people, but when society lets these killers off the hook, by not executing them, and letting them have day trips back into society after 20 years, then we should all just drink the kool-aid.

You first, Etienne. When you stop twitching may I have your stuff?

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"Willeford, a local plumber with no military experience, is however an excellent shot according to the resident, and when he came face to face with Kelley, he shot in between his body armor, hitting him in his side."

Ah, another one of those deplorable plumbers - and one with no military training. He got his rifle and ran toward danger.

What I'm seeing on the left is almost a celebration of cowardice.

exhelodrvr1 said...

If you are the type of person who stays calm in an emergency, it would only take limited firearm training for you to be as asset in this type of situation. Some people would be horrible at it, most people wouldn't be.

chuck said...

> What I'm seeing on the left is almost a celebration of cowardice.


Orwell noted that way back at the beginning of WWII.

Kansas Scout said...

Americans are largely ignorant of how the Israelis stopped terror attacks on schools. They armed teachers. The terror attacks stopped. Trumps suggestion of arming teachers is not absurd. BTW, who cares what a Marine thinks? Simply being a jarhead does not make you a security expert.

Amadeus 48 said...

Boy, the phony Mark sure ghosted fast after Michael K gave him a wedgie at 10:37.

Thanks, Michael K!

Skipper said...

How about LOCK THE DAMN DOORS and only let in those who have authorization of some sort (an appointment; preauthorization; other).

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Well duh. You infrastructure-destroying debt-raisers don't pay them anywhere near enough already. To charge them with having to be security guards on top of being teachers is fucking asinine. Just do your jobs and maybe you'll get public servants who can get their jobs done also.

Henry said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
How soon we have forgotten Stephen Willeford, the man who ran to get his AR15 and stop the Texas church shooter:


I was party to a debate on Facebook where the anti-gun argue-er said, "just name one incident where a civilian stopped the shooter. That's the one I used.

@Peter -- In my hypothetical, the number of teachers carrying would be minimal, since they would have to train extensively. But lots of people train extensively to do something important even when it's not their day-job. Some of our olympic athletes fall into that category. The idea that any teacher with a concealed carry permit can bring their firearm into the school at will is closer to your son's hypothetical. Given the number of accidental shootings in this country* It is easy to see where that can go wrong.

*Ironically, one of the shootings in the Everytown scare-list of hundreds of school shootings happened when a elementary school student managed to pull the trigger of the school resource officer's holstered gun.

Quaestor said...

Peter wrote: If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, isn't it naive to imagine teachers can?

That depends on how well-armed and well-trained the teachers are, does it not? Israel manages it, why not here? The main obstacle I foresee is the NEA, a group that has advocated for less teacher competence generally. Therefore a requirement that teachers show competence with firearms will naturally be opposed.

TreeJoe said...

My wife and I got into a deep conversation about this last night. Sadly, I'm becoming my father because I started it out with,

"This nation is becoming a nation of pussies, which can't be good for us."

Put aside arming people in the school - there is ZERO talk of people in the school being trained to be aggressive in the face of a shooting situation. I understand the vast majority are middle aged female teachers/staff. Let me paint some training scenarios which are not being discussed:

1. If you must shelter in place, lock your classroom door and get 6+ of your HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS to pick up objects like heavy textbooks, chairs, and other solid objects and be prepared to THROW THEM at the shooter. Then swarm.

2. Some teachers/staff could be trained on how to attack from opposite doorways in a school hallway in the event of a gunman on the loose in the school.

3. People could be trained in how to disarm a rifleman, which by the way is an extremely undesirable firearm in a close quarters fight because it's heavy, 26"+ long in almost every scenario to date, and damn near impossible to pivot and shoot if someone is attacking your person.

...

I'm sorry but there is no way to significantly limit the fatalities armed with even a 8 round .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun loaded with hollow points, lots of extra ammo, and 6 minutes to hunt and fire into crowds of people when...

There's no one fighting him back.
There are no significant limitations to his mobility.
He has no reason to believe he's about to be attacked around every corner.

....

This is not the first time in thousands of years places like schools and churches have been faced with the prospect of significant loss of life. Part of the answer has been to put in place external limits. And part of the answer was not treating the people inside as helpless.

chuck said...

> What I'm seeing on the left is almost a celebration of cowardice.


