Shooting of the Week

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:06 pm

Why not have some type of specialty for teachers that identify and qualify them to be on a team that reacts to active shooters in a school as well as other threats not yet identified.


We usually call the people we assign the responsibility of protecting us from criminals "police" or "security" officers. If the argument were that more of them should be hired, that'd be one thing. The idea of arming teachers to solve the school shooting problem sounds fine as a "why not" proposition. But, there are loads of questions.

For example, let's suppose that any public school teacher has the time to become certified to use a firearm. Let's say that all these communities have the funds to pay for the training.

Then, let's say that a student with an AR-15 begins to shoot up the school. He'd have to start somewhere, and unless the teacher in the first classroom had immediate access to a firearm with similar capacities, he'd be taken out relatively quickly. I mean. Nobody knows there's shooting until the shooting starts.

But, ok, let's say that the shooter picks a classroom where the teacher is not armed. It gets interesting. Does the armed teacher in another classroom have the obligation to leave his students and confront the suspect? If SHE doesn't, will she be held responsible for any deaths? That's either legally or just emotionally. The 4 armed officers who didn't enter the FL high school will probably be fired, but they're paid to risk their lives. If a teacher has that responsibility, the "pay incentive" should be a police officer's salary [edit] in addition to her teacher's pay.

However, suppose we have several classrooms with teachers armed with ARs themselves. What happens when a few of them come out into the hallways? If, God forbid, a teacher shoots another teacher or a student, who's responsible?

Now, if you asked me whether I thought it was ok for a teacher who is certified to carry to do so on school grounds, I'd say it depends totally on the state and the administrators of the particular school. Forcing teachers to carry or be around people who carry --which increases the likelihood of accidents-- is an infringement on their right not to be put in danger.
Last edited by Steve James on Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17028
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby windwalker on Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:01 pm

Steve James wrote:
Now, if you asked me whether I thought it was ok for a teacher who is certified to carry to do so on school grounds, I'd say it depends totally on the state and the administrators of the particular school. Forcing teachers to carry or be around people who carry --which increases the likelihood of accidents-- is an infringement on their right not to be put in danger.


Don't quite get the point of AR-15s many other semi automatic rifles have the same functionality and can look scary to some.
As to the other points, teachers having ccw while on a campus seems to be relying on them to understand what, why and how. For those that do now I wonder if they accidentally shot someone while in defense of their class because of an active shooter who would be accountable.
With training, while it might not stop it from happening at least it might mitigate it.

No one said "forcing" just as no one forces any one to be on a hazmat team...Its voluntary incentives depend on company. As to being around those who do carry they already might be with out them understanding that they are, unless the school has declared or enacted gun free zones. They gen work for those who follow the law and not for those who don't...they tend not to...

In Taiwan "Taiwan
Gun ownership in Taiwan is prohibited to ordinary citizens. There are currently more than 5,000 legal private handgun owners, of which 1,000 are used for self-defense and 4,000 are used for hunting by the Taiwanese aborigines. Gun owners in Taiwan are required to receive regular inspections every two years as well as random inspections by the police.[77]"

Recently my bother in laws co worker was shot and killed by someone with a gun...He had just talked with him and manged to find some cover while the bank they worked in was being robbed. The gun men, fled and later killed himself "or so they say :-\ " when he found out escape was impossible.

It kind of surprised me when it happened this being Taiwan a place not noted for guns.

In another instance a police officer, they ride scooters here, was run off the road by a guy with his scooter...in front of where I live.

The office was shook up and telling the guy not run and drew his gun...yes they do carry...Kind of surprised me as the guy was not armed and didn't seem to pose a threat...In chinese he was yelling at the guy "get down or I'll shoot you"...The guy stated to drive away..

The officer noticed me and yelled for help in preventing the guy from leaving...Grabbing the back of the scooter prevented it....The officer grabbed the guy and threw him on the ground...I left after that. Him drawing his weapon did surprise me although I didn't see how the other guy drove him off the road.

In my own family, had an uncle recently killed with a gun while being robbed in SF...

My point being that those that want to do something in gen will find a way to do it.

"The 2014 Taipei Metro attack was a mass stabbing spree that took place on 21 May 2014, directed at random civilians on a Taipei Metro (aka Taipei MRT) train near Jiangzicui Station, resulting in four deaths and 24 injuries. It was the first fatal attack on the city's subway system since operations began in 1996.[1] The suspected attacker, Cheng Chieh (鄭捷), then 21, was arrested after the attack. He was sentenced to 144 years in prison and four death sentences, and was executed on 10 May 2016."

executed in 2 yrs very quick....

In the US other types of guns and methods are/were used....planes,,,bombs ect...

In this case as in other cases from what I've been reading it seems that many of the agencies supposedly protecting against this did not follow their own SOPS and are very sloppy...