Orwell noted that way back at the beginning of WWII.

Etienne said...

The first thing the U.S. Army does to effectively lose any war, is to build forts.

If you build a fort, it is like a turd among flies. Schools as forts follow this Army logic. You can't win a war by building more forts.

Case 1: "I don't want any messages saying 'I'm holding my position.' We're not holding a goddamned thing. We're advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding anything except the enemy's balls."

The enemy is a society unable and unwilling to execute the threat. We are the killers, because we sanction it.

langford peel said...

Well that's that.

You find one guy who doesn't want to be able to defend himself so nobody should be able to defend themselves.

He doesn't have to use a gun to defend his students. He can hide outside with the sheriffs deputy.

Kevin said...


There are actually several instances of mass killings being halted by armed citizens. If you read through these stories, some common threads emerge:
* The armed citizen was able to recognize and confront only the killer and not other innocent persons.
* The armed citizen stopped the killer from killing any more people.
* No innocent person was shot or killed by the armed citizen.
* Multiple armed citizens did not fire upon each other and upon innocent bystanders.
* When police arrived, they were able to distinguish between the killer and the armed citizen.

None of the gun control fantasies about killers and armed citizens have actually taken place. Yet, gun control activists keep making up these fantasies.


CPRC: List of Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens

glenn said...

Entirely missing the point folks. The events leading up to Mr Cruz killing 17 people were the result of policy. Not “something being overlooked” or a “ simple mistake”. Every agency responsible for protecting the school failed because there were rules in place to prevent their doing so.

Yancey Ward said...

This was painful to watch:

CNN turns on Sheriff Israel.

grackle said...

Cops and the military have a duty to risk their lives to save citizens, but teachers don't. Would they under your scheme or are you relying on across-the-board Clint Eastwood-style heroism?

It doesn’t take “Clint Eastwood-style heroism” to shoot back at a shooter. All it takes is a desire to survive. Stop with the straw man arguments, no one takes them seriously. Try to formulate arguments based on facts and logic (if you can) and you’ll find that you are much more persuasive.

The best argument against carrying teachers is that the armed person may be overcome and then their weapon used for a crime.

If that’s your best argument you’re in serious trouble. If were a teacher I would carry my weapon on my person and take my chances rather than be helpless when the shooter arrives.

For me the best case for armed teachers is not that they have to be militarily efficient with weapons but the deterrent effect in that the potential shooters would know that armed resistance is certain if they try to shoot up a school. In case you haven’t noticed shooters tend to choose to shoot up places where return gunfire is unlikely – schools, churches, gay nightclubs, etc. Try again with a better argument.

This precaution failed in this case, but its not always going to fail.

Nope. The “precaution” did not fail – the individual chosen to implement the precaution failed.

If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, isn't it naive to imagine teachers can?

Jesus Christ! Don’t they teach logic in schools these days? It’s not that the cops cannot protect us but that usually the cops arrive AFTER the carnage and sometimes, in this specific case, decide to stay outside until the carnage is over. Please be more coherent and less straw man argumentative.

Jupiter said...

Gahrie said...
"Given my past behavior, I am likely to be one of those who resort to "Clint Eastwood style" heroics, and I would really prefer a fighting chance when I do so."

To my mind, the only question you need to ask - and answer - is, "If I were the only adult in a room full of children and someone was coming to kill all of us, would I prefer to be armed, or unarmed?"

Jupiter said...

But there is a second question, also worth considering. "If I were planning to murder a roomful of people with a single gun, would I prefer they be armed, or unarmed?"

bagoh20 said...

" If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, isn't it naive to imagine teachers can?"

"Naive". Interesting choice of words.

Cops are just like gun control. but we just need to get the bad guys to see it our way. Maybe have a town hall meeting and invite all the aspiring murderers, so we could tell them how mad we are.

mockturtle said...

The best way to deal with a mass shooter at the scene is to rush him en masse. Risky, yes, but it's the surest way to stop further carnage.

Etienne said...

Quaestor said...Etienne. When you stop twitching may I have your stuff?

Oh my. Such hatred from you, and it's only a blog. Do you want to take all my candy?

Gk1 said...

I just watched the Jack Tapper clip and I have to admit he still surprises me after all these years. Although I thought Tapper staged a propaganda platform last Wednesday he just did a 180 and asked some very pointed questions and held the Sheriff accountable for what his dept. failed to do. This is what a "conversation about guns" consists of. We need to talk about all the facts and hear things we would rather not than just cherry picked nuggets that support our side.

Paco Wové said...


"If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, isn't it naive to imagine teachers can? "

Maybe what's more naive is to believe that waiting for those "well-armed, well-trained cops" in a crisis is the best option. Especially when it's clear that stopping the shooting is not their highest priority.

Michael K said...

I would like to say a word about the deputy who did not go into the school.

Nobody knows how they will react under fire. To "have seen the elephant" as some in the Army have said.

I feel for the deputy to have him discover that he is a coward on national TV, so to speak.

Much of this was policy and he was part of it. Some of his job was to cover up criminal activity by students, just as Dade County covered up Trayvon Martin's criminal activity.

He was close to retirement and had no idea that this policy he had been carrying out would blow up so spectacularly,

The culprits are the Sheriff and the school superintendent. Plus the FBI which should not be so negligent but they have been for a while.

James K said...

Americans are largely ignorant of how the Israelis stopped terror attacks on schools. They armed teachers. The terror attacks stopped.

Not sure this is true in general (only in high-risk areas like the West Bank), according to the WaPo. But they point out, "Most schools maintain only one unlocked entrance that is typically staffed by an armed guard." Well, then. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be talking about arming teachers if that were the status quo. But it isn't, and is not likely to be.

wwww said...

"The best way to deal with a mass shooter at the scene is to rush him en masse. Risky, yes, but it's the surest way to stop further carnage."


There's almost no chance you're going to get elementary, jr. or high school students running en mass towards a man with a semi-automatic. It takes a lotta training to get infantry to go over trenches and run up fortifications.

It would be much safer to rush the parapets during the Rev. War or go over fortifications during the Civil War then to rush a A-15.


I am disgusted that the glass at this Florida school is not being replaced by bullet proof glass. Federal monies should be made immediately available to any school who wants to install bullet proof glass.

bagoh20 said...

I know what you're thinking. "Does he have a gun or not?" Well to tell you the truth I'm not allowed to have a gun in this place and in all this excitement I kinda lost track why that's so stupid myself, but since you have one of the most powerful guns in the world and can kill as many as you wish now, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?



Henry said...

My kids school has adopted ALICE training, which is at least more proactive than the previous huddle in place training.

ALICE stands for Alert / Lockdown / Inform / Counter / Evacuate.

This is how ALICE defines Counter:

ALICE Training does not believe that actively confronting a violent intruder is the best method for ensuring the safety of those involved. Counter is a strategy of last resort. Counter focuses on actions that create noise, movement, distance and distraction with the intent of reducing the shooter’s ability to shoot accurately. Creating a dynamic environment decreases the shooter’s chance of hitting a target and can provide the precious seconds needed in order to evacuate.

https://www.alicetraining.com/

The Ford Hood Shooting of 2009 included multiple unsuccessful attempts to stop Nidal Hasan by unarmed soldiers:

Army Reserve Captain John Gaffaney tried to stop Hasan by charging him, but was mortally wounded before reaching him.[22] Civilian physician assistant Michael Cahill also tried to charge Hasan with a chair, but was shot and killed.[23] Army Reserve Specialist Logan Burnett tried to stop Hasan by throwing a folding table at him, but he was shot in the left hip, fell down, and crawled to a nearby cubicle.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"mockturtle said...
The best way to deal with a mass shooter at the scene is to rush him en masse."
I would think that shooting him would work better.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“If well-armed, well-trained cops can't protect us, isn't it naive to imagine teachers can?”

Well, if the cops are hiding outside and the armed teacher is inside, I’d say the chances of the teacher stopping the shooter are virtually infinitely higher.

And clearly Mark has never been to Israel. I saw people, men and women, in casual civilian dress, doing casual civilian things, with slung M4s. Perhaps they were reservists going to and from duty, but it was striking how utterly unremarkable this was to the people around them.

mockturtle said...

Yes, the FBI will blithely approve nearly 100% of requests for surveillance, no matter how spurious the supportive evidence, but they can't investigate a known nut case who has shown in word, deed and social media that he is a mass murderer waiting to happen.

wwww said...