With hazmat teams in the semiconductor industry lots of the stuff they work with absolutely demands respect or it will tend to kill you,
and yet sometimes people get complacent, sloppy, until it happens...
Last edited by windwalker on Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6790
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:33 pm

Most of your post didn't address the rest of my points about trying to arm teachers. You want to pay them to do what a policeman does "and" teach. Yes, if they only have revolvers, they'll be outgunned --but that point is moot, since the police can be outgunned. But, I thought the main problems are simply situational. If three teachers come out of three classrooms prepared to shoot, they better damn well know who is shooting at whom.

Ya know who's saved the most children in all these situations? The unarmed people who put their bodies in the way of the bullets. Yep, it's possible to argue in all cases that, "if" that person had a weapon, he could have done more. I'm sure that every one of them might wish to have had one at the time. Ok, I give, if everyone were armed, we'd all be able to do something. Fine.

That, however, is not the problem. The problem is people who are disturbed, yet rational, enough to walk into a school or a church and shoot people. There will always be crowds of people, armed or not. In Las Vegas, I'll bet that some of the concert goers were armed. There will always be soft targets, so the argument can be that we need to harden everywhere that is soft -by adding armed guards. Seems to me that that won't change or get to the root of the problem. Ya see, the interesting thing is that, if this were Israel, we'd be worried about Hamas or Hezboallah. Here, it's not Muslims, minorities, or immigrants walking in with weapons (forget type) to mow down students and churchgoers. That's some Mexican or Colombian cartel shit. Who else would wipe out a class of pre-school kids. Right. AR-15s are NOT the problem. It's the people with them who are the problem.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17028
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby windwalker on Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:53 am

looks like some places already have it in place


"“Faculty and teachers are comfortable with this, you could walk through our halls wouldn’t know no different. It’s a very well-regulated program. Just a select number of staff members.”

Of the select staff chosen to bear arms, they have a “concealed handgun license, [have] gone through psychological evaluations, hostage negotiation training as well as the defensive tactical firearm training.”

The policy was enacted in January with Union Grove school board vice president Rusty Dyar telling the Longview News Journal: “The worst thing we can do is nothing.” The signs went up late last month."

Image

Image
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06 ... 02122.html
Last edited by windwalker on Sun Feb 25, 2018 5:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6790
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby .Q. on Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:05 am

This will never happen but I'd like a law where all public officials' kids are only allowed to be enrolled in public schools instead of private schools where they have to hang out with commoners. I'll bet they'll put more efforts on preventing school shooting, not to mention their kids will be more familiar with plights of us common folks (if only a bit). Might even get more fundings for schools.
As for arming teachers, I find that proposal pretty ridiculous. We pay them less than janitors and they have to deal w/ so much stress already, now we're expecting them to do things some armed policemen are scared to. What are the odds that kids end up finding the teachers' weapons and end up doing something stupid? Also, when I think of guns in school this is what I recall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0
.Q.
Wuji
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:51 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby windwalker on Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:28 am

.Q. wrote:This will never happen but I'd like a law where all public officials' kids are only allowed to be enrolled in public schools instead of private schools where they have to hang out with commoners. I'll bet they'll put more efforts on preventing school shooting, not to mention their kids will be more familiar with plights of us common folks (if only a bit). Might even get more fundings for schools.


You do understand that public officials, the peoples representatives can only pass laws that people vote for.
How does one limit their rights as citizens while still protecting their own rights....
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6790
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:52 am

windwalker wrote:looks like some places already have it in place.


Damn, I specifically wrote that it was up to the school. The first issue is whether it works. There is absolutely no evidence that it has helped. There were armed security persons at Columbine. There were armed officers at the last shooting.

The second issue is deterrence. If a sign announces there are armed teachers, just put up signs everywhere. If one school in the neighborhood has a sign, all should copy. Not having the sign indicates a soft target. Otoh, all these shooters have been rational. I think they'd just plan differently if they knew they might be confronted. At the Florida high school, Cruz must have known the officers were armed. It didn't deter him.

Like I said, the problem is Americans, not guns. That's why these events occur. It's definitely not because democrats, liberals, and leftists have created soft targets or taken guns (or God) out of the schools. America was better when we didn't need guns in the classroom. We went on Boy Scout field trips to get our marksmanship badges.
Last edited by Steve James on Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17028
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby grzegorz on Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:57 pm

I had to laugh when the NRA lady brought up George Mason's ideas for the second ammendment at the CNN Town Hall when George Mason did not even sign the Constitution therefore was not a founding father.

George Mason (sometimes referred to as George Mason IV; December 11, 1725 [O.S. November 30, 1725] – October 7, 1792) was a Virginia planter and politician, and a delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of three delegates, together with fellow Virginian Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts[1], who refused to sign the constitution.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
grzegorz
Wuji
 
Posts: 5477
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:42 pm
Location: Land of Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby .Q. on Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:29 pm

windwalker wrote:
.Q. wrote:This will never happen but I'd like a law where all public officials' kids are only allowed to be enrolled in public schools instead of private schools where they have to hang out with commoners. I'll bet they'll put more efforts on preventing school shooting, not to mention their kids will be more familiar with plights of us common folks (if only a bit). Might even get more fundings for schools.