Another point:

In this situation, you don't necessarily know where the gunman is, or where the bullets are coming from. It's the "fog of war", especially if dealing with a semi-automatic that can release a lotta bullets in a very short amount of time.

The battlefield environment is going to be similar to urban fighting.

Hallways in schools, classrooms, yet the bullets can penetrate drywall very easily. People talk about "cover" and I don't know what they're talking about. What "cover' is there in this situation, when the bullets can easily penetrate walls, windows, classrooms, floors? They aren't underground. Kids were killed when bullets penetrated classrooms.

Without training, the human urge is to freeze or run. The training required to be effective is not a weekend class of target shooting and gun safety. It's military level training.

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

I'm not sold on allowing teachers to carry.

I retweeted this the other day...

"Here's the thing about the armed teacher idea: school shootings are very, very, very, very uncommon, unless you're using the dicey Everytown definition.

Do you know what's very, very, very common? Careless people."

Big Mike said...

Out in California the Democrat convention declined to endorse Dianne Feinstein for reelection, apparently because California Democrats think she is too conservative.

And you want my guns? Molon labe.

Quaestor said...

...part of the answer was not treating the people inside as helpless.

Well said. Standing procedure in most school districts is run, hide, or shelter in place. School shooters are motivated chiefly by revenge fantasies. Witnessing such ovine submission from his victims must be most gratifying. It takes a committee to formulate a policy that any clear-thinking single mind can see as only an encouragement to more such attacks.

M Jordan said...

Didn’t read through the comments so sorry if this has already been mentioned but I have to say to the marine, maybe the thought of the gym teacher being armed would’ve stopped Cruz from even considering this course of action. “Beware Of Dog” signs scrare me.

I'm Full of Soup said...

With the current focus on the FBI [i.e. neglecting to follow up on the highly detailed Tipline warning re Nikolaus Cruz and Peter Strzok's being so busy at work he ha time to send 50,000 text messages to his mistress], it was good to hear that the FBI has the resources to record 3,000 hours of phone calls to investigate college basketball coaches. Kudos to whoever sets the FBI's priorities.

MayBee said...

For the people who want more background checks, or a ban on ARs or semi-automatic guns, or want a buy back program or the NRA: what do they want to happen right now, at this very moment? This moment where the guns already exist and people already own them. Do they want to see more Ruby Ridges when police go marching up to some rancher's house to take his guns? Do they think people with ill intent will actually buy the liability insurance they want to make them pay for? People don't even buy health insurance or car insurance.

I'm not really for armed teachers, but there's got to be someone on the "Gun Control!" side who can explain to me why simply being for some pie-in-the-sky idea is enough to stop terrible incidents.

Yancey Ward said...

Gk1 wrote:

"I just watched the Jack Tapper clip and I have to admit he still surprises me after all these years. Although I thought Tapper staged a propaganda platform last Wednesday he just did a 180 and asked some very pointed questions"

This is what is called "being thrown under the bus". Tapper was perfectly happy to use Israel last week as a prop and foil, but the revelations about the Broward County Sheriff's Office since the town hall have deeply undermined the narrative that the Left was trying to create. The revelations, though, put a pretty different and harsh light on Israel's public statements- Tapper understood this, and I think Israel got ambushed this morning for undermining the narrative.

Etienne said...

Federal monies should be made immediately available to any school who wants to install bullet proof glass.

You force the insane to use dynamite and ammonium nitrate. Still checkmate.

Ask Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols if bullet proof glass would be a problem.

MayBee said...

I mean, it seems like you can absolve yourself of having blood on your hands by simply reciting "I'm against guns. We have to do something. I hate the NRA" Like its a magical absolution incantation

chuck said...

At this point I think it is pretty clear that the current hysteria will change nobodies' mind. The utter failure of the government at all levels makes it impossible to convince gun owners that they don't need their guns, hell, I expect new converts. Meanwhile, a lot of corporations and news organizations are going to lose even more of their credibility, and the Democrats will remain as besotted with crazy as always, maybe more. The 2018 election is going to be important.

mockturtle said...

I would think that shooting him would work better.

IF you happened to be at the immediate scene of the shooting and armed, yes. Remember that this shooter began his massacre outside the school. My point was that the impulse is to scatter, which makes it easy for the shooter. A long firearm is hard to deploy at close quarters.

Quaestor said...

wwww wrote: Without training, the human urge is to freeze or run.

Did you bother to read any part of the pages linked to Kevin at 12:06 PM? Some of these people had military training, but others did not.

bagoh20 said...

"It would be much safer to rush the parapets during the Rev. War or go over fortifications during the Civil War then to rush a A-15(sic)."

Well that's pretty obviously false. Id' pick a better basis for your argument.

So you have three choices:

1) Rush a whole army of guns pointed at you.

2) Let the proven murderous AR-15 nut just shoot you at his own leisure after taking aim.

3) Rush the single AR-15 shooter.

Admittedly not a great choice, and I'm not sure I make the obvious right choice in the moment, but it is an obvious one. Only stupidity, or paralyzing fear would make it tough. Given the time to think about, it as we do here, makes it pretty easy. There is only one chance of survival.

Now, if you had a weapon, what is the answer?

traditionalguy said...

The perfect is being used as an enemy of the good. A 10 year old can see through that argument. So how stupid do the CIA Project Mockingbird "Journalists" think we are?

chuck said...

BTW, Utah has allowed teachers to carry for some time. Apropos the 21 years age requirement, only if the voting age is also raised to 21. If you aren't old enough to purchase firearms, you aren't old enough to vote.

mockturtle said...

Because young people are less mature than were their forbears, it might be reasonable to deny [legally, anyway] people under 21 purchasing semi-automatic firearms. Most teens I know don't have the sense God gave a turnip. And they are highly emotional and angst-filled, to boot.

grackle said...

I think Israel got ambushed this morning for undermining the narrative.

Bingo!! Please approach the podium and turn in your Bingo card. We have a nice kitchen appliance for your prize.

CarolynnS said...

I resent the idea that, as a woman and a teacher, I am too weak/incompetent/easily cowed/unreliable/untrainable/whatever, to have the opportunity to defend myself.
Can I predict every situation or possibility that could happen in my classroom? No. Can I predict how efficient, cool under pressure, and accurate I would be in any active shooter situation at my school? No. But I know this: I sure as hell want the ability to defend myself and my students. I don’t want to trust cowering under my desk.

Narayanan said...

So, these depties should be very acceptable to professor, lawyer, Ann Althouse for being such outstanding data points against Trump whom she excoriated for signaling White power!!

FullMoon said...

I will go out on a limb and wonder if many teachers might prefer to be armed in order to protect themselves during a shooting.
Crazy thought, I know.

Quaestor said...

Federal monies should be made immediately available to any school who wants to install bulletproof glass.

Every school shooting incident has been at close quarters. Money spent on bulletproof glass is money wasted. If you're bound and determined to waste "Federal monies" (i.e. somebody else's money) then it would be better to fit out every student with a full kit of Level III body armor. Some of the expense could be defrayed by scrapping PhysEd and team sports in public schools since the effort required to hump around that weight of protection will be a bigger workout than most kids ever get in gym class.

Tregonsee said...

This is a repeat of the argument about whether to arm pilots after 9/11. It was summed up as "You can't be Sky King and Wyatt Earp at the same time." All the Federal agencies, and airline management, came down against it. It took a few years, and some truly horrendous issues with Sky Marshals, but eventually a law was passed forcing the Federal Flight Deck Officer program on them. It required a detailed background check, and initial and recurrent training at the pilot's expense. So far is has been a great success, at minimal cost. Not all pilots are armed, but a potential hijacker must assume they are. Substitute teachers and mass shooters, and the principle is the same.

MayBee said...

"If I can get Delta to stop giving NRA members a discount, then I have done my part to stop school shootings"

wwww said...

"If you're bound and determined to waste "Federal monies" (i.e. somebody else's money)"



The hurricane force glass did prevent some of the bullets from penetrating classrooms. Competent armed guards cost money. Doors that lock from the inside cost money.

The NRA is opposed to raising the age of purchases to 21. Some boys will acquire schizophrenia between the ages of 18 and 21. A-15s have been used twice. A mass casualty school shooting with an A-15 will happen again. It is a matter of time.

Or, if you are too cheap to spend money protecting K-12 students, you might want to rationalize it. If so, say what you mean: the deaths of a certain # of school students is acceptable.

TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You pay in tax money for competent well-trained military level guards, bullet proof windows, bullet proof doors, and a single point of entrance.

Or you will pay in the blood of your children.

Your Choice.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Welcome to fucking Columbia.

Maybe we can have Scarface teaching our kids. He was pretty ruthless.

Repubes simply don't give a shit about kids - or any Americans - they get freedom stiffies every time a school gets shot up, and then tell the kids screaming out for better protection of their rights than for the rights of guns to fuck off.

Repubelickin values. The NRA sure pays them well, don't they? Better than those kids do.

The Repubelickin Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the NRA and supports policies that 90% of the people oppose.

They always threaten and agitate for armed rebellion. Time to drop some MOABs on their communities and headquarters.

Or else it can just be done peacefully - the way the courts struck down their gerrymanders.

Repubes truly are the cockroaches of democracy.

grackle said...

Solution to the 21 age limit issue: You have to be 21 UNLESS you are a veteran. Vets are allowed to buy a weapon regardless of age.

I love my SP2022 and heartily recommend it as a sidearm. It’s relatively cheap, rugged, reliable, it’s Sig Sauer quality and a nephew who is a crack shot can drive tacks with it at 25 yards.

exhelodrvr1 said...

www,
"The training required to be effective is not a weekend class of target shooting and gun safety. It's military level training. "

Not at all - just like with training someone to be effective dealing with a fire. You don't need to be a professional to be a positive as a first line of defense. You act as though you think these teachers would have to be able to clear rooms like in the battle of Fallujah.

Lyle Smith said...

What nonsense from a former Marine. Shameful.

Quaestor said...

I must agree with Sherrif Israel on at least one point. His leadership is amazing, as in astonish, astound, surprise, stun, stagger, shock, stupefy, awe, stop someone in their tracks, leave open-mouthed, leave aghast, take someone's breath away, dumbfound...

MD Greene said...

buwaya said:

"Armed school security guards are not a bad idea, but this will be expensive."

It already is expensive. The deputy who hid outside the building made $80,000 a year in a school district where the average teacher salary is under $50,000. (He ought to decline his pension out of shame, and if he doesn't, the county should go to court to cancel it anyway. Failure to show up in the most consequential moment of your career should have consequences.)

A certain number of retired military people, mostly men, take second careers as teachers. I know a couple, and those guys inspire boys, who look up to careful, disciplined men. I hope more ex-military will join the teaching force.

If a few of these are willing to (quietly) keep loaded guns in well-locked, metal-lined desk drawers, it's fine with me.

Anonymous said...

You first, dear, brave mockturtle.

I've been shot at at both very short (20') and medium ranges (100-300 yards). Being able to function in those situations is a combination of training and one's personal temperament. In the military, our honor is built upon the premise of laying down our lives for our country. The cops have no such tradition. Plenty of brave LEOs have laid down their lives, of course, due primarily to their personal code of ethics.

But today's police are revenue-drivers for the hiring municipalities, not 'protectors and servers'; more police=more tickets = more city/state revenue. Police officers are given legal-training where it is specifically pointed out that there is no legal obligation to put their live at risk.
Arm the teachers, arm the parents. Maybe even arm the JRROTC. Arm anyone who loves the children or has to interact with them all day.

Quaestor: you are being far too kind to Etienne.
But at least he is acting 'french'.

US should require gun-training (safety, laws of self-defense, maintenance, etc.)for all students. It's the responsible thing to do.

Knowing someone (who is trained and effective with firearm use) has a right to kill you when you do certain things makes one less inclined to do those certain things.

Reading the stuff from Etienne, Mark and Peter just has me SMDH.

Etienne said...

The whole purpose of high schools in America, was to keep kids off the streets.

You have to remember that Merle Haggard was sent to prison after years of truancy.

In theory, the teachers were there to offer an education to those who wanted it.

Andrew Carnegie wanted an education, and he found a rich man in town, who let him check out books from his personal library. This inspired him to build libraries.

Rose Wilder (Laura Ingalls daughter) was completely against keeping kids in school after the 6th grade. She called it child abuse. She wrote a book called "The Discovery of Freedom".

Ergo, we could solve the problem by getting rid of high schools.

Alas, the high schools are big business now with million dollar football stadiums, Olympic swimming pools, and 10 acres of park lawns. All designed by the wealthy contractors and their politicians.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 546   Newer› Newest»