You do understand that public officials, the peoples representatives can only pass laws that people vote for.
How does one limit their rights as citizens while still protecting their own rights....

I want to confirm what you're saying because I can interpret 2 different meanings from it. Are you saying the officials won't put the proposal up for a vote (which I believe is true due to their selfish interest) or are you saying they won't vote for it because limiting officials in any way will lead to laws against the commoners? Because if it's the latter I don't think it's unreasonable when we put power into someone's hand that we demand some sort of minor sacrifice (is having your kid going to public school that you have influence over a major sacrifice?). It's not like the position is forced onto someone.
.Q.
Wuji
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:51 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby windwalker on Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:11 pm

.Q. wrote:
I want to confirm what you're saying because I can interpret 2 different meanings from it. Are you saying the officials won't put the proposal up for a vote (which I believe is true due to their selfish interest) or are you saying they won't vote for it because limiting officials in any way will lead to laws against the commoners? Because if it's the latter I don't think it's unreasonable when we put power into someone's hand that we demand some sort of minor sacrifice (is having your kid going to public school that you have influence over a major sacrifice?). It's not like the position is forced onto someone.


I am saying as far as I know and have read that many politicians talk about changing the law, lots of people agree with the change.
When it comes to actually voting for it, few if any ever pass. Commoners? whats a commoner.

We seem to have a different view points on elected officials. The "power" lies with those who elect them, they are the representatives of the elected.
Why would you want your kid to go to a public school if you have the means to send them to a school of your choice.

Why not allow everyone to have "school choice" which is something that many are debating now trying to change the law..
rule 19
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 6790
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby .Q. on Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:30 pm

windwalker wrote:
.Q. wrote:
I want to confirm what you're saying because I can interpret 2 different meanings from it. Are you saying the officials won't put the proposal up for a vote (which I believe is true due to their selfish interest) or are you saying they won't vote for it because limiting officials in any way will lead to laws against the commoners? Because if it's the latter I don't think it's unreasonable when we put power into someone's hand that we demand some sort of minor sacrifice (is having your kid going to public school that you have influence over a major sacrifice?). It's not like the position is forced onto someone.


I am saying as far as I know and have read that many politicians talk about changing the law, lots of people agree with the change.
When it comes to actually voting for it, few if any ever pass. Commoners? whats a commoner.

We seem to have a different view points on elected officials. The "power" lies with those who elect them, they are the representatives of the elected.
Why would you want your kid to go to a public school if you have the means to send them to a school of your choice.

Why not allow everyone to have "school choice" which is something that many are debating now trying to change the law..

I don't think anyone voted for a politician intending for them to do stuff like repealing net neutrality. I don't think officials actually represent people's will very well at this point. In other words, I don't think those that elect them have as much power over them as they think.
By commoner in this context I meant people that aren't government officials or the rich that can buy them off.
My point is if government officials are forced to send their kids to public school, they would use their influence to better the schools so there's no need to go private. The ratio of tax dollars for military vs education is ridiculous (I'm not saying military isn't expensive, but seeing we outspend most of other first world countries combined I don't see a need to increase it more). However, I think you're claiming that officials will be opposed to this due to their self interest. In that case I agree and that's why I said this will never pass. This is just an interesting (to me) proposal.
Allowing everyone to go to any school seems a lot more expensive and unlikely than what I proposed. Poor people can't send kids to good far away schools even if tuition is free.
.Q.
Wuji
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:51 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby yeniseri on Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:31 am

The signs make no difference.It only make them less likely to strike those places.
I never heard of active shooters (rare LOL) in da hood. I wonder why? Though other crime exists.
When fascism comes to US America, It will be wrapped in the US flag and waving a cross. An astute patriot
yeniseri
Wuji
 
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Bill on Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:59 pm

If only Trump was there......

Image
It hurts when I Pi
User avatar
Bill
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4915
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby Steve James on Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:51 pm

Bill wrote:If only Trump was there......

Image


Yep, WWE real.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 17028
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: Shooting of the Week

Postby KEND on Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:47 am

Watching paul ryan stonewalling on gun issue, as I said in a few weeks the momentum will have gone and business as usual. Lets start with a bill on payments to politicians, its not so much who is getting paid off by the mra as who isn't, see below. As to trump his cult followers probably believe he would rush in, more likely he would be hiding out in sa closet or running away knocking children out of the way
'
Two gun control groups have spent $230,000 on a massive New York Times advert listing the names and telephone numbers of 276 members of Congress who “take NRA money but refuse to take action to pass gun safety legislation.”
The two-page ad, paid for by Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, also details how much money each Congress member is alleged to have received from the NRA during their career. The list appears beside a photo of students leaving Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during last week’s shooting, with the words of 17-year-old survivor David Hogg: “We are the children. You guys are the adults … Get something done.”
Above and below the list of Congress members and their telephone numbers, the advert urges: "Tell your member of Congress that your vote is going elsewhere unless they act ... If they won't act, it's up to us to elect leaders who will."
KEND
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests